There are many variables to this incident that are not included in this recreation. Just to add a few facts to this...The loud bang was heard one second after V1 was called. The crew thought the bang was a BOMB and had no way of knowing that their bird would get off the ground. They had no idea of what kind of catastrophic damage may have occured. Instrument panels told them nothing at that moment. The crew reacted within 1.2 seconds. The video does not convey that. The video shows 3 statements from the investigative report that and doesnt tell you everything. The aircraft had one reverse thruster locked out (not working). The engine that failed should have been pulled from service and replaced 2 days prior to this flight. But unfortunately the paper trail takes time to get through the channels. There is much more to add... There is a human factor in every situation. I would much prefer to fly with a pilot who will abort and ask questions later vs follow a policy and not be alive later to question it. This captain and his crew were hailed by fellow pilots and the passengers. Canadian airlines went on to promote this pilot to captain of the 747 jumbo until his mandatory retirement. He also went on to fly for another airline to train pilots! This pilot was a hero and is still my personal hero. Thank you dad! ( aka Captain Jack). I hope you see this in the comments as you read through all this.❤
I was there that day. Aircraft went off the side of the runway not the end. The nose gear bent backwards and collapsed. Other gear sank in mud. Flight crew and FAs did a fantastic job on perp and emergency evacuation. They and passengers were brought back to the terminal . I was asked to bring coffee and sandwiches to them . They looked pretty shook up. Aircraft remained in the mud for 5 days until they could raise it and bring it back to the hanger. I and some other catering crew went on board to empty the full load of meals that had all gone rotten. What a stink. Never forget.
We mustn’t forget that 6 years prior, United Flight 232 in in Sioux City, Iowa a DC-10 summersaulted into the runway after experiencing a similar turbine blade failure. Had the Canadian Air flight gotten airborne and then discovered that it was the rear center engine, they might have lost all hydraulics and not been able to make it back to the airport. It’s easy to criticize the crew after the fact, but everyone walked away from this one. Those in in Sioux City weren’t so lucky.
That's rubbish. The turbine blade failure was a freak accident where the engine containment ring was penetrated and perforated the hydraulic lines. If the center engine failed there would be no yaw and the identity of that engine would have been obvious instantly. He made a bad decision and got away with it. But there is no rational reason to abort well past V1 for an engine failure.
That hydraulic system short coming was fixed shortly after the Sioux City accident... and not only was the accident caused by a manufacturing error but because United maintenance didn't catch the flaw in their routine inspections
@@StevieWonder737 a bad decision to you but a damned fantastic decision to me. No one could tell what happened without an inspection and that wouldn't be possible if the plane had begun an uncontrollable decent and splattered into the ocean at 600 miles an hour. So, you are free to risk your life however you desire. Just leave the rest of us out of your reckless plans.
I think from watching videos like this, and listening to pilots who have been through catastrophic events, the protocol is to aviate, navigate, communicate. The video doesn't say if the Captain was sanctioned. But does say there was a delay in reporting engine status to cockpit display. He sure didn't have time for a checklist. And the blades could have easily broken through the engine and ripped thru other parts of the aircraft. He made a bold move. Even if they had dropped the nose of the aircraft into the water they could still have deplaned safely from the rear. But while they said it could have taken off with 2 engines, hindsight is 20/20. The Captain didn't know what he didn't know. He had a pretty good idea of his much runway he had. Counted on rough terrain to slow then down. But everybody got to see their families again. That makes for an excellent result.
This is just apologist beulschidtt. No pilot training calls for the reading of a checklist when an engine fails after V1. Training calls for the pilot to continue the takeoff, stabilize the airplane at a safe altitude, read the checklists, dump fuel to get under landing weight and land. "He had a pretty good idea how much runway..." If he even heard the V1 call he would know he was choosing to go off the end of the runway. Aviation history is full of dead pilots who thought they knew better than their training. "even if they had dropped the nose in the water" more beulschidt. What training have you had in off airport landings and passenger evacuation of heavy aircraft. There are almost ALWAYS passenger injuries in any evacuation. What do you think would happen if first class was underwater? How about the cockpit underwater with electricals shorting out? Uh-oh can't get the cockpit door open due to damaged airframe and the cockpit is full of water. Yeah, good thing that captain was just too smart to blindly following his training, the aircraft manufacturers information and the certification requirements of the airplane. What if there had been an obstacle that ruptured a fuel tank? Would the quick-thinking captain continue the off airport excursion to purposely go into the water to put the fire out???
There's no such thing as a "promotion" for pilots. Pilots don't advance to new equipment or transition from co-pilot to captain as a reward for being great pilots. If they are still employed and their seniority allows it, they can bid to transition to another airplane fleet when a position on that new fleet becomes available IF they meet the MINIMUM standards during a checkride on the new airplane type. MINIMUM. So stop referring to the transition to a different aircraft as any kind of reward. The erroneous assumptions by the general public about airline operations are staggering and just about no explanation or correction can change them. You all love your hero pilots. They even have to remain heroes if they make a costly mistake. No he was not sanctioned. Just as there isn't a reward system, there is no sanctioning system. If you make a mistake you get more/better training. Training pilots at an airline is a HUGE expense. If an experienced captain (that the airline has made a huge training investment in) makes a mistake, you don't throw her away or punish her, YOU FIX THE PROBLEM with training. You focus extra instruction on the problem and then you have an excellent pilot, still on the roster. It was still the wrong decision - as continuing the takeoff would have allowed an easy normal landing and resulted in no injuries or airplane damage. Do we hate on the captain for making the wrong decision? No. But to say it was a good decision removes any chance of improving procedures to make sure the next time somebody hears a compressor stall they don't run off the end of the runway. Training is constantly improving and lot of effort has been made to help pilots recognize compressor stalls. Therefore, now nobody runs off the end of the runway with a perfectly flyable airplane. The industry has taught to continue the takeoff after V1 for the last 70 years or so. It's the right thing to do.
@@spencebarton2947 in case you missed it, you might scroll down a little ways and look for Laurie Douglas' comments. Pilot was her dad, and she dropped some actual facts.
@@Ark-Angel44 With all respect to Ms. Douglas, she's not a trained pilot and she either doesn't understand how V1 is used in takeoff operations or is focused on preserving her father's reputation. She doesn't have any actual relevant facts about the technical aspects of the indecent. I don't have anything bad to say about her or her father but I won't pretend he didn't choose the wrong action when he heard the bang. I have no doubt that if he had had the improved training, now available, around compressor stall recognition he would have made the better choice. Do we blame him for the gap in training? No. If we don't admit our mistakes, we are just left to shrug every time an airplane is destroyed and people injured and say "Oh well, what can you do? Stuff happens." If you ever want to travel by I air, I would think you would not want the industry to have that attitude. What we can do is never accept mistakes as unavoidable and then find the ways to eliminate the mistakes. All along, we all have talked about the decision this captain made. But the idea that a decision was called for is actually the error. After V1 is reached, the time for analysis and decision is past. After V1 we fly. That has been the training since the 1950's and it's proven by this incident. Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. But only if you are willing to admit the truth.
This needs to be said. I was a first officer on the Canadian DC-10 for 5 years. I think a bulb burnt out in there once. A great aircraft. It had a bad rep. Capt Jack and the rest of us were repetitively trained in the simulator, twice a year, to react to various engine failures at V1 (not one second before or after but at V1) Before was easy, and after was also easy. Not much wiggle room there. If the pilot not flying called out V1, and if nothing anonymously happened up to that point, the abort option was canceled in our pilot's mind. If the callout, V1 was accompanied by the biggest Jesus Bang the captain had ever experienced, then we were trained to accomplish an aborted or rejected takeoff. Jack did an excellent abort procedure with obviously zero knowledge of how much reverse thrust he had. One reverser reportedly locked out. Was it the failing engine? If so, he now has one engine producing reverse thrust. There are so many other factors like the ambient temperature, the prevailing wind. His aircraft was loaded to the maximum allowable weight for takeoff on that runway. In my mind, our airline, Canadian Airlines International, was lucky that he did abort that takeoff. He actually didn't go that far off the runway end. He turned a bit to the right after the end of the runway to miss some concrete thingys which would not help his abort. The creator of this video should have done a lot more research in my estimation. There was never any danger of getting the nose wet. To continue the takeoff with an unknown bag of crap under his control and command, with the intention to bring it up, around, and down to the same runway, (maybe?), and stop it on the runway he was already on, makes me wonder what kind of idiot would pursue the issue after what Jack T. did at V1, what he did. You try it in a simulator! Jack told me that it was the loudest sound he had ever heard in an aircraft. This is right up there with what Capt Sully did and ended up in the Potomac River, with all aboard alive. So many 2020 hindsight a-holes out there, in my opinion. My reaction time that I had tested when I was about 50 was 0.17 seconds. So if I get the call about V1, I am already beyond V1, so I think the scientific boffins need to get their crap together and try and figure out what they are training us to do. My thoughts anyway. Billy Best CP-Air 1972 to 2002. Didn't get the 30 year stuff, missed by a couple of months, but loved every minute of it!
I think the only anomaly is the last line about the ability to take off on 2 engines. MPC videos are short and direct (and brilliant IMV) unlike some that waffle more than required so the deeper circumstances are kept to a minimum. Given that the Captain was later promoted shows that he was cleared of any wrong doing and in fact is a hero.
Just so you know Captain Sully ditched in the Hudson River, not the Potomac. But in my thoughts are any Captain that faces such milli second critical decisions and saves lives is a Hero.
You could write a textbook about everything wrong with the DC-10. Douglas routed controls and cables through the leading edge of the wings where it's expedient, rather than at the trailing edge, where they're protected. This contributed to the deadly Chicago crash where a DC-10 lost an engine due to faulty maintenance procedures, destroying enough controls to make the aircraft unflyable even though it still had two working engines. The DC-10 design routes all three critical hydraulic lines around the center engine; this contributed to the spectacular Sioux City crash of a DC-10 where only brilliant airmanship managed to save some lives when all three hydraulic systems were taken out by a fan disk failure in the center engine. The DC-10 was 0.10 mach slower than the vastly superior Lockheed L-1011. Flight attendants would complain that pushing catering carts forward was hard because of a chronic nose-up problem the DC-10 had because the angle of incident (angle of the wing in relation to the fuselage) was too low resulting in a nose-high cruise in most conditions. Such a basic, bedrock error would fail aeronautics 101 at a technical school. Douglas, as a cheap expedient, designed the main baggage door to open *outwards* making it inherently vulnerable to blowout, and the cabin floor didn't have enough emergency ventilation to prevent its collapse that would suck seats and passengers into the blue void in the event of such a blowout. Douglas, knowing about this after one such incident, failed to correct this problem resulting the loss of hundreds of lives in a subsequent crash. Part of the blame resides with the FAA who got a "gentlemen's agreement" with the CEO of Douglas instead of issuing an AD (airworthiness directive) to fix the problem. I wouldn't be caught dead flying one of those things, but if I heard a loud bang on takeoff anywhere even close to V1 in a DC-10 and there wasn't a huge fuel dump or electrical substation or 500 foot cliff at the end of the runway, I'd abort first and ask questions later. The DC-10 was a poorly designed and poorly executed airplane. Some of the mistakes made by the design engineers of that thing beggar credibility, and the cheap expedients tolerated by Micky-D executives beggar avrarice and corruption. IMHO, those pilots made the right decision.
Just think, the idiots that ran MD are now in charge at Boeing. We all know what comes next, Boeing will disappear from the map just like MD for the same reasons that doomed MD.
I was there! I witnessed the crash from the new runway we were building. The DC10 also narrowly missed a grass cutter operating equipment at the end of the runway. The poor guy got such a freight that the medics had to attend him.
The pilots made the correct decision to abort the take-off. They could not possibly have known in the brief moments they had available to them whether to continue or abort, how badly the engine was damaged and whether or not any resulting engine fire could be contained. The consequences of continuing with the take-off were unknowable. Whereas, only minor injuries resulted from the pilot's decision to abort. That's got to have been the best outcome.
I have to disagree: the captain made the wrong choice and it was pure luck that he was able to stop without serious casualties. The co-pilot had called "V1" well before the bang. V1 is decision speed, the maximum speed at which the aircraft can abort a takeoff and still decelerate to a full stop in the runway length available. Once the aircraft hits V1, it's supposed to keep going because there isn't enough room left to do anything else. Now, you may say that this is disproved by what happened here but, as I said, they got lucky: there was a long stretch of overrun and the collapse of the nose gear helped bring the aircraft to a halt -- and nothing caught fire. It could easily have turned into a disaster -- as could continuing with the take-off, but they had 2 good engines and the failed one would have been shut down. What would happen then, we can't know, but regulations, procedures and a certain level of common sense dictate that you don't ignore the call of V1; above decision speed, the decision is theoretically out of the crew's hands -- if they try to abort the take-off, there will be a crash because there is not enough space to pull up safely.
Respectfully the comment is incorrect. Aborting the take-off after the calculated V1 speed is in fact a venture into the unknown. V1 is a decision speed and is calculated for every take-off. This insures you can stop within the confines of the runway/stop way IF the abort is prior to V1. After V1 you go flying and fly the engine out profile which will insure obstacle clearance. These people were very lucky the aircraft didn’t go into the water.
Incredible no one died or suffered serious injury. Loud bang taking off-(after a delay bcs engine problem) and comments still coming in that the captain made a wrong decision and should not have aborted. And this is really what you call a professional pilot. This could not have turned out any better. I hope that this pilot is relaxing somewhere holding a margarita somewhere on a beach or playing a round of golf somewhere on a tropical island. I am sure each and everyone of his passengers and their families are also thinking this. The rest of the crew are all bragging that they were on this flight and what a hero this captain is.
Well, he did make the wrong decision. (Or at least the less optimal decision) However, that doesn’t mean he made an unreasonable decision. The loss of the engine couldn’t have come at a worse time and time wasn’t something the pilot had, so I don’t blame him. I mean, for all he knew he could have lost something more important than a single engine and the moment he aborted, his trajectory was set in stone. There was no taking off after that. That left just riding it out with maybe a prayer or two tossed in. Hind sight is 20/20 and I think it’s fair to scrutinize a pilot aborting after V1, V1 is V1 for a reason that these guys surely demonstrated. But I have difficulty second guessing the trained guy on the spot. The safety board tends to deal with facts and they also tend to be blunt - and more, they have months to mull over and analyze all the options available. Yet even they mentioned that the pilots had no idea what the issue was and that the instrumentation was slow to respond. This at a time when the pilot had about a second to make a decision.
I side with the captain’s decision to abort the takeoff. Given the DC10s disastrous history at the time a loud bang could have meant a catastrophic failure occurred. It turned out that wasn’t the case however a good captain should always err on the side of safety.
