Crashing Just 49 Seconds After Takeoff in Canada | Deadly Snow
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 січ 2024
- Find out why the Fokker F28-1000 Fellowship twin jet crashed after only 49 seconds after taking off from Dryden Regional Airport, Ontario, Canada.
Get early access to future videos and support the channel here:
• / theflightchannel
Check out the Official Shop with merchandise here:
• teespring.com/stores/thefligh...
Follow TheFlightChannel
• Facebook: / theflightchannel
• Instagram: / tfc_aviation
Business Enquiries
• Email: contact.theflightchannel@gmail.com - Розваги
This video brings back a lot of memories. I was a student pilot in Thunder Bay at the time. Several months after the accident. I landed in Dryden as PIC. The first thing I noticed at this airport was the long strip of cleared forest at the end of 29...of course, I knew why and I was thinking of it during much of my approach. Somewhere I still have a picture I took on long final.
One thing this video didn't state was that one of the passengers on the plane was an airline pilot. He had a window seat and observed the ice accumulation on the wings, and, of course knew what was going on outside the aircraft during the refueling stop. He testified later that he found himself in a state of conflict and dilemma as they were taxiing out to take off. He felt there was far too much snow on the wings but couldn't bring himself to notify the flight crew of his concerns. You can probably understand why.
Twenty years later, I was a passenger on a Canadian North flight 737 from Edmonton to Yellowknife. While I held a commercial licence, I was not an active pilot at the time. We were on decent through a heavy inversion in IFR during the dark when the cabin crew flipped on the landing lights. The reflection from the light in the heavy precipitation instantly revealed at least 1/2 inch of ice (or more) on the leading edge and 1/3 the way back . I felt the blood drain from my face as I anxiously contemplated what I should do. I pondered if this was normal or did the flight deck miss an item on their checklist. Then I had a flashback to this incident and the discussions we had in ground school as we reflected on the decisions of everyone involved
I was in the process of undoing my seat belt when I had one more glance outside and saw the outlines of the heating elements on the leading edge of the wings as literal chunks of ice began flying off.
Obviously, we landed without incident. I waited at my seat in order to be the last passenger off the a/c; I wanted to talk to the pilots. I didn't know what I was going to say; certainly didn't intend to finger point but I wanted some type of acknowledgement of what I had just witnessed and if I was paranoid or if we really had just dodged a bullet. I can't recall exactly what I said, something like '...crazy weather and approach. 'Can't believe how much ice those wings can handle." I'm sure I slipped some technical jargon in there so they knew I was a pilot. I will never forget the blank stare both of them gave me as I disembarked.
Thanks for posting this.
Con Col?
What a story!
Thank you for sharing your story. Incredible!
Never happened
@@JohnnyDanger36963 You never happened, Johnny so-called Danger.
The pilots' decision making was definitely questionable, but not as questionable as that guy who chose to fly a Cessna 150 in a 1/2 mile vis snowstorm.
😂
This is so messed up, I can't believe they forced this aircraft into service in that condition with that weather, shameful.
?? This happened in Canada not America …
@@itwasrightthereinfrontofyou Well this crash wasn't in America.
Totally agree. It's always about commerce not safety.
The captain can refuse to fly an unsafe aircraft. After 34 years of flying he should have had enough money saved to put his job on the line rather than the lives of everyone on board. But even a young pilot with no savings would not be justified in puting the lives of the crew and passengers in danger.
North America?@@titan9259
This accident caused the deaths of 21 of the 65 passengers and three of the four crew members on board, including both pilots.
No accident. A combination of easily avoidable errors.
@@ElectricPics
"A combination of easily avoidable errors" certainly not an accident.
Thank you for the information.
@@ElectricPics Yes. If only everyone had access to your indisputable knowledge and unwavering wisdom... accidents would never happen.
An intentional decision is not an accidental decision.
Intentional is the antonym of Accidental.
A man I know flew out of Dryden the day before this crash and within a week all airports with commercial traffic had to have de-icing equipment. The long era of brushing snow off the wings with brooms right before departure was gone.
Yes. While tragic, this incident resulted in A LOT of positive change in the industry.
So sorry for the loss of your friend. He’s gone to where the dead passengers go…..
@@cadaverdog1424 No, he’s still alive. The day before the crash he flew out of Dryden to some other airport. At the airline he was working for, their passenger demand doubled that year because many people were afraid to fly on Air Ontario.
And of ALL places in Canada!! This could be excused in warmer climates but for sure not way the Hell North. This was full blown stupidity on all sides to have let this happen...
If you haven’t already seen the Mayday episode regarding this, check it out. It goes into great detail.
Great video of this terrible incident 😢. Really glad you returned the ‘In memory of…’ that is so special to your channel! Though some complained that it’s to quick, it’s still important, because the way it acknowledges the passing of those who suffered and died on this and other flights.❤
It is too quick.
Waaayyyyyy to quick.
