@maydayfire It can and it does and it is used all the time usually as the primary source too. Your phone version is less accurate derivative of what is used on aircraft and other global navigation systems used now for about two decades
@gacwalker I forgot to add. the GPS only calculates the speed of the aircraft over the ground....not the speed relative to the air. It is the airspeed that is most crucial, not the speed traveling over the ground
@mPky1 They build the E-Jet and the 190 series can more or less compete with the 737 and A320... Embraer is successful because they are not reckless from a business perspective. Trying to compete with Airbus and Boeing is a foolhardy feat... Proof is in the L-1011, although one of the greatest airliners ever built, Lockheed didn't have the ground to stand on against the two giants of the airliner world...
It seems to me and from watching other investigation shows, the computers dump and shutdown all the auto stuff whenever some critical fsilure occurs. It seems that many times the pilots forget to power up again and crash,
When they slowed down the aircraft, the flight management systems were able to compensate by adjusting thrust and attitude to maintain flight.
When they lost airspeed indication, and the auto-flight control disengaged, then dropping airspeed, even by ten knots, without also lowering the nose of the aircraft, could induce a stall.
Airbus puts the joystick on the left, to free the pilot's hand for the throttles. Since there is no tactile feedback, the French feel it doesn't matter.
@skeilak im guessing the joy is on the right for the copilot or is it always on the left?having played lots of computer games, i kknow for a fact my left hand is not as good as my right,and that's for games.
I only commented on the ten knots bandwidth because the prog said the safe range was give or take ten knots, up and below.
Fly-by-wire fighter planes always locate the stick on the right, and the throttle on the left.
I would guess you are correct about the copilot's stick.
That plus/minus 10 kts. flight envelope does seem very tight, but I have heard that said before.
Of course the real problem is, whenever humans are suddenly hit with a confusing critical situation, only thorough training can stop a disaster. That's a lesson these shows drive home again, and again.
why do they always say the first priority is to eliminate terrorism. almost no planes have ever been blown up mid flight lockerbie is the only one I can think of. you would hope they ignore nonsense causes and focus on real sources of trouble.
a few days ago i heavily insulted somebody on some other air crash video, because he was ranting about air france. i think i have to apologize. there are quiet a few air france crashes...
As a software developer, common-sense says if all pitot tubes speed readings are unreliable, then rely on on average speed of ground radar or GPS speed which probably planes are already equipped with.
Why are there no "remote flight recorders" ? Or a distributed flight recording system, shared on multiple locations inside a plane ? (wings; tail; rudder) Collecting live flight data, received by antennas and/or satellites, must be possible today ?
I watched this documentary before going to Russia this past fall. Hurricane Irene cancelled my original Aeroflot flight so then they rebooked me on Air France. My god wasn't I scared! I remember thinking why did I watch this before flying on Air France!? Hell...why did I watch this before flying period!?
@Timic83pronc Holy shit, another Aeroflot survivor. I flew them in 1993. It was the worst experience in my life. Aeroflot being the world's most deadly and most hijacked airline in aviation history (by a long shot ) probably didn't help my anxiety. Flying a Tu-154 from Miami to Iceland to Moscow was hell on earth. The plane was hot (like 98 degrees the entire flight), the stewardesses were rude and unhospitable, and the food was a step away from the barf it later became.
wow these bbc documentaries are way better, they dont spend a heck lot of time on the passengers, they focus on the plane and the crew better than natgeo does
The aforementioned A320 footage was famous in the US as the new 737 400-600 series had just come out and our media ran the 1988 A320 crash up the flagpole for Boeing. Most TV outlets said the plane was being flown by remote control when it crashed. For about a decade that false story was propogated in this country. It's one reason it took two decades for american carriers to use the A320. So believe me, glutinous, I know what I'm talking about and am used to correcting people on that footage.
Funny how its ignored that B737 had rudder design problem which brought two 737s down in early and mid 90´s before fixed. But of course rarely anyone remembers that.
@MyAccount4TrollingU OK, good for you. and what does Islam have to do with this? The plane went down because the pitot tubes were giving them a wrong AS reading and the pilots failed to put the nose down when they were clearly in a stall. Yup, sounds like Islam alright...have another drink, pal.
@tosa275 Oh, bs; ask any Jew or Christian and they'll say that if God wishes it, that plane is going down. Ask any Aleister Crowley fellating teen about it and they'll say Lucifer wishes the plane to go down. It's not about religion as much as it was about the clogged pitot tubes. With so much that you can blame on Islam or any religious thought including atheism, can't you just let AF 447 go w/o the redneck neocon garbage? Ya let's start WW3 w/ Iran bc you gubers and jews want it.
The opening statement about Airbus not having previous fatalities is wrong - The 3rd Airbus manufactured, had 3 fatalities when a french pilot crashed into trees at the end of the runway, which was a bad introduction to the Airbus worldwide. Can't remember the YouTube title though.
@glutinousmaximus WRONG - The opening statement says the A330 had never had a fatality. The crash that you are mentioning is the A320 which is newer and not a widebody. So their statement is indeed correct.