@@StevieWonder737 If that bang had severed a hydraulic lines as in two previous DC10 disasters and the captain went flying according to “procedure” he and most if not all the souls in back would be dead. He used his head. That’s what experienced human captains do and that’s why most are grey beards. Those procedures are not written in stone they are likely solutions to follow if you only have a split second to make a decision.
Well not true. The American flight crash because the captain was above V2 speed and flying and slowed back to V2 speed. That was enough to stall the airplane. You fly what you have IF it's above V2 and maintain at least V2. You are saying that if anything ever happened in TENS OF THOUSANDS of flights, you should create your own procedure in the incredibly unlikely event that situation is recreated. It's insane to think like that because if you did you'd never go flying. The procedure to keep going after V1 is a statistically PROVEN procedure. These guys dodged the bullet but that doesn't make it a good decision ... just a very, very lucky one.
@@Crazyuncle1 I believe the captain did the right thing. I would prefer a little dip in the water at the end of the runway than to fall 30,000 feet at 600 plus miles an hour and be dead fish food.
The pilot had to make an instantaneous decision. His gut told him to abort. Sometimes, that's all you've got. We have the hindsight to ponder the variables. The crew did not.
There are a LOT more dead pilots who followed their "gut" than those that followed established procedure. The WHOLE point of computing V1 and using it as "decision speed" is that we don't want a couple of pilots speculating on what went wrong and what might be the best procedure given whatever those pilots guessed. Seconds count and the point at which the pilot is SURE the airplane can be stopped on the available runway already was gone. That airplane would have flown just fine and could go dump fuel and land without aircraft damage and not scaring the life force out of the passengers. If I were in that crew we be talking and talking and talking about what we could have/should have done to BEST insure the safety of the passengers. The captain's gut was wrong. He did the wrong thing. Can't you understand that? Aviation has had over 100 years to figure out what part of normal human reactions absolutely DON'T WORK in the aviation environment. Get it through your head the decision was WRONG. The captain absolutely put the passengers at many, many times the risk they would have been in had he followed correct procedure. What if the pilot got into a micro-burst on landing and the airplane started to sink rapidly and the pilot has a gut reaction to pull back on the yoke hard to slow the descent? Following his gut would kill everyone. Most of initial pilot training is focused on training away dangerous gut reactions In 25 years of airline flying there was never any training to help pilots tell whether an engine failed or a bomb went off. So it's ridiculous to say "it sounded like a bomb". What does a bomb sound like? Jet engines make very, very loud and nasty noises when they fail like this. Follow the damn engine out procedure and then go have some breakfast. It's not rocket science.
Gut feelings killed pilots daily in the early years of aviation. We learned. Gut feelings kill. In this case we have 90 years of excellent training that could have made this into a non event. But we have the captains gut feeling and people are injured and an expensive airplane destroyed. Following his training the captain could have avoided the injuries, damage and terror.
@@johnarnold893 What if....... aliens were hovering over the airport waiting to shoot them down as soon as they took off?? No flight controls fell off. There was no reason to think flight controls fell off. There was no indication that the flight controls fell off. The noise was a compressor stall. The Canadian version of the NTSB stated in the report that the accident was caused in part by the crew's inability to recognize a compressor stall. As a result of this and other experiences the industry has improved training around the recognition of compressor stalls. This is why we have to admit this crew made a mistake. Pilots do make mistakes. Surgeons make mistakes. Politicians make mistakes. Lawmakers make mistakes. Generals make mistakes. The idea is not to say "Oh, that was a reasonable reaction" when a routine engine failure on takeoff gets turned into injury and equipment loss. The idea is to admit it was wrong, not to blame the crew, but to figure out how to improve training and give crews better tools. The Canadian investigation stated the truth. Nothing was done to punish the pilots. The acknowledgment of the mistake led to safer airline operations across the industry. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT. Oh yeah, some aliens could have zapped the flight controls. Aborting a takeoff after V1 is always extremely dangerous and results in injuries and airplane damage. Often fatal. It's such a bad idea that the training says that if V1 is reached, the decision to take off HAS BEEN MADE. It is no time to start speculating and wondering. There is no longer time for that. This policy has saved hundreds of lives since implemented around 70 years ago. There have been no cases that I know of where a bomb went of during takeoff of an air carrier flight. There have been very, very few cases of flight controls being damage on air carrier flights. Compressor stalls were very common in the early days of jet airline operations. Vastly improved engines have made them far less common but every airline pilot has experienced a compressor stall or has a colleague who has. The key here for you to understand is that flying is a very, very specialized environment and mostly our species has evolved in a way that our instincts are often wrong and what seem like a reasonable reaction to someone with no training in the field is exactly the wrong thing to do. This why you have to have a pilot's license to operate an airplane. So, I have explained these factors to a dozen people on these comments. No one every reads them they just asked the same uninformed questions.
A lot of folks are taking either side of this situation. In the final analysis, the captain chose a course of action after hearing what sounded like an explosion in or on his aircraft and at V1, time is not on his side. We can armchair quarterback this decision until the cows come home and find reasons why stopping or continuing would be right. The pilot chose what he thought best at that time in that seat with several thousands of flying hours experience in that class of aircraft. Was he right? Was he wrong? Don't know. Was it luck that nobody died? In any catastrophe it is luck that nobody dies. Look at the "Miracle on the Hudson" and tell me that wasn't luck plus skill. The pilots have NO time to make some decisions. I have to fall back on the old pilot's saying: "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing."
No professional pilot would EVER use that hackneyed, stupid saying except as a joke. Nobody I ever flew with would say that after an incident - no matter how lucky they got by making the exact wrong decision. A professional pilot sticks around and finds out what really happened and reevaluates the soundness of the decision - again and again.
No. See, they endangered human life with the wrong decision. They injured people. Broken legs, arms, sprained ankles, twisted backs... this stuff isn't funny. If they had a fire there would have been a ton of lost lives. Why is this so hard to understand???
I bet you are a pencil pushing paper shuffler... another monday morning quarterback... say pal.. if you want a real life scenario, I will give you one... let's see if you come up with the right answer in 10 seconds... and then once you come up withg the wrong answer, I'll give you the numbers for the NTSB accident report.... @@spencebarton2947
I am not a pilot but think the captain called it correctly. He had no way of knowing what was wrong, had 257 lives at stake with microseconds to decide. Taking off with unknown damage, hundreds of people and full fuel tanks would have been reckless. I hope thx pilots careers were not adversely affected.
Is there any chance I could see that? I’ve worked and spotted at YVR for years now and have heard this story time and time again but have never seen any photos of the incident
Yes VR is take off speed, and it's considered too late to abort however if Concorde had aborted yes, it would probably of gone off the end of the runway. CDG has a huge runway and they would of lost a lot of speed so any accident would probably have been survivable at least by some as it was, the decision to take off doomed everyone on board. As my flight instructor once said to me and I remember it even after all these years "Kindly remember if you must bend our airplane it's better to go off the end of the runway at road speed then it is to hit the ground at flying speed."
Nope. VI = the decision speed - continue or abort - point at which aircraft can safely come to a stop within the confines of the runway. Vr = rotate speed V2 = min speed after takeoff - ensures climb gradient/min speed to acceleration altitude in event of an engine failure. The rules and regulation - and the determination of the above speeds - ensures the safety of the aircraft and the passengers - the safety of the passengers being the priority. Runway over-runs almost always result in loss of life - fact. Aircraft are not all-terrain vehicles. Your flight instructor was an idiot.
haahahahaha... gotta love monday morning quarterbacks..... they take weeks pouring over information that the captain has a split second to determine course of action... and I can assure you that I would have done the exact same thing... yeah... the aircraft could still fly if nothing else had gone wrong.... just like the DC-10 out of Chicago where the mechanics improperly replaced engines causing the departure of the engine and ripping out all the hydraulic lines... and the pilots pitched the aircraft up to the proper attitude for just an engine failure... stalling out the wing... 6 years in the Navy, 3 college degrees, 10 FAA licenses, 8 type ratings, 15 different models, a 40 year pilot having retired from United Airlines after 30 years as a captain. Retired on B-777-200 ER... with the DC-10 being my absolute favorite aircraft and the 777 coming in at a distant second place
So many reasons... I am old school... I like more than 2 engines on a tried and true aircraft that although was old tech was the most comfortable aircraft I have ever commanded with windows larger than any other aircraft I have flown, a fast (.86M cruise) that is quiet and even at 585,000 pound take off weight, can be flown with 2 fingers... (also had a power steering mode) with an auto-land function which we never needed to use because the aircraft was so stable you could fly a CAT II approach by hand... just a magnificent aircraft designed around and for pilots.... @@MPCFlights
It’s easy for the people afterwards to lay claim that the pilots could’ve taken off when in reality by doing so could have caused the lives of all the people on that plane! those pallets were acting in the moment, and their judgment did save those passengers. There’s so many know it alls that don’t know anything as far as I’m concerned. Look at the those that told all the people in the World Trade Center to go back to their desks that everything was going to be fine. Yet all those people are dead today. Also, when you look at the plane that landed in the Hudson, if those pilots didn’t act on their experience and intuition, those passengers would’ve died. That was proven in the movie and yes I know movies are not right, but we all know that when you’re in the moment you make the best decision you can at that moment, you don’t have the knowledge that comes afterwards you go off your intuition and your experience.
Canadian Airlines International was the best airline I ever used. When it was Pacific Western it was also a great airline. Air Canada pulled some skullduggery and cause the demise of Canadian. What a shame.
The captain did the right thing. Putting the life of the people on the plane first, and not taking off. The fact that the plane maybe "could have flown" is irrelevant. Would those investigators have liked the pilot to take off with their family on the damaged plane just cause Maybe ?? it could fly?
again and again with the myths and misunderstanding. The airplane could POSITIVELY be flown. And yes if my family were on that airplane I would have wished fervently that that captain had followed his training rather than gone off exploring in unknown territory. Continuing the takeoff would be the conservative, safe position. The reject was dangerous and unnecessary.
@spencebarton2947 you still miss the point that taking off would have been doing so into the unknown! It was not known what had occurred. The flight crew couldn't even identify the origin/location of the load bang. Ac621 crashed because they didn't know the damage and didn't stay on the ground! 1970 Toronto crash...so sad...flight 17 didn't know the damage until long after the fact. I'd pray for your family if you would chose to fly not knowing your aircraft was airworthy!
@@lauriedouglas9080 That last statement is idiotic and insulting. I pray for your family as you seem to embrace ignorance. If you can't identify the source of the bang, you continue the takeoff. By the way the captain of flight 17 DID crash an airplane because he didn't "know his aircraft was airworthy". So maybe you should be praying for his family. He didn't know it wasn't airworthy either. Isn't it better to admit there was a better outcome to be had and then spend your energy figuring out how to achieve the better outcome than to put your head in the sand and say they did a perfect job. Aviation is safe today BECAUSE for over 100 years the aviation community has fearlessly and tirelessly accepted the responsibility for bad outcomes and improved aircraft design, procedures and training. V1 is perhaps the greatest safety accomplishment of all. If you crash an airplane and injure people you owe it to the world to figure out how to do better. Can anyone say the world is a better place because they ran off the runway and caused mayhem than it would be if they had continued the takeoff and landed without incident. In the absence of certain knowledge, follow procedure. The AC621 crash was totally caused by the criminal misconduct of the the crew. Did you miss the part about the almost comical misuse of the spoilers? A very simple, safe and reliable aircraft system. They failed to activate the system and then failed to properly brief their new made-up procedure with the result that the first officer didn't understand what the captain was actually asking for. In-flight spoiler activation is incredibly rare. But in order to save themselves from something that almost never happens and with no indication of any problem with the spoilers, they made up a dangerous procedure and paid the price. The spoilers are supposed to be armed according to a checklist. Usually the before landing checklist. What's the excuse for not arming them at the proper time? There is none. The pilots totally confused each other, they didn't follow the manufacturers procedure and the company REQUIRED procedure. After abandoning the standard procedure they briefed a confusing and incomplete made-up procedure and crashed the airplane HARD into the runway due to totally misusing the spoilers. After that it didn't make a lot of difference what they did. They hit so hard two engines broke off and ruptured two fuel tanks. They would have had a horrific fire no matter what they did. They were effectively dead when they decided not to arm the spoilers at the proper time. If anything a professional pilot would take away from this how stupid it is to screw up a simple, easy, safe system and would probably vow to follow procedure in the future. There was NOTHING wrong with that airplane except a very stupid and dangerous crew. They crashed a perfectly good airplane and killed all those people because they thought they were smarter than the manufacturer, their own flight department and every aviation safety organization in the world. And then had a completely ineffective discussion about what they WERE going to do. Then at the last minute the captain changed his mind and did something opposite to what he briefed. It was not an accident. It was caused by criminal negligence on the part of the crew. So maybe you should let that one go. It couldn't prove my point more clearly. Follow the procedure, don't make stuff up. Regarding flt 17. OF COURSE they didn't know what the bang was. Nobody ever knows. But with bangs at V1 it's infinitely (almost infinitely) safer to fly than reject. That's why we don't train crews to wonder what the bang was. Engines almost always make big bangs when they fail suddenly. The cause is the disruption of airflow through the engine and it sounds like a large canon. Nobody whose ever heard one can forget it. It just surprises and stupefies you. Nobody ever receives training in recognizing the difference in sound between a compressor stall and a bomb. I would suggest it's not possible. Why jump to the bomb idea. Who knows what a bomb sounds like compared to a compressor stall? Nobody, I think. Compressor stalls in jet engines are hundreds of thousands of time more common than bombs. Remember they chose the most dangerous alternative when they should have been taking off and not speculating. I never said they were bad pilots. I said they made the wrong decision. It's the truth. I have certainly made wrong decisions. I'm happy to admit it. Getting involved in this discussion is certainly one. If I were the chief pilot, they would get some more training in procedures. I don't think they should be punished but they certainly don't deserve praise for making up a theory about a bomb when they should be flying.They severely damaged an airplane and injured passengers UNNECESSARILY. Listen to me... the procedure is to fly after v1 - doing that would be perfectly safe. If every bang above V1 required an abort we'd have killed a lot more people in airplanes than we have. If you aren't sure fly. It's still the best answer. You seem to be related to or know the captain. Maybe this isn't the best discussion to get involved for you in because you want very much for them to have done the right thing. I only push back when people completely mischaracterize the decision process and make up stuff about flying that's just dead wrong. But unlike the other incident they didn't do anything stupid or criminal. They made a mistake. What's so hard to understand. Why can't you just accept that the whole thing would have been a non-event if they'd just continued the takeoff. I don't lack respect for but them it would have been better to continue the takeoff. And will you stop saying they had no way of knowing. The procedure is to fly after V1 unless you KNOW it won't fly. Damn you make this hard because you don't really seem to care about how airplanes are flown or how cockpit decisions are made and the thousands of time the manufacturers and airlines had to go to huge effort to teach pilots to be safe. You seem to focus on defending the people involved that you know and like. Perfectly understandable but you won't listen to the dozen airline pilots who have posted here that they should have continued the take-off. I don't know these pilots and have no reason to want to embarrass them. I do though have a tremendous drive to tell the truth about airline safety and I understand that the only way we can become even safer is to acknowledge mistakes instead of trying to bury them in faint praise. If you don't know what just happened at V1, fly. It's many orders of magnitude safer than rejecting and crashing. EVEN if you don't know what happened. That's the training and it would have saved the day in this case. To say they did the right thing is a lie. What they did was understandable and very human. But I won't lie about it.