I'm from Winnipeg so I remember news stories about the crash. When we learned of the crash on the radio and of survivors, my mother had concerns if our hospitals would be able to handle the sudden number of patients.
The biggest thing I remember is a front page of the Winnipeg Free Press showed a whole family of four was among the fatalities. Their funeral was held in Winnipeg and their obituary was shown days after.
Worked for USAir at that time for 17 years. Deiced many F-28s, F-100s too. They are a hard wing, no slats. Deicing correctly is always very critical. These aircraft even more dangerous. Accumulation equaling rough sand paper was dangerous on these. They required hands on tactile check of wing as well as a dark stripe painted on the wing for F/O to come back and check visually as well. USAir rolled one into the bay in LGA when the crew did not have wings checked in snow as well.
I'm from the great white north 🇨🇦 and I remember my Father telling me horror stories of flying these routes; Dryden, the Sault, Thunder Bay and places in between are notorious for having bad weather come upon you suddenly. I used to cringe whenever a family member had to take one of these flights and I'm going back to the late 70's - mid 80's. I still plan my road trips with great care as my Son now lives in Northern Ontario.
RIP to the 24 souls who lost their lives.
I saw the Mayday episode of that and felt pretty bad for the pilots since the airline got them caught between a rock and a hard place.
I never did, and I thought I saw them all. Do you happen to know the season and episode or episode name?
Season 9 Cold Case
@@Powerranger-le4up Thanks a heap - found it. In fact I found three different documentaries on the incident all with significantly different details in them. The MAYDAY series is interesting because there are two versions: one with a male narrator and the other again a male narrator but with an English accent. The latter is the one released in the USA only. Interesting.
The one you can watch on UA-cam took hours to watch yesterday because (I assume) there was so much demand to watch it, the server was overloaded or something as it kept stopping and taking several minutes to resume.
The pilot's life and the subsequent affect on their family makes this decision a no brainer. You can always get another job. Even unemployed is better than losing your life. Thank God we have better government oversight in the USA.
@@deepthinker999 Not much. Money is all that ever matters in a capitalist system, people are expendable.
Well done
I’m in Thunder Bay. My coworker at the time was supposed to be on this flight but she had to cancel her trip as she got sick. Her friend was on the flight and survived.
The people who survived had to crawl in waist deep snow to get away from the plane.
Every time I am on a plane that is delayed a bit due to de-icing, or needs another application of it, I think of this.
I’ve only flown out in one snowstorm, leaving Toronto. We were deiced three times while waiting for takeoff. Things have improved tremendously since 1989.
So has the quality of the deicing liquid. Current 4th generation lasts for an hour.
As soon as I saw the APU didn't work I immediately remembered which crash this was.
This reminds me so much of Continental Airlines Flight 1713. Snow impacting the performance of the plane, pilots having little experience on the type, and a disturbing amount of questionable decision making. Very infuriating that all those lives had to be lost for Canadian aviation protocol to be strengthened.
Thanks for making such quality content! I felt like there was a bit of decline of quality over the past couple months, but this is an improvement of a video so far! Try to make newer videos that hasn’t been covered, and I wish you a late new year! Thanks for the effort, TheFlightChannel.
Only so many crashes to cover, it is the safest form of travel after all
Why do you think there was a decline? Seems pretty standard to me
I'm still disappointed in the fatalities not being mentioned more prominently.
@@Jump-2-the-moon There we’re a few weekly videos that were a combination of two older videos in one.
True,a lot of comments stating negative.I always say,you wanna do better? Start your own channel away from the safety of your keyboard. It's hard work. Let's give this amazing guy a break.
What a long list of bad management and decisions. I'm amazed on 24 people died, but that includes the flight crew and both pilots. So very sad. RIP 24 souls. Thank you for another great presentation.
So sad how lives are lost due to things that could be avoided.
In light of some of the opinions stated, I'd like to add a few details and conclusions the investigation arrived at that are not sufficiently stated at the end of this video which has led to some inaccurate perceptions.
The aircraft was not overweight, even with the snow accumulation. While this is not 100 per cent conclusive because the actual weight and balance logs were destroyed in the fire. What was determined was that the cabin crew were aware of the weight concerns enough that they actually off-loaded fuel to maintain safe take-off weight which strongly suggests they followed the safety adherence when they took on fuel in Dryden.
The APU has nothing to do with flight safety. APUs are not required on all a/c and they do not operate during flight. The APU on this plane was not used at all during the day as it was flagged as non-serviceable.
The pilots did not allow the plane to sit on the tarmac and accumulate snow without knowing about it or knowing about it and choosing to take off anyway. Even in today's standards, there is an acceptable amount of snow that is allowed to accumulate on a plane and still be considered safe to go. There is also a window of time that is permitted (that varies) that a plane can sit an accumulate snow after being de-iced. The pilot in this incident was aware of the snow on the wings. It was in acceptable limits by policy and regulation when this incident occurred. Snow blows off the wings within seconds of take-off roll commencing and at least two eye-witnesses who were also aviation professionals testified that there was no snow on the wings when the plane first rotated. So snow did not cause the accident directly by adding to much weight or disrupting the laminar flow of air cause a stall.