@spencebarton2947 I'm the daughter of that captain. So i do have access to the information and opinions from those involved . It doesn't take a pilot to know that the preferred crash if there was going to be one would be on the ground vs in the air. You refer to a very few pilots commenting on this site that support your view..... I have countless letters from pilots sent directly to my dad after the incident and every one of them supported his decision. He had nothing but support at that time and still to date! And I see far more support on this site than I do in disagreement with the reject decision. The crash in Toronto could have resulted in fewer fatalities if the plane had stayed on the ground vs a go around. It still could have been awful but they did have a few minutes and who knows if that would have been enough to stop and evacuate but there was a chance. In the air there was no chance. So speculate all you want. The point was that they flew into the unknown and that was the result . Look at the survival rate of a fireball landing in Japan. ....if it's on the ground there's a chance. As a pilot you should be ashamed of bashing a fellow pilot who had to make to hardest decision of his flying career and everyone lived. The entire crew of that flight did not regret their actions and are proud of how they all performed that day. I hope you are never in that position and if you are...I hope you are never dished and disrespected for placing human life before equipment. You are quick to pick up on insult when you are on the receiving end but fail to recognize when you are unjustly throwing it out there and harming the reputation of a fellow pilot
@@lauriedouglas9080 I'm not bashing your dad. I never criticized him personally or said he should be ashamed. He has no reason to be. He did make a mistake and I won't lie about it. BUT HE DID MAKE A MISTAKE. You won't ever be able to understand as long as your primary goal to prove your father's decision was justified. Even if we agree it was justified it was still the worst of two alternatives in this case. Your dad was wrong about the bomb, wrong about airframe damage. He chose a course of action that is NEVER SAFE, sometimes, almost never, it's the lesser of two evils. So by definition flying would have been better than rejecting. How can you argue with that? You say: "yeah, but what if he was right he would have saved maybe a couple hundred lives". I say: yeah... but he wasn't right. Not being right is kinda like being wrong which is a lot like making a mistake. Why are you so butt hurt about this. Will you love him less if you admit there was a better solution than the one he chose. You keep saying he couldn't know what happened. News alert: I never know, when the PNF calls V1, whether there is a bomb on board or not. It's not possible to know, is it? How would I ever know there was or wasn't one on board a 400 pax airplane that weighs almost a million pounds? There's just know way to know. You and a lot of other people keep saying " but he had no way of knowing", there wasn't time to evaluate. YES, YES, YES. This is why, the world over all mutliengine jet training teaches that SINCE there isn't a way to know and SINCE there isn't time to decide, we have worked out a procedure where we don't confuse ourselves by trying to do the impossible, but follow a procedure that results in a good outcome 9999 times out of 10,000. I think you should stop talking about take off procedure and decision making. You don't get it. You don't really want to understand. All you want is to make everyone say your father was justified. That's understandable and even admirable. But you can't change the facts. Even if he was justified, it was still wrong. He wondered if there was a bomb. Then decided to act in a way that only made sense if there were a bomb. BUT.. there wasn't a bomb. That would be classed as a mistake. What's wrong with admitting he might have done better? He had a great career. I'm sure he was universally admired by all his colleagues. But everyone wishes they might have made a better decision at some point, don't they? Have you never regreted a decision that seemed great at the time but turned out to be a bad idea. Do think your father never made a decision in his whole life he later thought better of? Go visit him, make him his favorite dinner, tell him you love him, give my regards and my respect as a fellow aviator and my wishes for a joyful retirement. By the way... this sentence is also insulting and ridiculous: "As a pilot you should be ashamed of bashing a fellow pilot who had to make to hardest decision of his flying career and everyone lived. I should be ashamed of telling the truth about pilot training and why we train that way? I should be ashamed of patiently, over and over trying to get people to understand the logic of safety and why common sense doesn't always come up with best outcome when we're dealing with situations that aren't like ordinary life. Yep, I sure am an asshole for helping people understand a very complicated discipline and how we might save more lives. Yep, I'm not schidt. I should end it all. I bashed no one. What I did was tell the truth about takeoff decision making safety procedures and pilot training that is common the world over.. Second: I hope it was the hardest decision of his career. Even though everyone lived there was a good deal of mayhem and if he had made the decision the other way no mayhem, no drama. You keep saying the choice was crash on the ground or crash in the air. That wasn't the choice. The choice was: crash on the ground or take off and fly normally and come back for a care free landing. These are the facts. That airplane would have flown. Everything COULD have been fine. Don't confuse my pointing our that a better outcome would have been for him to fly, with bashing. I told the truth. If that makes him look bad ( I don't think it does ) that's on him for making the second best decision, not on me for telling the truth. I know what you're gonna say. It's all you ever say. "But he couldn't know... he did the best he could... a lot of other pilots would have done the same thing". None of that makes a bit of difference. He thought there could be a bomb . He acted on that. There was no bomb. People got hurt. Which of these is false? That decision would have been correct in 1/1000th (probably a lot less) of the cases of a loud bang at V1. It would be wrong in 999/1000. This case was one of the 999 times out of 1000 that it was wrong. Maybe you think we should always reject every takeoff at V1. There might be a bomb. There might be a huge unseen mechanical failure just waiting to take out the airplane. We can never know. Just because we don't hear a bang at V1 doesn't mean there's no bomb on the airplane. There probably is one that's set to go off at 10,000 feet . So lets accelerate on every takeoff to V1 and then reject. We may kill a lot more people but at least we'll kill them on the ground and not kill any in the air. GET A GRIP. Or lie about everything in life that's unpleasant and never learn from your mistakes. Always claim every phone call is "perfect".eh
@Eric_Bassett The corporate world exercises a process called "risk assessment". The function is to determine the level or amount of risk compared to some value of benefit. Normal people call this "risk vs. reward". Like buying a sports car, skydiving, river rafting, etc. - Corporations see it very differently. The "risk" they are concerned with is NOT about what is best for their customers (in this case, passengers). It is solely about the money. What is the cost of repairing / updating to resolve a known issue (including safety), vs. the cost of the payouts for lawsuits they can get away with to compensate families for their loss. If the cost is higher for paying off the families and the PR firm to rehabilitate their image after a crash, they will make the necessary fixes with great fanfare and self-back-patting. But if the cost of the updates/repairs is higher than they would have to pay to survivors and families, they pay them off and sweep the problem under the rug. There are entire departments with hundreds of employees whose job it is to make those calculations and determinations. Such is the soulless nature of the corporate mindset and operation.
most of the damage was confined to the front landing gear. Similar to the damage the Gimli Glider encountered. The "Glider" flew for 21 years after being repaired.
When the pilots initiated the abort procedure the airplane was below V/R ; initiating the abort procedure throttles are reduced; brakes applied; plus spoilers; TIME to do this allowed the A/C to continue to accelerate MOMENTARILY into V/R. I was a mech for Canadian, , I reviewed the DFDR. Pilots did the right thing.; but ran out of real estate. THIS IS THE MOST CRITICAL TIME OF DECISION. Once again the pilots did the correct procedure. Aloha, Rene'
I fully agree. I’ld rather get muddy boots than have that engine run the risk of uncontained explosion ripping the plane apart while trying to return over the city!
@@lauriedouglas9080 Laurie, I was told he was terminated and went to EVA. If he was not terminated he is indeed a lucky man for not being terminated and the fact he did not kill himself and his passengers. Fortunately the firemen managed to put out the fires before any leaking fuel reached the fires. More than 37,000 gallons of jet fuel makes quite a fire. If he had reacted as trained there would not have been an accident. I have fully read the TSB Accident Report a number of times including this morning. He made a big mistake and got lucky. People that call him a hero don’t know how close they came to a very bad outcome. Sort of like accidentally discharging a firearm in a crowded noisy location. People don’t hear or recognize what just happened.
@georgeconway4360 . Respectfully. ..you were told wrong. The pilot was promoted to captain on the 747 jumbo and remained with Canadian until retirement. At the instant the loud bang was heard the entire crew thought it was a BOMB and did not feel the aircraft could fly safely so decision to abort was fully supported based on the only info they had available. All of them to this day would make the same decision. There were of course risks in any action chosen. Staying on the ground was better then dropping to the ground. They were indeed lucky in many respects but there was also alot of skill in the acts of that day. I am the daughter of that captain and have copies of hundreds of letters of support from fellow pilots. Not one pilot who knew the circumstances of that day disagreed. I'm certain it's against procedure to land in the Hudson. There were so many risks involved with that also but a very skilled old navy pilot managed that flight with skill and instinct and he got lucky too. Thank God for old navy pilots who are fortunate to be able to fly on instinct when instruments don't give them the info they need.
Honestly these are 💯% the types of runways were its criminal not to have the arrsting pit past the runway! I mean common whats that cost compared to putting it into the ocean. Great great call by this captain! Superb!!
The Monday morning quarterbacks decided that the plane could have taken off on the remaining two engines. Of course, the pilots left their crystal ball back in the pilot’s lounge, so they decided discretion was the better part of valor.
No. The airplane was found to have been safe to fly. No they looked in their stupid crystal ball and saw something that wasn't true. Then did something they never should have done and injured people. What about this don't you understand. People just love the myth of the rogue pilot who saves the day by throwing proper procedures to the wind. I'll fly with the boring old vanilla pilot who has been properly trained and follows safe procedure.
_Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Mary Poppins break out the umbrellas, passengers prepare to jump._ Why leave the ground, only to crash? Ooh stomp on those breaks harder boy, full reverse thrust Scotty. Deploy the anchor Sulu. *Damn if pilots did. damned if they didn't.*
No. In this case, it's fly to avoid a crash and stay on the ground to cause a crash. This is what this crew did, caused a crash. Did you not notice the airplane was totally trashed and there were injuries. Injuries caused by a split second krap decision. Large multi-engine aircraft fly just fine with an engine out. In the simulator I've flown a 747 with 3 engines out. Not full capability but perfectly controllable and enough power to fly.
Comments for abort, not abort, are irrelevant. What is NOT covered is the time from the initial "bang" to the decision to abort. The human factor has to be considered in the pilots trying to determine exactly what has happened.According to this video the plane was past the 80 knot speed, perhaps even close to 100 knots. At that speed it's traveling down the runway at well over 150 feet per second, that's 2 football fields every 2 seconds! If it took the pilots even 5-6 seconds to come to the decision to abort, nearly 1,000 feet of runway is now behind them, and there's 1,000 feet less in front of them. It's so easy to "armchair" quarterback the situation. Think about the Miracle on the Hudson flight. Several attempts were made in the simulator trying to reconstruct the accident, with trained pilots, KNOWING what happened and could immediately react to the crisis. They were barely able to land the plane at the airport. But when given just a little extra time to process what just happened, not a single one could do it. Whether you're a pilot or non-pilot makes no difference. Until YOU are put into that situation you are not in a position to make the call.
'That's why, sir, it's always imperative that a pilot simply has to follow the airplane manufacturer's rules for the type, AND the airline's Standard Operating Procedures! There's never enough time to evaluate all of the other options beyond the V1 call by the Pilot Monitoring, and in this case, at least silently confirmed by the Flight Engineer! The Pilot Flying (the Captain in this case') was obviously wrong, despite the extremely lucky and fortunate outcome in regard to casualties!! 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 ✈️ 🛩 🛬 💺 🛫 ✈️ 🛩 🛬 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 PS The aircraft probably would have ended up colliding with the dyke at the end of the Sea Island airport land boundary, then would have collided with the multiple ILS towers and lighting systems that were on the very extensive mud flats of Sturgeon Bank beyond (at low tide) or the ooze and water of that quagmire at middle to high tide. Only the failure and the fortunate collapse of the nose landing gear allowed enough additional friction braking to avoid wing tank failure and conflagration and / or drowning of a very significant number of people!
The aircraft was purposely steered off the runway on the right side (which caused the nose wheel collapse) to avoid the lighting. The aircraft was at 40 knots when it left the runway and was far from hitting the dyke.
@@spencebarton2947Just not this one... they made the right choice... its the book nerds who 'fly by the book'... when they have no idea what they would do in that situation... but good luck. 6 years in the Navy, 3 college degrees, 10 FAA licenses, 8 type ratings, 15 different models, a now 50 year pilot having retired from United Airlines after 30 years as a captain. Retired on B-777-200 ER
I know it was past V1, but considering all the other things that can go wrong continuing taking off with a blown engine (usually due to other systems affected BESIDES just the engine), I think the captain chose the best option.
Flew as pax from Syd to Yvr on DC10s and also YYZ TO RIO AND SAO P AND YYZ TO AMS several times and superb safety culture. Met flight crew after hydraulic prob in Rio delay 24 hours and very engaging and experienced to F pax. Certain Capt was Australian ex QF. YYZ to AMS delays same day as Lockerbie and CP baggage handler at NRT. RIp
Its a Douglas DC-10, not a "McDonnell-Douglas DC-10". Douglas and McDonnell merged in 1997. I did find some screwball referring to a DC-3 as a "McDonnell-Douglas DC-3". That aircraft came out in 1937. Some of these people don't really know their subject. =PC=
The report is rather harsh. That pilot lost an engine during takeoff, yet he managed to stop the aircraft and avoid any fatalities...or even serious injuries
If they didn't know what the bang was it could have been a bomb. They were right to hit the brakes. Hindsight has 20-20 vision. (On June 23rd 1985 Air India flight 182 , Montreal to London, was blown up over the Atlantic...all 329 people on board died.)
Have flown in airplanes since the early 1970s, the only plane to this day that gives me the creeps is the DC-10, cannot explain it rationally, just watching this video brings back the bad emotions. For some inexplicable reason the engine on the tail gives me the Heebee Jeebees. I feel a cold chill done my spine when I view this aircraft. No idea why! It is what it is.
Since single engine airplanes probably out number multi-engine that's not quite true. I'd agree that multi-engine airplanes typically have an even number of engines. Just sayin lol.
news flash... aircraft with engines in the rear are quieter ... unless you are Douglas... then you engineered the nose cone in such a way to make the cockpit the quietest in the industry...
The crew did the right thing, it happened before when the #2 blades failed and severed all the hydraulics, sure it was in the air , uncontrollable and unable to land and killed 3/4's of the passengers , I just wonder why when they see they are running out of land why not retract the gear ? More friction stop faster? Fuel in the wings maybe?
Vr is NOT a critical decision speed. V1 is THE decision speed. This presentation is not clear in that regard, but it appears the rejected takeoff was initiated after V1 which is NOT the proper procedure unless the airplane is rendered unflyable (tail falls off, wing falls off, etc). You go flying after V1 and solve the issue in the air for a return for landing. The DC10 had fuel dumping capability which would allow the aircraft to significantly reduce landing weight even with an expedited emergency return.
at 6000 pounds per minute... how long would it take to dump down to landing weight? (I always had that on my clipboard prior to take off as well as SOB's) and in that nano second the captain had to determine what might be the cause and if there is any other problems that might affect the aircraft in flight, I would have made the same decision as he did.
Stevie-absolutely right. The Capt. tried to abort after V1 instead of flying the airplane & ran out of RW. They publish a "balanced field length" for 121 Ops which gives you enough RW to accelerate to V1 then reject the TO & have enough RW to stop without going into the weeds. At V1 you're committed to fly!
@@spencebarton2947 I am sure that in your experience, you are correct and the two terms are equivalent and interchangeable. In my 9 years at Boeing, the distinction was made clear that once you are rolling, and you opt out, that is a an RTO. I worked on many programs, civil and military.
Hi Jon, thanks for the reply. I don't doubt Boeing and you are correct about RTO vs Abort. The rest of the industry seems as confused as I am about the two terms. It makes sense to have two different terms but the industry reality is they both got schmooshed together. At least by the less precise communicators like me. I think I still have my 747-400 flight manual around. It might be amusing to see if I can find both terms in my company manuals. I do remember one position of the auto brakes switches on Boeings was "RTO". So that is consistent with your experience. I'd love to hear about the projects you worked on at Boeing. What time period was it? I hope before the 737Max era. It used to be a great company at least to those of us who flew their A/C. Wonderful pilot's airplanes. I flew 747-100 engineer, 737-300, typed in 757, 767 and 747-400. I loved every single one of them.
From what i understand from the conclusion, the T/O has been aborted after V1. This however is not clear to me. With the info from the video, the capt therefore handled correctly. Please elaborate. Was the T/O aborted after V1 or not ?
It was aborted approximately 2 seconds after vi. In the actual audio the bang was heard as the aircraft shook and immediately after that abort abort was heard. The video is not accurate
They had insuffient time to assess the cause of the bang. Yes possibly they could have taken off on the reamaining two. However no time to decide on any damage. Right decision made.
They should have shut down the engine and rotated. But with a loud bang being heard. I would have been sceptical to rotate also. I feel for the pilots. It's a rough call. With their decision everybody survived. So I guess it was the right decision.
If I was flying the aircraft and a loud bang was heard I’d abort take off too. Saying it could have gone on 2 engines I’d still have aborted….the comment said, the pilots didn’t know what the sound could have been so they made a decision. The right one I believe. My question is could the aircraft turned away from the end of the runway or was it too heavy for such a manoeuvre !
The recreatio does not do justice to the picture of what the real plane looked like.How was that thing even repaired? It looked like complete scrap. Why did they not just shut down the engines, to make the plane stop? This would be enough to not make me want to fly again. I wonder if the passengers were told, there was an issue with the engine before the flight?
Think the cockpit crew did the right thing aborting takeoff immediately after the "bang". How the TSB can say otherwise doesn't make sense. The crew didn't know what it was and to assume anything and continue on your way would have been reckless.
Abort past V1 you don’t have accelerate stop numbers to keep the aircraft within the confines of the runway. This was a failure to follow training and established company SOP’s.
I've flown that aircraft many times when I was on contract with Biman. This accident was 'simply' an abort after V1 was called thus negating all the performance data prepared before flight. Crew error.
Totally wrong decision to abort any (!) take-off after passing V1. All pilots are trained that that is the decision speed and any abort after that will result in a runwY overshoot at least.
So technically the pilot was "wrong" because he aborted the takeoff after the V1 call. Give me this pilot any day over the one that takes this wounded bird into the air. People usually survive runway excursions. People usually don't survive impacts with terrain.
I agree with aborting the takeoff, it's easy to say they could've taken off, if I'm on the airplane I would've thanked the pilots for potentially saving my life.
When you put an engine way up in the air where it is difficult for mechanics to do their jobs maintaining that engine that engine is bound to receive inferior maintenance. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
I agree that the pilots made the absolute correct decision to abort takeoff. No lives were lost in this incident. Lives would maybe have been lost if they had taken off.
The mind boggles at this question. They did and the speed brakes and the spoilers. This is the very best you can expect from a rejected T.O. after V1. A half million pound airplane going close to 200mph is gonna take some time to stop.
This is very inaccurate, the pilot uncertain about what would have happened if he went off the end of the runway so he steered the aircraft off the runway into the grass. The nose gear collapsed. 30 million dollar repair bill. No injuries. The loud bang was a compressor stall cause by a blade failure in one of the early stages. This blade continued through the engine resulting in the destruction of most of the following compressor blades. The failure was contained and the pilot should have gone around and landed. The engine was still running at very reduced power. In the pilot’s defense, compressor stalls had not been covered in any training. T
He suspected airframe failure of some kind and decided to keep the aircraft on the ground. I was working in the CAIL engine shop at the time, almost all of the high stage compressor blades had been sheared off and blown out the exhaust of the engine. When I was talking to a senior manager about this accident he pointed out that a PWA pilot about a month before had mad the same decision when an engine on a B737 failed on takeoff in Calgary. If he had gone around he would have killed everybody.
The animation of the DC10 going off the end of the runway is bs. The aircraft was deliberately steered off into the grass to avoid the end of the runway.
That is a limp excuse, okay there was loud bang but you have two working engines, any rookie fresh off the pot pilot will tell you get the plane airborne then sort out the problem with the tower . Do not forget there are two hundred fifty odd loved ones in the back.
It always troubles me that pilots will brief a takeoff to determine actions and speeds then disregard those actions when a real emergency happens. Yes a pilot can reject a takeoff after V1 if they believe the aircraft is incapable of flight. But their briefing usually says they will reject a takeoff for an engine failure below V1 or for a variety of other reasons such as a fire caption. However, they will brief that after V1 they will take an engine failure or other event into the air and sort it out after takeoff. In this case they had enough energy and thrust available to continue with the takeoff as briefed but when faced with a real event the captain went against his training and rejected the takeoff with insufficient runway to safely stop. It’s just so fortunate there wasn’t any obstacles to collide with or this could have been catastrophic.
Uh, it was a DC10. Once you say that, any incident can only be followed by; "ummm, yep!" Many years ago (which means long before the current number of failures of this hyper-flawed aircraft design), my work required me to fly often, frequently covering long distances. Regardless of who was paying for the ticket, I always check to see what equipment the flight would use. That meant in all those years, I never flew in a DC10 (or 11). Other planes have had problems, sure. But this disaster was more like a 10 page list of dangerous designs with a plane built around them. Even way back then, there had been plenty enough unnecessary fatal events to warrant elevated concern and steps to reduce the risk of flying - even if only by avoiding ever taking that risk. And this is someone who has been skydiving, bungee-jumping, ocean sailing, marriage, crawdad fishing in swamps, on-and-on....
@@SKIPWOOD-UA777CAPT I'm pretty sure I know the experiences of my life. And I'm equally sure that you don't. 🙂 I really did ALWAYS refuse to take the flight if it was a DC10. Not only doors falling off in flight, they were DIFFERENT doors at different times! Engines falling off, ripping through the wing. Tail falling off. Wiring under the cabin getting vacuumed out removing all control to the tail section. Do I need to go on...... ? 🙂And those are just some of the events that proved that model aircraft too much of a gamble to stake my life on. Not when there were so many other planes with nowhere near the death toll >>> I mean, track record. Have fun!
ignorance of facts is so laughable with those with no knowledge... happy to not need to take a scardy karen on my flights.... with experience that dated back to 1974, I am sure I know a LOT more about airplanes, having 8 type ratings with the DC-10 being one of them. @@haytguugle8656
They tried to stop AFTER V1, breaking the cardinal rule. They SHOULD have taken off. 19 times out of 20, this has proven to be the right thing to do. I am ex RAFVR. STICK TO THE RULES!
Normally, I would agree that you stick to the rules but you're dealing with a DC-10 ; the most temperamental jet ever built. If you studied the 1979 crash in Chicago where an emergency occurred right at rotation, the pilots decided to continue the take-off but their subsequent actions, although " by the book", made the situation WORSE and led to the most devastating crash in U. S. aviation history. There are some of us who believe that aborting take-off, might have saved some lives instead of the total devastation that resulted. I believe pilots should be given discretion in an emergency to deviate from procedure if the outcome is less catastrophic. I didn't say that there wouldn't be ANY casualties but pilots should be given leeway. After all, they are at the controls.
The “rule” didn’t help the Concorde. It looks like a good decision here, all things considered, not knowing the nature of the failure. In my opinion, the main problem is the absence of overrun zones designed to stop an aircraft safely. These are just now beginning to be developed and installed.
Concorde not relevant - the engineer shut down TWO engines when the manual says, "Do NOT shut down ANY engine below 1000ft." and did not tell the Captain. I met the British crash investigators. As I said, examination of the stats around V1 aborts etc, show that 95% of the time, flying was the best option. Is bloody WHY they have V1 for Christ's sake! ....Concorde was 11,500lbs overweight; took off with 15mph tail wind; shim left off left undercarriage; tanks OVER full so burst when struck; co-pilots medical WEEKS out of date.... on and on! I was selected one of 20 from 4,000 applicants - accelerated promotion and DOUBLE pay, for, "Displaying outstanding leadership." Be logical. You are not a pilot. @@GH-oi2jf
The Chicago incident isn’t applicable, there was improper maintenance procedure which lead to mechanical failure at the pylon resulting in the engine departing the aircraft destroying key aircraft infrastructure - they were doomed it was like getting shot down. V1 decision speed is based on supporting data of what the aircraft can do, it’s not guess work this is supported by years of test flights for every model of transport aircraft. The aircraft can accelerate and stop if the abort is prior to V1. After V1 you go. Can you come up with scenario’s where this doesn’t work - absolutely, but the facts and millions of hours of flying dictate that following the procedure is what makes air travel safe. Ignoring V1 is like deliberately driving through a red traffic light hoping to make it through the other side.
YES! Well said! You got it. People continue to argue this, but I believe in KISS - simple; do what you are trained for; sod inventing at this stage! Good to hear from a PILOT. We are boring; conservative; safe; compelled to be the one in CONTROL. (Wives not so much!) CAVU skies, senor!@@johnb6690
Ach no man, computer graphics and likely computer generated story. Computer noises.. Let's go somewhere worthy... 20 seconds in that's my comment. Bye!
Since the were close to Wreck Beach if they had gone in the water they would have been obliged by respect fir the nudist beach to remove all their closing Close call eh?
There are many variables to this incident that are not included in this recreation. Just to add a few facts to this...The loud bang was heard one second after V1 was called. The crew thought the bang was a BOMB and had no way of knowing that their bird would get off the ground. They had no idea of what kind of catastrophic damage may have occured. Instrument panels told them nothing at that moment. The crew reacted within 1.2 seconds. The video does not convey that. The video shows 3 statements from the investigative report that and doesnt tell you everything. The aircraft had one reverse thruster locked out (not working). The engine that failed should have been pulled from service and replaced 2 days prior to this flight. But unfortunately the paper trail takes time to get through the channels. There is much more to add... There is a human factor in every situation. I would much prefer to fly with a pilot who will abort and ask questions later vs follow a policy and not be alive later to question it. This captain and his crew were hailed by fellow pilots and the passengers. Canadian airlines went on to promote this pilot to captain of the 747 jumbo until his mandatory retirement. He also went on to fly for another airline to train pilots! This pilot was a hero and is still my personal hero. Thank you dad! ( aka Captain Jack). I hope you see this in the comments as you read through all this.❤
That should put a stop to the nonsense comments. Kudos
Great details. Thanks!
I’ve heard it said; it’s better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air then to be in the air wishing you were on the ground!
Dad dodged the bullet. Bad choice but got away with it.
The bomb story is entertaining but likely not true ... cover your six after the fact.
OR.... crash at the end of the runway at taxi speed than crash into the dirt at flying speed. ... @@harrycarruth2806
“They determined the plane could have taken off” after an investigation. But at the moment, you only have seconds to decide.
I was there that day. Aircraft went off the side of the runway not the end. The nose gear bent backwards and collapsed. Other gear sank in mud. Flight crew and FAs did a fantastic job on perp and emergency evacuation. They and passengers were brought back to the terminal . I was asked to bring coffee and sandwiches to them . They looked pretty shook up. Aircraft remained in the mud for 5 days until they could raise it and bring it back to the hanger. I and some other catering crew went on board to empty the full load of meals that had all gone rotten. What a stink. Never forget.
We mustn’t forget that 6 years prior, United Flight 232 in in Sioux City, Iowa a DC-10 summersaulted into the runway after experiencing a similar turbine blade failure. Had the Canadian Air flight gotten airborne and then discovered that it was the rear center engine, they might have lost all hydraulics and not been able to make it back to the airport. It’s easy to criticize the crew after the fact, but everyone walked away from this one. Those in in Sioux City weren’t so lucky.
That's rubbish. The turbine blade failure was a freak accident where the engine containment ring was penetrated and perforated the hydraulic lines.
If the center engine failed there would be no yaw and the identity of that engine would have been obvious instantly.
He made a bad decision and got away with it. But there is no rational reason to abort well past V1 for an engine failure.
That hydraulic system short coming was fixed shortly after the Sioux City accident... and not only was the accident caused by a manufacturing error but because United maintenance didn't catch the flaw in their routine inspections
@@StevieWonder737 a bad decision to you but a damned fantastic decision to me. No one could tell what happened without an inspection and that wouldn't be possible if the plane had begun an uncontrollable decent and splattered into the ocean at 600 miles an hour. So, you are free to risk your life however you desire. Just leave the rest of us out of your reckless plans.
And that is precisely why you are not and never have been an airline captain.
I was monitoring an Air National Guard crew at Sioux City when that happened. They become hero's that day!!
I think from watching videos like this, and listening to pilots who have been through catastrophic events, the protocol is to aviate, navigate, communicate.