What did in fact occur was that the plane was on the tarmac for over 30 minutes in temperatures at or above freezing. The a/c had just landed after flying for an hour in well below freezing temperatures. This caused the fuel in the tanks to be well below freezing during refueling. When the plane was refueled, that brought the fuel levels up to a higher level enough to lower the temperature of the skin on the wing to below zero. The temperature of the fuel being pumped in was also likely well below freezing. The thin layer of water that had coated the entire wing after landing with the deicing heat on as well as the snow at or near freezing level that melted on contact with the wing now refroze and this was masked by the snow on top of it.
The broken APU at the time made it such that the captain could not shut down both engines to take on fuel as there would have been no way to restart them. Refueling with an engine running even with passengers on board was a permitted and lawful practice. Also permissible was the procedure of allowing a plane to be de-iced with the engines running. However, it was against company policy so the pilot was not permitted to do so. He called his company and asked to be allowed to de-ice with one engine running but his request was denied .
It was later discovered that this particular model of a/c was exceedingly susceptible to a stall condition with very minimal ice or frost buildup on the top surface of the wing.
Under all these conditions and more due to pressures from the company, the pilot was found to not be reasonably expected to foresee this condition and cancel the flight.
In summary, fuel in the wings that was well below the freezing temperature of water froze a thin layer of water that had formed on the wings after landing. This ice was likely imperceptible and was subsequently hidden by a layer of fresh snow that had just fallen. A broken APU combined with lack of airport equipment and a company policy allowed/forced the pilot to forego a precautionary de-icing procedure.
I would urge the owner of this channel to include these facts in his event summary in the video, since without them the current summary is accurate, it is misleading by their omission.
Well said. Thank you.
Great commentary, possibly the channel didn't purposefully omit information
Although not sure it is 100% correct to say the APU has nothing to do with safety. It is a backup system and backup systems improve safety. If the APU had been working the chain of events may have been different
If you were told that on previous flights this plane had experienced a smoke-filled cabin, would you have flown?
For the nth time, stick with USA main line carriers whenever possible. Fly in the day as opposed to night. Flying 3rd World Carriers is a crap shoot with your life.
My wife and I flew back to Winnipeg from a ski trip to Thunder Bay just a few days prior to the crash, and as we were waiting for our checked bags Captain Morwood noticed my skiis and commented that he was going to the mountains for a weekend of skiing as well.
I worked at dryden for a summer and seen the memorial for the people that died from this crash at the end of the runway. Ive also spoke with a local there that worked with this flight before its crash. Apparently the pilots called ops that they would not be operating the flight because of the conditions and weather. The CEO called back and threatened to fire them in the spot if they didnt get it flying again. Afterwards, the pilot on the phone came out crying with tears and told ground staff, “we gotta go, otherwise im gonna lose my job. We gotta go”
No he did not 'have to go'. Any airline company would hire a pilot who pulled the plug with safety concerns.
Your graphics of the airports are surprisingly accurate haha.
Waterfall of idiocy. The airline sending out an aircraft with a non-functioning APU, on an itinerary that included airports that didn't have ground equipment to start the engines, in highly questionable weather conditions, using pilots who barely had any experience in the aircraft type, who apparently didn't know that snow and ice on a jet's wings impede lift. The passengers didn't stand a chance.
I haven't even reached the point in the video yet where the crash happens but how can that airline even take off with their runway so full of red flags?
Commercial Aviation is a Business with the moto, only planes that fly make money!
Money, the root of all evil. It still rings true.
It's the "LOVE" of money that is the root of all evil.@@deepthinker999
@@deepthinker999 it is the love of money that is the root of all evil.
Maybe its just me, but I feel that deregulation was the worst thing to ever happen to the airlines, both here in the US, and in Canada. The fares have not gotten better, theyve gotten worse, not to mention, back in the 80s and early 90s there was a lot of corner cutting going on.
Also, neither one of the pilots had much experience on the F28, which sets a very dangerous precedent. Very bad CRM. At least, here in the US, they don't pair up two inexperienced pilots on an aircraft type. One of them is usually very experienced. We've come a long way in the last century. Hard to believe we've been flying that long, innit?
PS......another splendid job by TFC. Hard to believe I've been a fan of this channel for six years!
You could say that about deregulation of many industries and it's a worldwide issue. This is neo-liberal economics and we were sold a lie.
@@annakeye I can't argue with you there! That's their favourite thing to do- lie to us!
@@annakeyecome to Argentina and try socialism then...
@@annakeyederegulation is a Republican issue. It’s their platform always.
Most fares are now taxes paid to ward off the legacy of Bin Laden.
Thank you TFC for the good work. Been watching the chanell for years.