The video doesn't say if the Captain was sanctioned. But does say there was a delay in reporting engine status to cockpit display. He sure didn't have time for a checklist. And the blades could have easily broken through the engine and ripped thru other parts of the aircraft. He made a bold move. Even if they had dropped the nose of the aircraft into the water they could still have deplaned safely from the rear. But while they said it could have taken off with 2 engines, hindsight is 20/20. The Captain didn't know what he didn't know. He had a pretty good idea of his much runway he had. Counted on rough terrain to slow then down. But everybody got to see their families again. That makes for an excellent result.
This is just apologist beulschidtt. No pilot training calls for the reading of a checklist when an engine fails after V1. Training calls for the pilot to continue the takeoff, stabilize the airplane at a safe altitude, read the checklists, dump fuel to get under landing weight and land.
"He had a pretty good idea how much runway..." If he even heard the V1 call he would know he was choosing to go off the end of the runway. Aviation history is full of dead pilots who thought they knew better than their training.
"even if they had dropped the nose in the water" more beulschidt. What training have you had in off airport landings and passenger evacuation of heavy aircraft. There are almost ALWAYS passenger injuries in any evacuation. What do you think would happen if first class was underwater? How about the cockpit underwater with electricals shorting out? Uh-oh can't get the cockpit door open due to damaged airframe and the cockpit is full of water. Yeah, good thing that captain was just too smart to blindly following his training, the aircraft manufacturers information and the certification requirements of the airplane. What if there had been an obstacle that ruptured a fuel tank? Would the quick-thinking captain continue the off airport excursion to purposely go into the water to put the fire out???
He was not sanctioned he was promoted.
There's no such thing as a "promotion" for pilots. Pilots don't advance to new equipment or transition from co-pilot to captain as a reward for being great pilots. If they are still employed and their seniority allows it, they can bid to transition to another airplane fleet when a position on that new fleet becomes available IF they meet the MINIMUM standards during a checkride on the new airplane type. MINIMUM. So stop referring to the transition to a different aircraft as any kind of reward. The erroneous assumptions by the general public about airline operations are staggering and just about no explanation or correction can change them. You all love your hero pilots. They even have to remain heroes if they make a costly mistake.
No he was not sanctioned. Just as there isn't a reward system, there is no sanctioning system. If you make a mistake you get more/better training. Training pilots at an airline is a HUGE expense. If an experienced captain (that the airline has made a huge training investment in) makes a mistake, you don't throw her away or punish her, YOU FIX THE PROBLEM with training. You focus extra instruction on the problem and then you have an excellent pilot, still on the roster. It was still the wrong decision - as continuing the takeoff would have allowed an easy normal landing and resulted in no injuries or airplane damage. Do we hate on the captain for making the wrong decision? No. But to say it was a good decision removes any chance of improving procedures to make sure the next time somebody hears a compressor stall they don't run off the end of the runway. Training is constantly improving and lot of effort has been made to help pilots recognize compressor stalls. Therefore, now nobody runs off the end of the runway with a perfectly flyable airplane. The industry has taught to continue the takeoff after V1 for the last 70 years or so. It's the right thing to do.
@@spencebarton2947 in case you missed it, you might scroll down a little ways and look for Laurie Douglas' comments. Pilot was her dad, and she dropped some actual facts.
@@Ark-Angel44
With all respect to Ms. Douglas, she's not a trained pilot and she either doesn't understand how V1 is used in takeoff operations or is focused on preserving her father's reputation. She doesn't have any actual relevant facts about the technical aspects of the indecent. I don't have anything bad to say about her or her father but I won't pretend he didn't choose the wrong action when he heard the bang. I have no doubt that if he had had the improved training, now available, around compressor stall recognition he would have made the better choice. Do we blame him for the gap in training? No.
If we don't admit our mistakes, we are just left to shrug every time an airplane is destroyed and people injured and say "Oh well, what can you do? Stuff happens." If you ever want to travel by I air, I would think you would not want the industry to have that attitude. What we can do is never accept mistakes as unavoidable and then find the ways to eliminate the mistakes.
All along, we all have talked about the decision this captain made. But the idea that a decision was called for is actually the error. After V1 is reached, the time for analysis and decision is past. After V1 we fly. That has been the training since the 1950's and it's proven by this incident.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. But only if you are willing to admit the truth.
This needs to be said. I was a first officer on the Canadian DC-10 for 5 years. I think a bulb burnt out in there once. A great aircraft. It had a bad rep. Capt Jack and the rest of us were repetitively trained in the simulator, twice a year, to react to various engine failures at V1 (not one second before or after but at V1) Before was easy, and after was also easy. Not much wiggle room there. If the pilot not flying called out V1, and if nothing anonymously happened up to that point, the abort option was canceled in our pilot's mind. If the callout, V1 was accompanied by the biggest Jesus Bang the captain had ever experienced, then we were trained to accomplish an aborted or rejected takeoff. Jack did an excellent abort procedure with obviously zero knowledge of how much reverse thrust he had. One reverser reportedly locked out. Was it the failing engine? If so, he now has one engine producing reverse thrust. There are so many other factors like the ambient temperature, the prevailing wind. His aircraft was loaded to the maximum allowable weight for takeoff on that runway. In my mind, our airline, Canadian Airlines International, was lucky that he did abort that takeoff. He actually didn't go that far off the runway end. He turned a bit to the right after the end of the runway to miss some concrete thingys which would not help his abort. The creator of this video should have done a lot more research in my estimation. There was never any danger of getting the nose wet. To continue the takeoff with an unknown bag of crap under his control and command, with the intention to bring it up, around, and down to the same runway, (maybe?), and stop it on the runway he was already on, makes me wonder what kind of idiot would pursue the issue after what Jack T. did at V1, what he did. You try it in a simulator! Jack told me that it was the loudest sound he had ever heard in an aircraft. This is right up there with what Capt Sully did and ended up in the Potomac River, with all aboard alive. So many 2020 hindsight a-holes out there, in my opinion. My reaction time that I had tested when I was about 50 was 0.17 seconds. So if I get the call about V1, I am already beyond V1, so I think the scientific boffins need to get their crap together and try and figure out what they are training us to do. My thoughts anyway. Billy Best CP-Air 1972 to 2002. Didn't get the 30 year stuff, missed by a couple of months, but loved every minute of it!
I think the only anomaly is the last line about the ability to take off on 2 engines. MPC videos are short and direct (and brilliant IMV) unlike some that waffle more than required so the deeper circumstances are kept to a minimum. Given that the Captain was later promoted shows that he was cleared of any wrong doing and in fact is a hero.
Just so you know Captain Sully ditched in the Hudson River, not the Potomac. But in my thoughts are any Captain that faces such milli second critical decisions and saves lives is a Hero.
I'm captain Jack's daughter. He'll be pleased to hear your comments. ❤️.
Was a passenger in that same aircraft:: Honolulu- Vancouver June 10 1995. Remember reading about incident in the Vancouver Sun...
You could write a textbook about everything wrong with the DC-10. Douglas routed controls and cables through the leading edge of the wings where it's expedient, rather than at the trailing edge, where they're protected. This contributed to the deadly Chicago crash where a DC-10 lost an engine due to faulty maintenance procedures, destroying enough controls to make the aircraft unflyable even though it still had two working engines. The DC-10 design routes all three critical hydraulic lines around the center engine; this contributed to the spectacular Sioux City crash of a DC-10 where only brilliant airmanship managed to save some lives when all three hydraulic systems were taken out by a fan disk failure in the center engine. The DC-10 was 0.10 mach slower than the vastly superior Lockheed L-1011. Flight attendants would complain that pushing catering carts forward was hard because of a chronic nose-up problem the DC-10 had because the angle of incident (angle of the wing in relation to the fuselage) was too low resulting in a nose-high cruise in most conditions. Such a basic, bedrock error would fail aeronautics 101 at a technical school. Douglas, as a cheap expedient, designed the main baggage door to open *outwards* making it inherently vulnerable to blowout, and the cabin floor didn't have enough emergency ventilation to prevent its collapse that would suck seats and passengers into the blue void in the event of such a blowout. Douglas, knowing about this after one such incident, failed to correct this problem resulting the loss of hundreds of lives in a subsequent crash. Part of the blame resides with the FAA who got a "gentlemen's agreement" with the CEO of Douglas instead of issuing an AD (airworthiness directive) to fix the problem. I wouldn't be caught dead flying one of those things, but if I heard a loud bang on takeoff anywhere even close to V1 in a DC-10 and there wasn't a huge fuel dump or electrical substation or 500 foot cliff at the end of the runway, I'd abort first and ask questions later. The DC-10 was a poorly designed and poorly executed airplane. Some of the mistakes made by the design engineers of that thing beggar credibility, and the cheap expedients tolerated by Micky-D executives beggar avrarice and corruption. IMHO, those pilots made the right decision.
Just think, the idiots that ran MD are now in charge at Boeing. We all know what comes next, Boeing will disappear from the map just like MD for the same reasons that doomed MD.
I was there! I witnessed the crash from the new runway we were building. The DC10 also narrowly missed a grass cutter operating equipment at the end of the runway. The poor guy got such a freight that the medics had to attend him.
@spaceace1006 from about 1/2 mile away, but I had access to the site as an environmental responder.
the lawn maintenance man may have loaded his pants with some stinking freight.
The pilots made the correct decision to abort the take-off. They could not possibly have known in the brief moments they had available to them whether to continue or abort, how badly the engine was damaged and whether or not any resulting engine fire could be contained. The consequences of continuing with the take-off were unknowable. Whereas, only minor injuries resulted from the pilot's decision to abort. That's got to have been the best outcome.
I have to disagree: the captain made the wrong choice and it was pure luck that he was able to stop without serious casualties. The co-pilot had called "V1" well before the bang. V1 is decision speed, the maximum speed at which the aircraft can abort a takeoff and still decelerate to a full stop in the runway length available. Once the aircraft hits V1, it's supposed to keep going because there isn't enough room left to do anything else. Now, you may say that this is disproved by what happened here but, as I said, they got lucky: there was a long stretch of overrun and the collapse of the nose gear helped bring the aircraft to a halt -- and nothing caught fire. It could easily have turned into a disaster -- as could continuing with the take-off, but they had 2 good engines and the failed one would have been shut down. What would happen then, we can't know, but regulations, procedures and a certain level of common sense dictate that you don't ignore the call of V1; above decision speed, the decision is theoretically out of the crew's hands -- if they try to abort the take-off, there will be a crash because there is not enough space to pull up safely.
Respectfully the comment is incorrect. Aborting the take-off after the calculated V1 speed is in fact a venture into the unknown. V1 is a decision speed and is calculated for every take-off. This insures you can stop within the confines of the runway/stop way IF the abort is prior to V1. After V1 you go flying and fly the engine out profile which will insure obstacle clearance. These people were very lucky the aircraft didn’t go into the water.
Given previous dc10 incidents it was smart to abort
@@tarkas566look at aa in chicago incident. 2 engines didn't save them
@@tarkas566 But what if an airport runway has a farmer's 3000 feet flat corn field straight ahead maybe the V1 rule can bent??
Incredible no one died or suffered serious injury. Loud bang taking off-(after a delay bcs engine problem) and comments still coming in that the captain made a wrong decision and should not have aborted. And this is really what you call a professional pilot. This could not have turned out any better. I hope that this pilot is relaxing somewhere holding a margarita somewhere on a beach or playing a round of golf somewhere on a tropical island. I am sure each and everyone of his passengers and their families are also thinking this. The rest of the crew are all bragging that they were on this flight and what a hero this captain is.
Well, he did make the wrong decision. (Or at least the less optimal decision)
However, that doesn’t mean he made an unreasonable decision. The loss of the engine couldn’t have come at a worse time and time wasn’t something the pilot had, so I don’t blame him. I mean, for all he knew he could have lost something more important than a single engine and the moment he aborted, his trajectory was set in stone. There was no taking off after that. That left just riding it out with maybe a prayer or two tossed in.
Hind sight is 20/20 and I think it’s fair to scrutinize a pilot aborting after V1, V1 is V1 for a reason that these guys surely demonstrated. But I have difficulty second guessing the trained guy on the spot. The safety board tends to deal with facts and they also tend to be blunt - and more, they have months to mull over and analyze all the options available. Yet even they mentioned that the pilots had no idea what the issue was and that the instrumentation was slow to respond. This at a time when the pilot had about a second to make a decision.
He was LUCKY ... VERY LUCKY that not following procedure lucked out for him
I side with the captain’s decision to abort the takeoff. Given the DC10s disastrous history at the time a loud bang could have meant a catastrophic failure occurred. It turned out that wasn’t the case however a good captain should always err on the side of safety.
Good captains don't ignore procedures and invent their own criteria.
@@StevieWonder737 If that bang had severed a hydraulic lines as in two previous DC10 disasters and the captain went flying according to “procedure” he and most if not all the souls in back would be dead. He used his head. That’s what experienced human captains do and that’s why most are grey beards.
Those procedures are not written in stone they are likely solutions to follow if you only have a split second to make a decision.
Well not true. The American flight crash because the captain was above V2 speed and flying and slowed back to V2 speed. That was enough to stall the airplane. You fly what you have IF it's above V2 and maintain at least V2.
You are saying that if anything ever happened in TENS OF THOUSANDS of flights, you should create your own procedure in the incredibly unlikely event that situation is recreated. It's insane to think like that because if you did you'd never go flying.
The procedure to keep going after V1 is a statistically PROVEN procedure. These guys dodged the bullet but that doesn't make it a good decision ... just a very, very lucky one.
I bet if you ever get into the captains seat you'll be a joy to fly with... a non thinking drone... @@StevieWonder737
@@Crazyuncle1 I believe the captain did the right thing. I would prefer a little dip in the water at the end of the runway than to fall 30,000 feet at 600 plus miles an hour and be dead fish food.
I like your videos sooooo much that I like them within seconds after starting. Amazing!!!
The pilot had to make an instantaneous decision. His gut told him to abort. Sometimes, that's all you've got. We have the hindsight to ponder the variables. The crew did not.
There are a LOT more dead pilots who followed their "gut" than those that followed established procedure. The WHOLE point of computing V1 and using it as "decision speed" is that we don't want a couple of pilots speculating on what went wrong and what might be the best procedure given whatever those pilots guessed. Seconds count and the point at which the pilot is SURE the airplane can be stopped on the available runway already was gone. That airplane would have flown just fine and could go dump fuel and land without aircraft damage and not scaring the life force out of the passengers. If I were in that crew we be talking and talking and talking about what we could have/should have done to BEST insure the safety of the passengers.