I remember this accident well, or at least I thought I did. Yesterday, if someone asked me what caused the Air Ontario Dryden crash in '89, I'd have said snow on the wings and a failure to deice. If I ever knew, I'd forgotten that the crew couldn't deice because they had to keep an engine running due to the INOP APU. This is an important fact.
In '89, I was in what was once and would later be called again, the Royal Canadian Air Force. We did hot fueling as part of training, because, well, because in a military force it was a required skill. But... an ARCC truck and trained firefighters were on hand for every hot fuel. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And I'm talking a Sea King with no more than a handful of crew on board. I wonder, with a civilian aircraft full of passengers, if the Dryden airport fire service was even trained and equipped for a hot fuel.
So many issues that could have avoided!
Oh NO! Rest in Peace, all, from a Flight Channel fan in the north country..😢
The Captain had been flying with Air Ontario since he was 18 years old 1:00. Apparently that 34 years of experience was not enough for him to know about the danger of an accumulation of snow on the wings.
Yeah it wasn't
Geez, that music at the end. Sadly fitting for how tragic this situation was.
Had to watch this video when I saw it today basically to see how accurate it is. You did a very good job on it. I was in maintenance at Air Ontario when this happened. I knew Capt. Morwood quite well. From a maintenance perspective he was a pain in the ass because he was forever returning to gate because he had some little issue. He was not one to take chances. Last time I saw him alive was when I asked him to help me with a run up on another F28. He was so excited as he was going to get his first checkout in the F28. I just wanted to point out that there was an important piece of the puzzle that you did not mention. Perhaps you are aware of it but chose not to. I looked at a lot of the comments and did not see it mentioned. If you would like to hear what I am hinting about, please let me know how to contact you direct.
What is your opinion about Air Ontario's maintenance practices at the time? Should this aircraft have flown?
As far as I know there was no issue with this aircraft flying. Aircraft all around the world fly with an inoperative APU every day. That being said they need external electrical and pneumatic power to get the engines running. Normally once an aircraft gets the engines running, they shut down the APU before they take off. I worked mostly at the main base in London. I did not have any issues with the maintenance practices there. We had a good team. @@deepthinker999
It’s almost like everyone at Air Ontario was daring this plane to crash.
An excellent video……..there were so many chances to break the error chain…………very sad. RIP.
There's a reason that a captain is called a captain. They can blame policy or deficiency all they want but ultimately it's the captain who decides that the plane leaves the ground. Seems absolutely nuts that these Canadian pilots, flying in Canadian weather, were seemingly unaware of the potential build-up on the wings. Very poor decision making cost a lot of lives.
Right? I'm not a pilot by any means but while watching the plane sit there at Dryden I'm thinking de-icing needs to be done which seemed obvious to me.
@@tbm3fan913I’m not a pilot as well but I can deduce a few things:
1. If the APU is inop, I can’t start the engines.
2. If I can’t start them, I can’t shut them down.
3. If I can’t shut them down, I can’t do the deicing because the fluid can be sucked by them.
I should then ask the passengers to drop off and wait for another plane…
@@Berchol Theres nothing wrong with a turbine engine injesting deicing fluid.
@@majbach1968 Wrong. Can cause noxious fumes in the cabin due to ingestion and contamination of the engine bleed air system (same risk for both engines and APU). I’m an A&P for a major carrier. We require engines and APU to be shut off for deicing to eliminate risk of fluid ingestion.
@@paulu7751 I doubt that, Paul. If you were, you'd know its only a hazard for type II and Type IV de-icing fluid. Type I, which is all there was at the time, is simple water and alcohol. If a dye is added - not always the case - it can lead to unpleasant smell in the cabin if ingested in the engine but that is short lived. That is why it was unregulated back then but only a matter of policy, and not even strict policy at that.
they let it take off without de-icing, unreal ☹️
Viv6121 that was same question was rolling in my head ! Refueling w/passengers aboard. Did they not have deicing equipment at Dryden. If the weather was that bad, accumulation of ❄ on wings. Why would they ever attempt to take off in such weather. Question would they have been able to abort takeoff, even though they had 400 feet remaing, runway was 6000 ft. So unfortunate, hopefully air travel from that time, have improved not just for air Ontario/Air Canada, all carriers.
@@kay9549 The engines were running so protocol disallowed de-icing, something that is understandable yet questionable at the same time
@@b.t.356 yes, understand, if the apu unit was replaced /operational, deicing could have taken place. Since it was not, unable to shut off engines deicing was not done. Since the flight was delayed for a time. Weather was changing rapidly, ❄ fall, temperatures plummeting. This incident happened in the late 80' s if not mistaken. Overall perhaps parameters/guidelines were in place it may have been avoided. Would the cockpit crew be able to abort takeoff since they realized they were not getting lift, due to ice accumulating over the wings. Even though they did have heat element going to the wings. Realize the ❄ had blown away, wings still had the sheet of ice. Its so unfortunate, this perhaps could have avoided.
@@kay9549 they could have seen the snow accumulated on the wings from the windows. Really don't understand what these pilots were thinking 🙄
@@vivi6121 viv yes indeed, it so getting worse by the minute, since they were awaiting prior to takeoff another plane to land. Really not sure why they had even attempted to even consider a takeoff. Eveen saying that, they were not getting any lift, they did come back on the runway, during v1 rotation. They could have perhaps just aborted the second attempt to get airborne. Perhaps will never know what the mindset of pilots at that time.
Fun fact- that particular plane has been associated with unstable child bearing pilots which is why the ATC generally refers to that plane as a crazy mother Fokker.
best upload in a while
So easy to be wise after the event, but the snow and ice buildup was certainly something to have been noticed and corrected. Good thing I guess is that this is 1989 and such mistakes rarely happen today. Thanks TFC!
I'm pretty damn good with the English language and I was going to call you out for making up a word, but damn if you weren't right and I was wrong. Yes, "subsume" is a word, and it is one I don't recall ever hearing before. This is one of those times when someone is reminded that they still have shit to learn.
I'm really good with the English language and vocabulary, but it's a new one for me, too. You're right. Even at my advanced age, we still have much to learn.
It's funny you thought you knew everything.
😂@@perniciouspete4986
@@perniciouspete4986 It's even funnier that you chose to disparage me for a post where I admitted I don't know everything, and where I was even the one who brought it up.
Admitting one's faults is an indication of maturity. Disparaging someone for admitting their faults is an indication of immaturity.
@@angelbulldog4934 Thanks. Glad I'm not the only one. 😄
I'm a member of a political forum with a subforum and thread where people post words they heard recently that they didn't know existed. Reading that is a humbling experience for anyone who thinks they have a wide vocabulary. 😆
It's crazy that they will let a plane fly without an APU. That is a huge risk.
It would have certainly prevented this whole chain of events.
To be completely honest, planes with an broken apu fly all the time, back then it may have been a bigger issue but into days times, it’s more common than u think
Inop APU’s weren’t uncommon at the airline I flew for. The difference was our field stations either had or could borrow air start carts. To be blunt, it takes several really poor decisions and a lack of foresight to get to where an aircraft is unable to be deiced at all. Because that’s where all Air Ontario’s BS led them - an aircraft that can’t be deiced because it was dispatched with an inop APU and expected to serve airports with no air start carts, during winter precipitation. That’s a classic example where $ come before safety.
It was like the perfect storm of bad weather and poor decision-making combined to make this happen.
You have no clue what you are talking about .
This item is allowed to be deferred. As mentioned, it’s pretty common for a/c to be dispatched w/ an inoperative APU. Happens all the time.
I wanted to do an accident re-creation on this one you beat me to it!
Great video as usual Thank you!
Anyone interested I have done a couple accident re creations!
A textbook example of multiple innocuous factors combining to produce a fatal crash- if the APU had worked. If the airport had a start cart. If de-icing could be done with an engine running. If the flight could have taken off sooner.
Every instrument and component on an aircraft serves a purpose.
Rule #1: Do not operate machinery, ESPECIALLY PASSENGER AIRCRAFT, when components are missing or malfunctioning. The APU was a very important component to the operation of this aircraft.
NOT DISCUSSED HERE - This airplane was VERY OVERWEIGHT when it tried to take off from Dryden.
The reason for the refueling at Dryden, was because the necessary fuel for the completed legs of the trip was DRAINED OFF at the starting point to compensate for the weight of EIGHT EXTRA PASSENGERS who boarded. These EIGHT passengers disembarked at Dryden, but SEVEN NEW PASSENGERS boarded.
When the aircraft refueled at Dryden, SOMEBODY FORGOT the aircraft was again OVERLOADED.
Besides the standard handing and take-off difficulties resulting from failure to DE-ICE the airplane, there was a tremendous amount of ADDITIONAL WEIGHT on the aircraft due to the snow and ice that had accumulated on the wings and the rest of the airplane due to the unexpected time delays. It was TOO HEAVY TO FLY!
{{I don't know if the sketch of the airplane failing to rise upon takeoff was simulated or an actual video, but the wavelike motion of the aircraft trying to gain altitude beautifully depicted the undulation of the heavier-than-normal snow-and-ice-covered tail and wings, in relation to the fuselage. They LOOKED HEAVY in this video. WELL DONE as usual.}}
The fact that you were not able to instantly ascertain if the 'airplane failing to rise' was not an actual video is demonstrative of how little you know an understand.
The APU is not an important component of the aircraft's flight operations, it's a convenience on the ground; it's like having a battery instead of having to use an extension cord.
The plane was not overweight at T/O due to being overloaded. The fact that the pilots took fuel off to accommodate extra passengers in Thunder Bay should illustrate they were cognizant of their weight and balance.
Capitalizing words doesn't make them any more factual.