The captain's gut was wrong. He did the wrong thing. Can't you understand that? Aviation has had over 100 years to figure out what part of normal human reactions absolutely DON'T WORK in the aviation environment. Get it through your head the decision was WRONG. The captain absolutely put the passengers at many, many times the risk they would have been in had he followed correct procedure. What if the pilot got into a micro-burst on landing and the airplane started to sink rapidly and the pilot has a gut reaction to pull back on the yoke hard to slow the descent? Following his gut would kill everyone. Most of initial pilot training is focused on training away dangerous gut reactions
In 25 years of airline flying there was never any training to help pilots tell whether an engine failed or a bomb went off. So it's ridiculous to say "it sounded like a bomb". What does a bomb sound like? Jet engines make very, very loud and nasty noises when they fail like this. Follow the damn engine out procedure and then go have some breakfast. It's not rocket science.
Gut feelings killed pilots daily in the early years of aviation. We learned. Gut feelings kill. In this case we have 90 years of excellent training that could have made this into a non event. But we have the captains gut feeling and people are injured and an expensive airplane destroyed. Following his training the captain could have avoided the injuries, damage and terror.
@@spencebarton2947What if it had been part of the flight controls that fell off?
@@johnarnold893 What if....... aliens were hovering over the airport waiting to shoot them down as soon as they took off??
No flight controls fell off. There was no reason to think flight controls fell off. There was no indication that the flight controls fell off. The noise was a compressor stall. The Canadian version of the NTSB stated in the report that the accident was caused in part by the crew's inability to recognize a compressor stall. As a result of this and other experiences the industry has improved training around the recognition of compressor stalls. This is why we have to admit this crew made a mistake. Pilots do make mistakes. Surgeons make mistakes. Politicians make mistakes. Lawmakers make mistakes. Generals make mistakes. The idea is not to say "Oh, that was a reasonable reaction" when a routine engine failure on takeoff gets turned into injury and equipment loss. The idea is to admit it was wrong, not to blame the crew, but to figure out how to improve training and give crews better tools. The Canadian investigation stated the truth. Nothing was done to punish the pilots. The acknowledgment of the mistake led to safer airline operations across the industry. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT. Oh yeah, some aliens could have zapped the flight controls.
Aborting a takeoff after V1 is always extremely dangerous and results in injuries and airplane damage. Often fatal. It's such a bad idea that the training says that if V1 is reached, the decision to take off HAS BEEN MADE. It is no time to start speculating and wondering. There is no longer time for that. This policy has saved hundreds of lives since implemented around 70 years ago.
There have been no cases that I know of where a bomb went of during takeoff of an air carrier flight. There have been very, very few cases of flight controls being damage on air carrier flights. Compressor stalls were very common in the early days of jet airline operations. Vastly improved engines have made them far less common but every airline pilot has experienced a compressor stall or has a colleague who has.
The key here for you to understand is that flying is a very, very specialized environment and mostly our species has evolved in a way that our instincts are often wrong and what seem like a reasonable reaction to someone with no training in the field is exactly the wrong thing to do. This why you have to have a pilot's license to operate an airplane. So, I have explained these factors to a dozen people on these comments. No one every reads them they just asked the same uninformed questions.
Nicely done video, and I miss seeing the DC10/MD11's. Truly great birds even after their controversies.
A lot of folks are taking either side of this situation. In the final analysis, the captain chose a course of action after hearing what sounded like an explosion in or on his aircraft and at V1, time is not on his side. We can armchair quarterback this decision until the cows come home and find reasons why stopping or continuing would be right. The pilot chose what he thought best at that time in that seat with several thousands of flying hours experience in that class of aircraft. Was he right? Was he wrong? Don't know. Was it luck that nobody died? In any catastrophe it is luck that nobody dies. Look at the "Miracle on the Hudson" and tell me that wasn't luck plus skill. The pilots have NO time to make some decisions. I have to fall back on the old pilot's saying: "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing."
No professional pilot would EVER use that hackneyed, stupid saying except as a joke. Nobody I ever flew with would say that after an incident - no matter how lucky they got by making the exact wrong decision. A professional pilot sticks around and finds out what really happened and reevaluates the soundness of the decision - again and again.
Pilots should be commended for making the right decision. Human lives first🙏💞
Human lives first? Since when?
when humans are flying the aircraft?@@vincentperratore4395
@@vincentperratore4395 always
No. See, they endangered human life with the wrong decision. They injured people. Broken legs, arms, sprained ankles, twisted backs... this stuff isn't funny. If they had a fire there would have been a ton of lost lives. Why is this so hard to understand???
I bet you are a pencil pushing paper shuffler... another monday morning quarterback... say pal.. if you want a real life scenario, I will give you one... let's see if you come up with the right answer in 10 seconds... and then once you come up withg the wrong answer, I'll give you the numbers for the NTSB accident report.... @@spencebarton2947
I am not a pilot but think the captain called it correctly. He had no way of knowing what was wrong, had 257 lives at stake with microseconds to decide. Taking off with unknown damage, hundreds of people and full fuel tanks would have been reckless. I hope thx pilots careers were not adversely affected.
Always good to learn, _ALL survived,_
Thanks be. ✈
Terrifying how close they were to going in the ocean. Great job by crew. I haven’t seen a DC10 in years!
I remember this and had sought info on it. Great recreation
My dad and my uncle both worked for Canadian in maintenance. I have photos of the aircraft when it was in the hangar for repair.
Is there any chance I could see that? I’ve worked and spotted at YVR for years now and have heard this story time and time again but have never seen any photos of the incident
Thank you for flying Canadian Airlines please watch your step on the way out and follow the runway back to the terminal.
If Ever I wanted A Capt'n & Crew, These are Them,, Cap'n Fo' Crew. You did OUTSTANDING & Never EVER. Doubt That. !
Yes VR is take off speed, and it's considered too late to abort however if Concorde had aborted yes, it would probably of gone off the end of the runway. CDG has a huge runway and they would of lost a lot of speed so any accident would probably have been survivable at least by some as it was, the decision to take off doomed everyone on board. As my flight instructor once said to me and I remember it even after all these years "Kindly remember if you must bend our airplane it's better to go off the end of the runway at road speed then it is to hit the ground at flying speed."
Nope.
VI = the decision speed - continue or abort - point at which aircraft can safely come to a stop within the confines of the runway.
Vr = rotate speed
V2 = min speed after takeoff - ensures climb gradient/min speed to acceleration altitude in event of an engine failure.
The rules and regulation - and the determination of the above speeds - ensures the safety of the aircraft and the passengers - the safety of the passengers being the priority.
Runway over-runs almost always result in loss of life - fact.
Aircraft are not all-terrain vehicles.
Your flight instructor was an idiot.
@@johnd1727 My flight instructor was an ex RAF Tornado fighter pilot. What do you fly? Microsoft flight simulator?
@@WayneM1961Your flight instructor sounded very wise!🙌🏽
Excellent work by the flight crew
haahahahaha... gotta love monday morning quarterbacks..... they take weeks pouring over information that the captain has a split second to determine course of action... and I can assure you that I would have done the exact same thing... yeah... the aircraft could still fly if nothing else had gone wrong.... just like the DC-10 out of Chicago where the mechanics improperly replaced engines causing the departure of the engine and ripping out all the hydraulic lines... and the pilots pitched the aircraft up to the proper attitude for just an engine failure... stalling out the wing...
6 years in the Navy, 3 college degrees, 10 FAA licenses, 8 type ratings, 15 different models, a 40 year pilot having retired from United Airlines after 30 years as a captain. Retired on B-777-200 ER... with the DC-10 being my absolute favorite aircraft and the 777 coming in at a distant second place
That's an impressive career there captain. Why is the DC-10 your favorite?
So many reasons... I am old school... I like more than 2 engines on a tried and true aircraft that although was old tech was the most comfortable aircraft I have ever commanded with windows larger than any other aircraft I have flown, a fast (.86M cruise) that is quiet and even at 585,000 pound take off weight, can be flown with 2 fingers... (also had a power steering mode) with an auto-land function which we never needed to use because the aircraft was so stable you could fly a CAT II approach by hand... just a magnificent aircraft designed around and for pilots.... @@MPCFlights
Thanks for sharing captain!
Spot on Captain. Regards!
Hola buenas noches Mauricio genius aerenautico civil excelente reconstrucción aérea de incidentes aéreo saludos desde tacoma u.s.a bendiciones ✈️🙌🙏
Saludos!
It’s easy for the people afterwards to lay claim that the pilots could’ve taken off when in reality by doing so could have caused the lives of all the people on that plane! those pallets were acting in the moment, and their judgment did save those passengers. There’s so many know it alls that don’t know anything as far as I’m concerned. Look at the those that told all the people in the World Trade Center to go back to their desks that everything was going to be fine. Yet all those people are dead today. Also, when you look at the plane that landed in the Hudson, if those pilots didn’t act on their experience and intuition, those passengers would’ve died. That was proven in the movie and yes I know movies are not right, but we all know that when you’re in the moment you make the best decision you can at that moment, you don’t have the knowledge that comes afterwards you go off your intuition and your experience.
Canadian Airlines International was the best airline I ever used. When it was Pacific Western it was also a great airline. Air Canada pulled some skullduggery and cause the demise of Canadian. What a shame.
Love ur vids from Ireland ❤
Thanks!
Always like your presentations. The graphics are very good but how did an Iberia airbus 320 get to Vancouver?
The captain did the right thing. Putting the life of the people on the plane first, and not taking off. The fact that the plane maybe "could have flown" is irrelevant. Would those investigators have liked the pilot to take off with their family on the damaged plane just cause Maybe ?? it could fly?
again and again with the myths and misunderstanding. The airplane could POSITIVELY be flown. And yes if my family were on that airplane I would have wished fervently that that captain had followed his training rather than gone off exploring in unknown territory. Continuing the takeoff would be the conservative, safe position. The reject was dangerous and unnecessary.
@spencebarton2947 you still miss the point that taking off would have been doing so into the unknown! It was not known what had occurred. The flight crew couldn't even identify the origin/location of the load bang. Ac621 crashed because they didn't know the damage and didn't stay on the ground! 1970 Toronto crash...so sad...flight 17 didn't know the damage until long after the fact. I'd pray for your family if you would chose to fly not knowing your aircraft was airworthy!
@@lauriedouglas9080 That last statement is idiotic and insulting. I pray for your family as you seem to embrace ignorance. If you can't identify the source of the bang, you continue the takeoff. By the way the captain of flight 17 DID crash an airplane because he didn't "know his aircraft was airworthy". So maybe you should be praying for his family. He didn't know it wasn't airworthy either. Isn't it better to admit there was a better outcome to be had and then spend your energy figuring out how to achieve the better outcome than to put your head in the sand and say they did a perfect job. Aviation is safe today BECAUSE for over 100 years the aviation community has fearlessly and tirelessly accepted the responsibility for bad outcomes and improved aircraft design, procedures and training. V1 is perhaps the greatest safety accomplishment of all. If you crash an airplane and injure people you owe it to the world to figure out how to do better.
Can anyone say the world is a better place because they ran off the runway and caused mayhem than it would be if they had continued the takeoff and landed without incident. In the absence of certain knowledge, follow procedure.
The AC621 crash was totally caused by the criminal misconduct of the the crew. Did you miss the part about the almost comical misuse of the spoilers? A very simple, safe and reliable aircraft system. They failed to activate the system and then failed to properly brief their new made-up procedure with the result that the first officer didn't understand what the captain was actually asking for. In-flight spoiler activation is incredibly rare. But in order to save themselves from something that almost never happens and with no indication of any problem with the spoilers, they made up a dangerous procedure and paid the price. The spoilers are supposed to be armed according to a checklist. Usually the before landing checklist. What's the excuse for not arming them at the proper time? There is none. The pilots totally confused each other, they didn't follow the manufacturers procedure and the company REQUIRED procedure. After abandoning the standard procedure they briefed a confusing and incomplete made-up procedure and crashed the airplane HARD into the runway due to totally misusing the spoilers. After that it didn't make a lot of difference what they did. They hit so hard two engines broke off and ruptured two fuel tanks. They would have had a horrific fire no matter what they did. They were effectively dead when they decided not to arm the spoilers at the proper time.
If anything a professional pilot would take away from this how stupid it is to screw up a simple, easy, safe system and would probably vow to follow procedure in the future. There was NOTHING wrong with that airplane except a very stupid and dangerous crew. They crashed a perfectly good airplane and killed all those people because they thought they were smarter than the manufacturer, their own flight department and every aviation safety organization in the world. And then had a completely ineffective discussion about what they WERE going to do. Then at the last minute the captain changed his mind and did something opposite to what he briefed. It was not an accident. It was caused by criminal negligence on the part of the crew. So maybe you should let that one go. It couldn't prove my point more clearly. Follow the procedure, don't make stuff up.
Regarding flt 17. OF COURSE they didn't know what the bang was. Nobody ever knows. But with bangs at V1 it's infinitely (almost infinitely) safer to fly than reject. That's why we don't train crews to wonder what the bang was. Engines almost always make big bangs when they fail suddenly. The cause is the disruption of airflow through the engine and it sounds like a large canon. Nobody whose ever heard one can forget it. It just surprises and stupefies you. Nobody ever receives training in recognizing the difference in sound between a compressor stall and a bomb. I would suggest it's not possible. Why jump to the bomb idea. Who knows what a bomb sounds like compared to a compressor stall? Nobody, I think. Compressor stalls in jet engines are hundreds of thousands of time more common than bombs.
Remember they chose the most dangerous alternative when they should have been taking off and not speculating. I never said they were bad pilots. I said they made the wrong decision. It's the truth. I have certainly made wrong decisions. I'm happy to admit it. Getting involved in this discussion is certainly one. If I were the chief pilot, they would get some more training in procedures. I don't think they should be punished but they certainly don't deserve praise for making up a theory about a bomb when they should be flying.They severely damaged an airplane and injured passengers UNNECESSARILY. Listen to me... the procedure is to fly after v1 - doing that would be perfectly safe. If every bang above V1 required an abort we'd have killed a lot more people in airplanes than we have. If you aren't sure fly. It's still the best answer.
You seem to be related to or know the captain. Maybe this isn't the best discussion to get involved for you in because you want very much for them to have done the right thing. I only push back when people completely mischaracterize the decision process and make up stuff about flying that's just dead wrong. But unlike the other incident they didn't do anything stupid or criminal. They made a mistake. What's so hard to understand. Why can't you just accept that the whole thing would have been a non-event if they'd just continued the takeoff. I don't lack respect for but them it would have been better to continue the takeoff. And will you stop saying they had no way of knowing. The procedure is to fly after V1 unless you KNOW it won't fly. Damn you make this hard because you don't really seem to care about how airplanes are flown or how cockpit decisions are made and the thousands of time the manufacturers and airlines had to go to huge effort to teach pilots to be safe. You seem to focus on defending the people involved that you know and like. Perfectly understandable but you won't listen to the dozen airline pilots who have posted here that they should have continued the take-off. I don't know these pilots and have no reason to want to embarrass them. I do though have a tremendous drive to tell the truth about airline safety and I understand that the only way we can become even safer is to acknowledge mistakes instead of trying to bury them in faint praise.