@@majbach1968
Are you for REAL? Did you not understand that I complimented the content of the video because, to me, it was a nice ILLUSTRATION of what I imagined an aircraft MIGHT HAVE looked like when trying to take off if it were severely overweight with tons of ice and snow on the wings and tail?
I didn’t say the airplane was rising or falling. That part is assumed from the video and history. I commented on the MOVEMENT of the airplane as shown in the video and how It matched my imagination of what the track of an airplane MIGHT LOOK LIKE if it had too much extra weight on its wings from accumulated ice and snow when trying to take off.
My comment about the video has NOTHING TO DO with the crash or its causes. I liked the illustration!
The failure to de-ice was the stated cause, but I said that the airplane was overweight and THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN a big contribution to the cause of the crash. I was surprised that wasn’t mentioned.
Why do you say the plane wasn’t overweight? Didn’t you pay attention to the video?
“the pilots took fuel off to accommodate extra passengers in Thunder Bay”.
That would be removing enough fuel to balance the extra weight of 8 new passengers. These 8 passengers got off at Dryden, but they were replaced by 7 NEW PASSENGERS, and then the airplane was refueled, forgetting about the initial overweight of the original 8, now 7 passengers, which would have again necessitated the removal of an equivalent amount of fuel to compensate for the additional weight. There was no mention of returning to the original overweight condition in the subsequent analysis of the crash.
BASIC MATH!
You said this: “The APU is not an important component of the aircraft's flight operations“
I’d say the APU in this instance was a TREMENDOUS influence on the aircraft’s flight operations! You stated, “it's a convenience on the ground”. I’d say that the APU in this case was more than a “convenience on the ground”when its malfunction made it necessary to keep one engine running during refueling, or the other engine could not be restarted. This prevented the aircraft from being de-iced, and the accumulation of ice and snow on the wings contributed to the crash right after take-off.
BTW:
Why would my comment about a snippet of video give anyone an “understanding” of how much or how little I know - about ANYTHING?
You didn’t specify where you believe my knowledge is deficient.
Please elaborate . . . IF YOU DARE!
Sometimes I use CAPITAL WORDS to emphasize ideas or concepts I find important. I‘m sorry you have a need to dictate to others how they should present their comments in written communications. If my use of CAPS bothers you, block me and DON’T READ MY COMMENTS!
PS . . . just wondering why an IGNORANT TROLL would go out of his/her way to criticize a neutral comment I made about this video? Do I look like an “EASY MARK” to you? For some unstated reason, you accused me of a general lack of knowledge or understanding, when you don’t know or care enough to edit your own typos before posting your own comment about a video you didn’t pay much attention to.
[You posted 2 duplicates of the same comment - why are you so angry about my comment that you didn’t notice you posted your own comment 3 times?]
@@jessicasnaplesfl7474 Okay. I ACCEPT your dare. I will TRY to explain my rationale AND answer ALL of your questions. Try and READ THIS slowly so YOU will understand since I can't use pop-up pictures to HELP you to follow.
- " the APU is a very important component..."
NO IT IS NOT
- "The airplane was VERY OVERWEIGHT when it...."
NO IT WAS NOT. In fact, investigators concluded it was at least 1000 pounds below max weight.
- "...these EIGHT passengers disembarked at DRYDEN, but SEVEN NEW PASSENGERS [blah blah blah blah blah]..."
NOBODY FORGOT the aircraft was overloaded because IT NEVER WAS OVERLOADED. They took on fuel IN DRYDEN to REPLACE the fuel they BURNED on the FLIGHT OVER THERE. DUH!
-"It was TOO HEAVY TO FLY!"
NO IT WASN"T. DUH
-"I don't know if the sketch of the airplane failing to rise upon takeoff was simulated or an actual video..."
Of COURSE it WAS simulated. DID you THINK someone WAS running ALONGSIDE the PLANE with an 8mm VIDEO CAMERA?
- "The failure to de-ice was the stated cause, but I said that the airplane was overweight and THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN a big contribution to the cause of the crash."
NO. YOU stated that the plane "WAS TOO HEAVY" and the plane "WAS OVERLOADED" and neither was the case.
- "BASIC MATH!"
something you CLEARLY do not have. Have someone - such as a GRADE 4 student sit down beside you and WALK YOU THROUGH THIS:
Plane + people + gas = good plane
THEN
good plane - 8 people - gas consumed = even gooder plane
THEN
even gooder plane + 7 people + gas (to replace gas) = STILL good plane
-" I’d say the APU in this instance was a TREMENDOUS influence on the aircraft’s flight operations!
Well, you'd be WRONG. APU has nothing to do with FLIGHT. As stated in the video, the non-operational APU CONTRIBUTED to a SERIES of EVENTS that led to POOR decisions. It DID NOT CAUSE the PLANE to crash.
- "You posted 2 duplicates of the same comment..."
WHAT are you BLABBERING about? I did no such thing. Perhaps you FORGOT to TAKE you MEDICATION today.