If you don't know what just happened at V1, fly. It's many orders of magnitude safer than rejecting and crashing. EVEN if you don't know what happened. That's the training and it would have saved the day in this case. To say they did the right thing is a lie. What they did was understandable and very human. But I won't lie about it.
@spencebarton2947 I'm the daughter of that captain. So i do have access to the information and opinions from those involved . It doesn't take a pilot to know that the preferred crash if there was going to be one would be on the ground vs in the air. You refer to a very few pilots commenting on this site that support your view..... I have countless letters from pilots sent directly to my dad after the incident and every one of them supported his decision. He had nothing but support at that time and still to date! And I see far more support on this site than I do in disagreement with the reject decision. The crash in Toronto could have resulted in fewer fatalities if the plane had stayed on the ground vs a go around. It still could have been awful but they did have a few minutes and who knows if that would have been enough to stop and evacuate but there was a chance. In the air there was no chance. So speculate all you want. The point was that they flew into the unknown and that was the result . Look at the survival rate of a fireball landing in Japan. ....if it's on the ground there's a chance. As a pilot you should be ashamed of bashing a fellow pilot who had to make to hardest decision of his flying career and everyone lived. The entire crew of that flight did not regret their actions and are proud of how they all performed that day. I hope you are never in that position and if you are...I hope you are never dished and disrespected for placing human life before equipment. You are quick to pick up on insult when you are on the receiving end but fail to recognize when you are unjustly throwing it out there and harming the reputation of a fellow pilot
@@lauriedouglas9080 I'm not bashing your dad. I never criticized him personally or said he should be ashamed. He has no reason to be. He did make a mistake and I won't lie about it. BUT HE DID MAKE A MISTAKE. You won't ever be able to understand as long as your primary goal to prove your father's decision was justified. Even if we agree it was justified it was still the worst of two alternatives in this case. Your dad was wrong about the bomb, wrong about airframe damage. He chose a course of action that is NEVER SAFE, sometimes, almost never, it's the lesser of two evils. So by definition flying would have been better than rejecting. How can you argue with that? You say: "yeah, but what if he was right he would have saved maybe a couple hundred lives". I say: yeah... but he wasn't right. Not being right is kinda like being wrong which is a lot like making a mistake. Why are you so butt hurt about this. Will you love him less if you admit there was a better solution than the one he chose.
You keep saying he couldn't know what happened. News alert: I never know, when the PNF calls V1, whether there is a bomb on board or not. It's not possible to know, is it? How would I ever know there was or wasn't one on board a 400 pax airplane that weighs almost a million pounds? There's just know way to know.
You and a lot of other people keep saying " but he had no way of knowing", there wasn't time to evaluate. YES, YES, YES. This is why, the world over all mutliengine jet training teaches that SINCE there isn't a way to know and SINCE there isn't time to decide, we have worked out a procedure where we don't confuse ourselves by trying to do the impossible, but follow a procedure that results in a good outcome 9999 times out of 10,000.
I think you should stop talking about take off procedure and decision making. You don't get it. You don't really want to understand. All you want is to make everyone say your father was justified. That's understandable and even admirable. But you can't change the facts. Even if he was justified, it was still wrong. He wondered if there was a bomb. Then decided to act in a way that only made sense if there were a bomb. BUT.. there wasn't a bomb. That would be classed as a mistake. What's wrong with admitting he might have done better? He had a great career. I'm sure he was universally admired by all his colleagues. But everyone wishes they might have made a better decision at some point, don't they? Have you never regreted a decision that seemed great at the time but turned out to be a bad idea. Do think your father never made a decision in his whole life he later thought better of? Go visit him, make him his favorite dinner, tell him you love him, give my regards and my respect as a fellow aviator and my wishes for a joyful retirement.
By the way... this sentence is also insulting and ridiculous: "As a pilot you should be ashamed of bashing a fellow pilot who had to make to hardest decision of his flying career and everyone lived. I should be ashamed of telling the truth about pilot training and why we train that way? I should be ashamed of patiently, over and over trying to get people to understand the logic of safety and why common sense doesn't always come up with best outcome when we're dealing with situations that aren't like ordinary life. Yep, I sure am an asshole for helping people understand a very complicated discipline and how we might save more lives. Yep, I'm not schidt. I should end it all.
I bashed no one. What I did was tell the truth about takeoff decision making safety procedures and pilot training that is common the world over.. Second: I hope it was the hardest decision of his career. Even though everyone lived there was a good deal of mayhem and if he had made the decision the other way no mayhem, no drama. You keep saying the choice was crash on the ground or crash in the air. That wasn't the choice. The choice was: crash on the ground or take off and fly normally and come back for a care free landing. These are the facts. That airplane would have flown. Everything COULD have been fine. Don't confuse my pointing our that a better outcome would have been for him to fly, with bashing. I told the truth. If that makes him look bad ( I don't think it does ) that's on him for making the second best decision, not on me for telling the truth.
I know what you're gonna say. It's all you ever say. "But he couldn't know... he did the best he could... a lot of other pilots would have done the same thing". None of that makes a bit of difference. He thought there could be a bomb . He acted on that. There was no bomb. People got hurt. Which of these is false? That decision would have been correct in 1/1000th (probably a lot less) of the cases of a loud bang at V1. It would be wrong in 999/1000. This case was one of the 999 times out of 1000 that it was wrong.
Maybe you think we should always reject every takeoff at V1. There might be a bomb. There might be a huge unseen mechanical failure just waiting to take out the airplane. We can never know. Just because we don't hear a bang at V1 doesn't mean there's no bomb on the airplane. There probably is one that's set to go off at 10,000 feet . So lets accelerate on every takeoff to V1 and then reject. We may kill a lot more people but at least we'll kill them on the ground and not kill any in the air.
GET A GRIP. Or lie about everything in life that's unpleasant and never learn from your mistakes. Always claim every phone call is "perfect".eh
I’m surprised it was repaired
Yeah so am I!
@Eric_Bassett
The corporate world exercises a process called "risk assessment". The function is to determine the level or amount of risk compared to some value of benefit.
Normal people call this "risk vs. reward". Like buying a sports car, skydiving, river rafting, etc.
-
Corporations see it very differently. The "risk" they are concerned with is NOT about what is best for their customers (in this case, passengers). It is solely about the money.
What is the cost of repairing / updating to resolve a known issue (including safety), vs. the cost of the payouts for lawsuits they can get away with to compensate families for their loss. If the cost is higher for paying off the families and the PR firm to rehabilitate their image after a crash, they will make the necessary fixes with great fanfare and self-back-patting.
But if the cost of the updates/repairs is higher than they would have to pay to survivors and families, they pay them off and sweep the problem under the rug. There are entire departments with hundreds of employees whose job it is to make those calculations and determinations.
Such is the soulless nature of the corporate mindset and operation.
most of the damage was confined to the front landing gear. Similar to the damage the Gimli Glider encountered. The "Glider" flew for 21 years after being repaired.
When the pilots initiated the abort procedure the airplane was below V/R ; initiating the abort procedure throttles are reduced; brakes applied; plus spoilers; TIME to do this allowed the A/C to continue to accelerate MOMENTARILY into V/R. I was a mech for Canadian, , I reviewed the DFDR. Pilots did the right thing.; but ran out of real estate. THIS IS THE MOST CRITICAL TIME OF DECISION. Once again the pilots did the correct procedure.
Aloha,
Rene'
Thanks for the info Rene!
I fully agree. I’ld rather get muddy boots than have that engine run the risk of uncontained explosion ripping the plane apart while trying to return over the city!
@georgeconway4360 you are wrong sir. The captain was promoted to captain of the 747 jumbo until retirement. He was hailed a hero.
@@lauriedouglas9080 Laurie, I was told he was terminated and went to EVA. If he was not terminated he is indeed a lucky man for not being terminated and the fact he did not kill himself and his passengers. Fortunately the firemen managed to put out the fires before any leaking fuel reached the fires. More than 37,000 gallons of jet fuel makes quite a fire. If he had reacted as trained there would not have been an accident. I have fully read the TSB Accident Report a number of times including this morning. He made a big mistake and got lucky. People that call him a hero don’t know how close they came to a very bad outcome. Sort of like accidentally discharging a firearm in a crowded noisy location. People don’t hear or recognize what just happened.
@georgeconway4360 . Respectfully. ..you were told wrong. The pilot was promoted to captain on the 747 jumbo and remained with Canadian until retirement. At the instant the loud bang was heard the entire crew thought it was a BOMB and did not feel the aircraft could fly safely so decision to abort was fully supported based on the only info they had available. All of them to this day would make the same decision. There were of course risks in any action chosen. Staying on the ground was better then dropping to the ground. They were indeed lucky in many respects but there was also alot of skill in the acts of that day. I am the daughter of that captain and have copies of hundreds of letters of support from fellow pilots. Not one pilot who knew the circumstances of that day disagreed. I'm certain it's against procedure to land in the Hudson. There were so many risks involved with that also but a very skilled old navy pilot managed that flight with skill and instinct and he got lucky too. Thank God for old navy pilots who are fortunate to be able to fly on instinct when instruments don't give them the info they need.
Honestly these are 💯% the types of runways were its criminal not to have the arrsting pit past the runway! I mean common whats that cost compared to putting it into the ocean. Great great call by this captain! Superb!!
Happy december.🎅
You too!
The Monday morning quarterbacks decided that the plane could have taken off on the remaining two engines. Of course, the pilots left their crystal ball back in the pilot’s lounge, so they decided discretion was the better part of valor.
No. The airplane was found to have been safe to fly. No they looked in their stupid crystal ball and saw something that wasn't true. Then did something they never should have done and injured people. What about this don't you understand. People just love the myth of the rogue pilot who saves the day by throwing proper procedures to the wind. I'll fly with the boring old vanilla pilot who has been properly trained and follows safe procedure.
_Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Mary Poppins break out the umbrellas, passengers prepare to jump._
Why leave the ground, only to crash?
Ooh stomp on those breaks harder boy, full reverse thrust Scotty. Deploy the anchor Sulu.
*Damn if pilots did. damned if they didn't.*
No. In this case, it's fly to avoid a crash and stay on the ground to cause a crash. This is what this crew did, caused a crash. Did you not notice the airplane was totally trashed and there were injuries. Injuries caused by a split second krap decision. Large multi-engine aircraft fly just fine with an engine out. In the simulator I've flown a 747 with 3 engines out. Not full capability but perfectly controllable and enough power to fly.
Comments for abort, not abort, are irrelevant. What is NOT covered is the time from the initial "bang" to the decision to abort. The human factor has to be considered in the pilots trying to determine exactly what has happened.According to this video the plane was past the 80 knot speed, perhaps even close to 100 knots. At that speed it's traveling down the runway at well over 150 feet per second, that's 2 football fields every 2 seconds! If it took the pilots even 5-6 seconds to come to the decision to abort, nearly 1,000 feet of runway is now behind them, and there's 1,000 feet less in front of them. It's so easy to "armchair" quarterback the situation. Think about the Miracle on the Hudson flight. Several attempts were made in the simulator trying to reconstruct the accident, with trained pilots, KNOWING what happened and could immediately react to the crisis. They were barely able to land the plane at the airport. But when given just a little extra time to process what just happened, not a single one could do it. Whether you're a pilot or non-pilot makes no difference. Until YOU are put into that situation you are not in a position to make the call.
'That's why, sir, it's always imperative that a pilot simply has to follow the airplane manufacturer's rules for the type, AND the airline's Standard Operating Procedures!
There's never enough time to evaluate all of the other options beyond the V1 call by the Pilot Monitoring, and in this case, at least silently confirmed by the Flight Engineer!
The Pilot Flying (the Captain in this case') was obviously wrong, despite the extremely lucky and fortunate outcome in regard to casualties!!
🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 ✈️ 🛩 🛬 💺 🛫 ✈️ 🛩 🛬 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦
PS The aircraft probably would have ended up colliding with the dyke at the end of the Sea Island airport land boundary, then would have collided with the multiple ILS towers and lighting systems that were on the very extensive mud flats of Sturgeon Bank beyond (at low tide) or the ooze and water of that quagmire at middle to high tide. Only the failure and the fortunate collapse of the nose landing gear allowed enough additional friction braking to avoid wing tank failure and conflagration and / or drowning of a very significant number of people!
The aircraft was purposely steered off the runway on the right side (which caused the nose wheel collapse) to avoid the lighting. The aircraft was at 40 knots when it left the runway and was far from hitting the dyke.
Many really great armchair pilots......
not all
And none of them that you want to fly an airplane with you on it as a passenger. That also applies to me.
too late after 40 years.......@@genespell4340
and a bunch of actual airline pilots who will tell you that the wrong decision was made.
@@spencebarton2947Just not this one... they made the right choice... its the book nerds who 'fly by the book'... when they have no idea what they would do in that situation... but good luck.
6 years in the Navy, 3 college degrees, 10 FAA licenses, 8 type ratings, 15 different models, a now 50 year pilot having retired from United Airlines after 30 years as a captain. Retired on B-777-200 ER
I know it was past V1, but considering all the other things that can go wrong continuing taking off with a blown engine (usually due to other systems affected BESIDES just the engine), I think the captain chose the best option.
Man the game videos are getting good.
Flew as pax from Syd to Yvr on DC10s and also YYZ TO RIO AND SAO P AND YYZ TO AMS several times and superb safety culture.
Met flight crew after hydraulic prob in Rio delay 24 hours and very engaging and experienced to F pax.
Certain Capt was Australian ex QF.
YYZ to AMS delays same day as Lockerbie and CP baggage handler at NRT.
RIp
So did the braking effect of the collapsed nose gear stop the plane from finishing in the sea?
6:00 Important thing is, were all passenger able to get their possessions off plane before evacuation?
Its a Douglas DC-10, not a "McDonnell-Douglas DC-10".
Douglas and McDonnell merged in 1997.
I did find some screwball referring to a DC-3 as a "McDonnell-Douglas DC-3". That aircraft came out in 1937. Some of these people don't really know their subject. =PC=
The engineer's calculation was correct. He made the run out ramp JUST long enough!
Where can I book a flight on Biman Airways?
The report is rather harsh. That pilot lost an engine during takeoff, yet he managed to stop the aircraft and avoid any fatalities...or even serious injuries
Thanks for the recreation🛫🛬🛩️
McDonnell Douglas DC-10
Sadly she's been scrapped in 2014 in Dhaka #S2-ACS
If they didn't know what the bang was it could have been a bomb. They were right to hit the brakes.
Hindsight has 20-20 vision.
(On June 23rd 1985 Air India flight 182 , Montreal to London, was blown up over the Atlantic...all 329 people on board died.)
Have flown in airplanes since the early 1970s, the only plane to this day that gives me the creeps is the DC-10, cannot explain it rationally, just watching this video brings back the bad emotions. For some inexplicable reason the engine on the tail gives me the Heebee Jeebees. I feel a cold chill done my spine when I view this aircraft. No idea why! It is what it is.
Airplanes typically have an even number of engines.
Since single engine airplanes probably out number multi-engine that's not quite true. I'd agree that multi-engine airplanes typically have an even number of engines. Just sayin lol.
@@jonasasplund1423 for some reason I thought we were talking about commercial airplanes! I stand corrected.
news flash... aircraft with engines in the rear are quieter ... unless you are Douglas... then you engineered the nose cone in such a way to make the cockpit the quietest in the industry...
Tristars had the same number of engines, I had one 9f my best flights on a BA Tristar
The crew did the right thing, it happened before when the #2 blades failed and severed all the hydraulics, sure it was in the air , uncontrollable and unable to land and killed 3/4's of the passengers , I just wonder why when they see they are running out of land why not retract the gear ? More friction stop faster? Fuel in the wings maybe?
Vr is NOT a critical decision speed. V1 is THE decision speed. This presentation is not clear in that regard, but it appears the rejected takeoff was initiated after V1 which is NOT the proper procedure unless the airplane is rendered unflyable (tail falls off, wing falls off, etc). You go flying after V1 and solve the issue in the air for a return for landing. The DC10 had fuel dumping capability which would allow the aircraft to significantly reduce landing weight even with an expedited emergency return.
According to the report, the RTO was indeed initiated after V1 speed.
And that is why they ran off the end of the runway.
at 6000 pounds per minute... how long would it take to dump down to landing weight? (I always had that on my clipboard prior to take off as well as SOB's) and in that nano second the captain had to determine what might be the cause and if there is any other problems that might affect the aircraft in flight, I would have made the same decision as he did.
Stevie-absolutely right. The Capt. tried to abort after V1 instead of flying the airplane & ran out of RW. They publish a "balanced field length" for 121 Ops which gives you enough RW to accelerate to V1 then reject the TO & have enough RW to stop without going into the weeds. At V1 you're committed to fly!
In that calculation are RTO brakes, spoilers and reverse thrust used?....@@matthewhorvath322
This is correctly termed a Rejected Takeoff. Aborted means the flight was scrubbed before roll-out from the gate. Slightly different.
both terms are in common usage and are correct to describe and takeoff begun but ended before lift off.
@@spencebarton2947 I am sure that in your experience, you are correct and the two terms are equivalent and interchangeable. In my 9 years at Boeing, the distinction was made clear that once you are rolling, and you opt out, that is a an RTO. I worked on many programs, civil and military.
Hi Jon, thanks for the reply. I don't doubt Boeing and you are correct about RTO vs Abort. The rest of the industry seems as confused as I am about the two terms. It makes sense to have two different terms but the industry reality is they both got schmooshed together. At least by the less precise communicators like me. I think I still have my 747-400 flight manual around. It might be amusing to see if I can find both terms in my company manuals. I do remember one position of the auto brakes switches on Boeings was "RTO". So that is consistent with your experience.
I'd love to hear about the projects you worked on at Boeing. What time period was it? I hope before the 737Max era. It used to be a great company at least to those of us who flew their A/C. Wonderful pilot's airplanes. I flew 747-100 engineer, 737-300, typed in 757, 767 and 747-400. I loved every single one of them.
I don't think so ....chief.
what flight sim was this made in?
From what i understand from the conclusion, the T/O has been aborted after V1. This however is not clear to me.
With the info from the video, the capt therefore handled correctly. Please elaborate.
Was the T/O aborted after V1 or not ?
After V1.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Clear !!! Tnx.
It was aborted approximately 2 seconds after vi. In the actual audio the bang was heard as the aircraft shook and immediately after that abort abort was heard. The video is not accurate
They had insuffient time to assess the cause of the bang. Yes possibly they could have taken off on the reamaining two. However no time to decide on any damage. Right decision made.
The old girl looks kinda sad sitting there with her wings clipped!
They should have shut down the engine and rotated. But with a loud bang being heard. I would have been sceptical to rotate also. I feel for the pilots. It's a rough call. With their decision everybody survived. So I guess it was the right decision.
The tail number on C-GCPF was 904 and not 903.
Important information to know.
Remember it well...a very sad day and a sad ending
If I was flying the aircraft and a loud bang was heard I’d abort take off too.
Saying it could have gone on 2 engines I’d still have aborted….the comment said, the pilots didn’t know what the sound could have been so they made a decision. The right one I believe.
My question is could the aircraft turned away from the end of the runway or was it too heavy for such a manoeuvre !
The aircraft did turn to the right at the end of the runway to avoid the lights. The video does not reflect that
Question is, what was the bang?
@gilesbowman1189 engine failure. Crew did not learn that until the investigation.
I find it hard to understand why there are not chutes to be deployed in the back of planes when they are running out of runway....?
Well didnt ya just know they would blame the pilots (again) 😢
i know nothing .. think so far down runway, take off ... butt.... no ... life over property 🤬 , sorry, remain grounded and skid to a stop.
Bravo
The recreatio does not do justice to the picture of what the real plane looked like.How was that thing even repaired? It looked like complete scrap. Why did they not just shut down the engines, to make the plane stop? This would be enough to not make me want to fly again. I wonder if the passengers were told, there was an issue with the engine before the flight?
Think the cockpit crew did the right thing aborting takeoff immediately after the "bang". How the TSB can say otherwise doesn't make sense. The crew didn't know what it was and to assume anything and continue on your way would have been reckless.
Abort past V1 you don’t have accelerate stop numbers to keep the aircraft within the confines of the runway. This was a failure to follow training and established company SOP’s.
I've flown that aircraft many times when I was on contract with Biman. This accident was 'simply' an abort after V1 was called thus negating all the performance data prepared before flight.
Crew error.
Were the "minor injuries" a consequence of fights that had broken out among the more irate passengers when they realized that their trip was over?
Totally wrong decision to abort any (!) take-off after passing V1. All pilots are trained that that is the decision speed and any abort after that will result in a runwY overshoot at least.
So technically the pilot was "wrong" because he aborted the takeoff after the V1 call. Give me this pilot any day over the one that takes this wounded bird into the air. People usually survive runway excursions. People usually don't survive impacts with terrain.
FREIGHTENING
One engine non-functional, no problem?
I agree with aborting the takeoff, it's easy to say they could've taken off, if I'm on the airplane I would've thanked the pilots for potentially saving my life.
When you put an engine way up in the air where it is difficult for mechanics to do their jobs maintaining that engine that engine is bound to receive inferior maintenance. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
I agree that the pilots made the absolute correct decision to abort takeoff. No lives were lost in this incident. Lives would maybe have been lost if they had taken off.
Why they didn't turn off the engine and apply all breaks?
The mind boggles at this question. They did and the speed brakes and the spoilers. This is the very best you can expect from a rejected T.O. after V1. A half million pound airplane going close to 200mph is gonna take some time to stop.
Canadian Air is no longer in existence so how could this be 3 days ago?
It's a recreation of the event that happened years ago.
@@MPCFlights I know . Just sayin
@@lawrenceeytcheson1317🙄
DC10's were aircraft I avoided at all costs.
Yet you were almost killed in your Oldsmobile.
I would never take off after hearing that bang unless we were past V-1
That DC-10 was a flying death trap.
State your qualifications
I believe tail # 903 was a former PIA aircraft that had done a belly landing with that airline.
I don't remember a PIA DC-10 doing a belly landing. But I do remember a PIA 747 doing it but by mistake, not an emergency.
The tail number was 904 for flight 17.
Old DC10
This is very inaccurate, the pilot uncertain about what would have happened if he went off the end of the runway so he steered the aircraft off the runway into the grass. The nose gear collapsed. 30 million dollar repair bill. No injuries.
The loud bang was a compressor stall cause by a blade failure in one of the early stages. This blade continued through the engine resulting in the destruction of most of the following compressor blades. The failure was contained and the pilot should have gone around and landed. The engine was still running at very reduced power.
In the pilot’s defense, compressor stalls had not been covered in any training. T
He suspected airframe failure of some kind and decided to keep the aircraft on the ground. I was working in the CAIL engine shop at the time, almost all of the high stage compressor blades had been sheared off and blown out the exhaust of the engine.
When I was talking to a senior manager about this accident he pointed out that a PWA pilot about a month before had mad the same decision when an engine on a B737 failed on takeoff in Calgary. If he had gone around he would have killed everybody.
The animation of the DC10 going off the end of the runway is bs. The aircraft was deliberately steered off into the grass to avoid the end of the runway.
That is a limp excuse, okay there was loud bang but you have two working engines, any rookie fresh off the pot pilot will tell you get the plane airborne then sort out the problem with the tower . Do not forget there are two hundred fifty odd loved ones in the back.
It always troubles me that pilots will brief a takeoff to determine actions and speeds then disregard those actions when a real emergency happens. Yes a pilot can reject a takeoff after V1 if they believe the aircraft is incapable of flight. But their briefing usually says they will reject a takeoff for an engine failure below V1 or for a variety of other reasons such as a fire caption. However, they will brief that after V1 they will take an engine failure or other event into the air and sort it out after takeoff. In this case they had enough energy and thrust available to continue with the takeoff as briefed but when faced with a real event the captain went against his training and rejected the takeoff with insufficient runway to safely stop. It’s just so fortunate there wasn’t any obstacles to collide with or this could have been catastrophic.
Uh, it was a DC10. Once you say that, any incident can only be followed by; "ummm, yep!"
Many years ago (which means long before the current number of failures of this hyper-flawed aircraft design), my work required me to fly often, frequently covering long distances. Regardless of who was paying for the ticket, I always check to see what equipment the flight would use. That meant in all those years, I never flew in a DC10 (or 11).
Other planes have had problems, sure. But this disaster was more like a 10 page list of dangerous designs with a plane built around them.
Even way back then, there had been plenty enough unnecessary fatal events to warrant elevated concern and steps to reduce the risk of flying - even if only by avoiding ever taking that risk. And this is someone who has been skydiving, bungee-jumping, ocean sailing, marriage, crawdad fishing in swamps, on-and-on....
you don't know what you are talking about
@@SKIPWOOD-UA777CAPT
I'm pretty sure I know the experiences of my life. And I'm equally sure that you don't. 🙂
I really did ALWAYS refuse to take the flight if it was a DC10. Not only doors falling off in flight, they were DIFFERENT doors at different times! Engines falling off, ripping through the wing. Tail falling off. Wiring under the cabin getting vacuumed out removing all control to the tail section. Do I need to go on...... ? 🙂And those are just some of the events that proved that model aircraft too much of a gamble to stake my life on. Not when there were so many other planes with nowhere near the death toll >>> I mean, track record.
Have fun!
ignorance of facts is so laughable with those with no knowledge... happy to not need to take a scardy karen on my flights.... with experience that dated back to 1974, I am sure I know a LOT more about airplanes, having 8 type ratings with the DC-10 being one of them. @@haytguugle8656
wanna talk aboutr the 747 door that flew off??? oh right... selective memory... @@haytguugle8656
They tried to stop AFTER V1, breaking the cardinal rule. They SHOULD have taken off. 19 times out of 20, this has proven to be the right thing to do. I am ex RAFVR. STICK TO THE RULES!
Normally, I would agree that you stick to the rules but you're dealing with a DC-10 ; the most temperamental jet ever built. If you studied the 1979 crash in Chicago where an emergency occurred right at rotation, the pilots decided to continue the take-off but their subsequent actions, although " by the book", made the situation WORSE and led to the most devastating crash in U. S. aviation history. There are some of us who believe that aborting take-off, might have saved some lives instead of the total devastation that resulted. I believe pilots should be given discretion in an emergency to deviate from procedure if the outcome is less catastrophic. I didn't say that there wouldn't be ANY casualties but pilots should be given leeway. After all, they are at the controls.
The “rule” didn’t help the Concorde. It looks like a good decision here, all things considered, not knowing the nature of the failure.
In my opinion, the main problem is the absence of overrun zones designed to stop an aircraft safely. These are just now beginning to be developed and installed.
Concorde not relevant - the engineer shut down TWO engines when the manual says, "Do NOT shut down ANY engine below 1000ft." and did not tell the Captain. I met the British crash investigators. As I said, examination of the stats around V1 aborts etc, show that 95% of the time, flying was the best option. Is bloody WHY they have V1 for Christ's sake! ....Concorde was 11,500lbs overweight; took off with 15mph tail wind; shim left off left undercarriage; tanks OVER full so burst when struck; co-pilots medical WEEKS out of date.... on and on!
I was selected one of 20 from 4,000 applicants - accelerated promotion and DOUBLE pay, for, "Displaying outstanding leadership." Be logical. You are not a pilot. @@GH-oi2jf
The Chicago incident isn’t applicable, there was improper maintenance procedure which lead to mechanical failure at the pylon resulting in the engine departing the aircraft destroying key aircraft infrastructure - they were doomed it was like getting shot down. V1 decision speed is based on supporting data of what the aircraft can do, it’s not guess work this is supported by years of test flights for every model of transport aircraft. The aircraft can accelerate and stop if the abort is prior to V1. After V1 you go. Can you come up with scenario’s where this doesn’t work - absolutely, but the facts and millions of hours of flying dictate that following the procedure is what makes air travel safe. Ignoring V1 is like deliberately driving through a red traffic light hoping to make it through the other side.
YES! Well said! You got it. People continue to argue this, but I believe in KISS - simple; do what you are trained for; sod inventing at this stage! Good to hear from a PILOT. We are boring; conservative; safe; compelled to be the one in CONTROL. (Wives not so much!) CAVU skies, senor!@@johnb6690
very old video
Oh, a DC10 😹
Ach no man, computer graphics and likely computer generated story. Computer noises.. Let's go somewhere worthy... 20 seconds in that's my comment. Bye!
Since the were close to Wreck Beach if they had gone in the water they would have been obliged by respect fir the nudist beach to remove all their closing
Close call eh?
See what happens when you reject the takeoff after V1.
Oh geez… another airplane cartoon.
This is a VERY OLD video. Canadian Airlines International hasn’t existed for
25+ years.
Ya don't say.