- "Please elaborate . . . IF YOU DARE!"
I REST MY CASE
@@majbach1968An excellent reply to another idiot who thinks he/she/it’s an expert on everything because he/she/it watches UA-cam videos 🙄🙄🙄🙄🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
The entire process seems to be based on the "Do you feel lucky?" procedure.
Whoever does this channel does such a good Flippin job with the details and msfs footage. Seriously. I can't watch other channels cuz of this channel
"Things can get pretty bad if APU does not work properly in an airplane" - the above statement and many more statements like these are only meaningful and being made a mandate on procedures due to some valuable losses of lives! People have sacrificed, and this era was one of the best in aviation history; however learning has never stopped, and every time people have lost their lives it has taught us to be better at flying an aircraft and touching down SAFELY to get back to our families!
To the people who lived to make aviation better!
More thumbs up actual views in the early minutes of uploading. Well done 😊
According to Wikipedia, the registration of the plane was C-FONF, not C-FONG (a different plane that the airline also flew.)
"It's snowing and we can't de-ice" "Ah, I'm sure we'll get away with it"
@flightchannel why cant you retain the text " in the memory of..." for a little longer ? 🤦 It comes and goes away in 1 millionth of a second. 😅
I gathered the information on the crash just after it happened for the Dryden Observer. The info gathered was almost identical to the final conclusion of the inquiry. Got screwed over by the paper and quit the following week, pretty much ending my "journalism" career. Poor guy that went out to the crash site, took photos and dragged people out already had a fear of flying.
I flew on this aircraft many times and always wondered about not having leading edge slats...I don't fly in the winter anymore due to fear of icing!...palm 90 crash come to mind!!!
Deicing fluid has gotten a lot better since then. The current 4th generation can last for an hour.
How could they fly a plane that just previously has SMOKE in the cabin, without finding the problem? Unbelievable!
How NOT to run things. This is why deregulation is disastrous. SMH
Many regulations are "written in blood." There are good reasons for having them.
SMH?
I was on the same plane, same flight, with the same crew one day earlier and sat with the surviving flight attendant in the exit on take off and landing.
Hot refueling with PAX on board, inoperative APU plus in that weather? Man...that was madness
The video says “Air Regulations require that an aircraft carry sufficient fuel to fly to an alternate airport in case the crew is unable to land the aircraft at its planned destination” that’s true for all commercial operations, not just in bad weather. If the weather is below minimums at the destination airfield You need enough fuel to for two separate division airfields where the weather is above planning minimums.
Wow neither training or manuals said much about snow and ice on a wing is a problem....i don't see how any pilot who makes it to captains status doesn't have a clue on attempting a take off with contaminated wings...as a student pilot we learned snow and ice on a wing surface is a no no ..
As a passenger, I have more than once raised my concerns of wing ice (particularly 3 years of flying winters in Russia). There is no such thing as a stupid question, re. any concerns about safety on your flight! This was the first thing told to me by the chief pilot on our company helicopter many years ago. eg I noticed a 'RH Fire' warning on the panel after a lift off in a rented chopper, the pilot was busy talking to ATC and hadn't seen it. It turned out to be a sensor contaminated by water. But still ...
Tragic. RIP.
The way the Captain walked up the steps to the aircraft in this video, could see he had a bad back, probably why he couldn't control the plane
I always get a kick out of them stating that both Pilots were highly experienced pilots, yet they crashed the plane.
I do not know the rules of aviation in Canada, but can a pilot refuse to fly a plane if he is not satisfied with the mechanical operation of the plane?
They put a lot of effort into making sure a disaster happens
Hey theflightchannel! I’ve been watching you with my grandfather since I was a kid. I would always ask him what any of this means. Good times. But anyway, I have one request for you. Similar to TAM 3054, can you do philippine airlines 137? And maybe soon Philippine airlines 113. (Engine blowout). Thanks!
The fligth channel can you make a video about a recent tragedy on haneda airport jal 516?i would appreaciated it,luv ur vids❤❤
ATC was recorded as saying, "that Fokker just crashed"
I love your channel, it’s so interesting, I would love to see a video about the Andes Uruguayan Rugby players of 1972 “Fairchild 571” and JFK Jr’s accident of 1999
Good example of a chain of failures, APU, passenger load, need to refuel, lack of deice, attempt to "save" the takeoff after stalling back to the runway.
I would highly recommend that those interested in accident analysis read the Canadian Governments Commission of Inquiry Report which was presided over by Justice Moshanski. It was years ahead of its time and a perfect example of Reason's Swiss Cheese Model .
Incidently , I was familiar with Captain Morwood and to this day, I can not imagine how such a safe and dilligent safety minded pilot allowed this to happen.
The pilot was unaware of the dangers of ice on the wings. Seriously?
This was awful. I feel for the families.
I think most viewers would've recognized the problem without the arrow in the thumbnail!
I hope that company was sued out of existence.
Was weight also a factor? The video says the aircraft was overweight at Thunder Bay and they offloaded fuel to get below weight limits. Then at the next stop in Dryden 8 people deplane and 7 board, and they fueled up, wouldn't they be overweight again??
Apparently not. Please see earlier comments.
How many people had to die, before these new rules got put in place?? Very sad. 😔
oh no
FYI, if you don't want to watch what happens before learning what happens, skip the first 30 seconds of the video. Never understood why they do this.
As an aside, what was a 150 doing in that weather? Trying to get his butt safely on the ground, but still...
What soundtrack is this? I want to find it.
This accident was repeated at New York's LGA. US AIR pilots should have known better.
Hi Flight Channel, you're awesome with your videos and I watch them all. now after watching these awesome videos, I'm not getting on any plane unless it's under 15 years, and has a tune up and checked. plus I'd like to know that outside of the plane's instruments are cleared of debris. I seen many videos especially were a $5.00 light bulb in cockpit brought a plane down. yeah I know it's suppose the safest, but with all the stuff I seen on your channel, I'd rather watch it instead of being in it.
Lolll
@@Madflight2 hey it might be funny, but I'm not flying so Fuck it.
This is a low effort bait post.
The plane in the current Air Alaska story was only (10) weeks old.
May all who perished, Rest in Peace always 🙏
I'd like a video about the B-24 that crashed in the empire state building in 1945 ( Fog could help hide the anachronistic buildings of the city )
1989 was not the dark ages. i was 30, and the Munich / Man Utd air disaster was in the 60's. The Potomac disaster had already happened.
Did they have de -ice boots? Not that useful I guess while waiting to take off.
I can see the problem with not wanting to shut down with no way to restart, but ice is ice.
Ridiculous and outrageous, but I can mostly see the cascade of events gelling it together in to a fatal error of judgement under pressure. Low hours on type.
Probably a college kid as a despatcher; although he made some correct decisions on losing fuel weight, and was forced in to other decisions by weight limits and fuel needs.
The airline, the schedule and the revised manifest put the Captain in to the wrong frame of mind. Still, why did he take off?
Someone convinced the Captain the plane would be all right.
Still, another delay before take - off should have pulled his mental circuit breaker and make him say he's not flying any further.
The airline was willing to scrub half the flights the day before, but not now they would have a stuck airplane in Dryden.
I won't attribute this to the pilots only because I wasn't in their shoes, and I'm not a pilot anyway; but talk about several accidents waiting to happen to one flight.
God rest all who perished; and for what?
F28 has “hot wings”. Bleed air from the engines is used for wing anti ice (WAI). De ice boots are used on turboprop a/c that typically don’t generate enough airflow for a bleed system so they use inflatable boots.
Aircraft investigators tell us that air crashes result from a series of issues anyone one of which if it not had occurred would have prevented the accident.
@@paulu7751 Thanks. Makes sense of course. You won't see de - ice boots on a jet, but I'm wondering if bleed air will only help accumulation in - flight, so wouldn't prevent a stationary build up of snow and I've on the ground.
@@deepthinker999 In this case though, despite logistical pressures and lack of experience on type, it was singularly just not safe to take off at that point. We don't know what they were thinking or seeing so it's better to let them rest in peace.
@@pomerau Agreed
Okay. See. Right there! I would have said we are NOT going!
A situation of overwhelming incompetence , negligence and stupidity . And NOTED . RIP the lives lost caused by this wholly unnecessary crash . This was no accident , in fact not many crashes are “accidents “ .
Obviously this plane should never have been allowed into passenger service with inoperative APU’s. That was only the start of a chain of events leading to this catastrophe. Competitive pressure or not, safety cannot be compromised ever.
I was sitting there shaking my head in disbelief almost the entire runtime of this video. With every new bit of text that came on csreen, there just seemed to be more wtf-ery piled on top. Maybe I'm biased from watching so match of TFC videos, but I'm astonished at how apparently nobody seemed to think this was a bad idea. A disaster waiting to happen (and it didn't have to wait long).
I am not a pilot but fail to believe how this was allowed to happen in a country like Canada. I accept that the training was deficient but surely anybody who has even the most basic of aviation training ought to be aware that ice adds weight and reduces the lift supplied by the wings. This is especially the case during take off. Factor in a slushy runway which retards the wheels. It absolutely beggars belief that a highly experienced crew attempted to take off in such circumstances.
Bro forgot to recreate JAL A350 Crash 💀
The accident aircraft was C-FONF, not C-FONG.
0:39 Winnipeng? Look at the bottom. Got to work on the overlays
Gotta be careful when flying those Fokkers...
1989, thought just 4 days ago.
Hope now more caution is taken .
Was a real Fokker of a day to be flying that aircraft.
Lol.
@@seminnesotatrainsairplanes839 🤪
Is this XP12?
Had these guidelines been followed, USAir 405 would not have crashed.