@StollandSon Sorry - It seems you're WRONG!! My memory was also a little faulty on the number of fatalities, which was actually 5. A clip from Wikipedia: "...On 30 June 1994, trouble struck during certification of the Pratt & Whitney engine when an A330 crashed near Toulouse.[38] Both pilots and the five passengers died.[39] The flight was designed to test autopilot response during a one-engine-off worst-case scenario with the centre of gravity near its aft limit...." Check it...
@glutinousmaximus Again, seven people were on board that TEST FLIGHT and all died. They were all pilots, flight engineers, and airbus engineers on a TEST FLIGHT. (Not paying passengers like the June 26, 1988 A320 crash at an air show that was filmed which killed three on the third A320 ever built seen here watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE )
@glutinousmaximus Ya, it was on Mayday, and it was a 320. The crash in question was on June 26, 1988 and it was indeed three people who died. It was in Habsheim, France and went down when the pilot did a low altitude pass at an airshow with people on board. The AP turned on thinking he was about to land and brought the plane down. THIS is the plane in the footage you are referring to as the crash was filmed. That's the youtube footage, so you are indeed wrong.
@StollandSon Though in my understanding computer did not prevent them from pulling up because of landing mode, but because their speed was so slow that they were about to stall if it had been pulled up.
The landing mode just simply cant work that way if you think logically... What if there is go around in low altitude? Surely it does not prevent pilot from doing it.
So it was stall protection, not landing mode which acted. And probably it saved plane from stalling to the forest.
@glutinousmaximus And lastly, the airline listed for your A330 incident is Airbus Industries - because it was a test flgith loaded with test pilots and flight engineers.
Whereas the 1988 crash that is the youtube video you were originally referring to is an Air France crash and had 138 paying PASSENGERS on board.
I flew out of this - increase the speed and pitch of the aircraft. The pilot was distracted by flight warnings??? C'mon - "task saturated" give me a break, fly the damm plane! Great 10 other crews sat there as well and take manual control, FLY the aircraft.
I dont understand how heated pitot tubes are suseptable to iceing upon contact with super cooled water, yet the aircraft's unheated aluminum skin is not? shouldn't the entire aircraft have been transformed into a block of ice as the super cooled water struck the metal surfaces?
@goodkarma33 No, because the leading edges of the aircraft wings are extremely smooth and polished and are heated making it really had for ice to grip on them. Pilot tube however are front facing super thin tubes, which offer much more grip for the ice to accumulate. What is dumb is that if they would have used GPS speed for aproximate refference, thy might have been able to detect precursor sign of stall
why would a plane that is 350 miles of the coast of Brazil be manouvering around storm clouds? shouldnt they be well above the clouds by then?? dont passenger planes travel at 35000 ft (11000 m) ???
This is so much better than the other program I saw on this accident. This deals much more with the actual events and accident. The other one was mostly about the human side and the victims families and very little about the possible faults the crew was faced with. As it was, after the recorders were found, they now know the Captain was not in the cockpit when the autopilot disconnected.
@ArshavinatorTheTres why would ships and aircraft's disappear in the ocean ? its probably the captain or the crews fault, just like the titanic when it hit the iceberg.
The trick with GPS is that most rules aren't written to allow its use as a primary flight instrument. You're more likely to find little 1- or 2-person planes operating under "experimental" rules capable of flying by GPS than you are in a highly sophisticated fly-by-wire system in a major airliner.
This had to be mostly pilot error. Even with the automatic systems down, the plane still had thrust. They still had power, altitude, aerodynamic lift and plenty of fuel. This plane should not have gone down. It must have been the pilot's inability or inexperience that failed to manage that crisis. Also adrenaline. When it's your neck out there, you're going to worry about dieing, that will cause you to make poor judgements and that effect is not well addressed in an after-the-fact simulation.
One thing i think this highlights is automation has kinda "slowed down" pilots these days? Sure there are less crashes due to autopilot, but when it switches off mistakes seem to happen more often? If they was flying that from lift off to landing, no issues would have happened because they would have been in control at ALL times, knowing exactly what the plane is doing. With autopilot they was only in full control for a few minutes and yet managed to crash a plane!
@lucabaracuda987 - they could use gps to get airspeed, if planes use gps then you just take two or more co-ords and the time it took to go from one to the next one. but that'd only be for what already passed.
@lucabaracuda987 It was originally developed to locate targets & missile positions. They already have that ability for aircraft. It was developed for that basically.
seriously ive seen quite a few air accidents with this investigation videos, and some of them were cause by pilots not knowing the speed. I can see my fricken car speed all the time with my GPS WHY in the name of GOD aren't planes speed told by sattelites rather than rely-ing on shitty tubes.
This is an interesting theory, but if super cooled water froze the piton probes, would such conditions not also cause icing on the flight surfaces? If this also happened, and the anti-icing features on the wings failed to clear the ice (like the heating element in the probe could not deal with that icing), then would this not also explain the inability of the pilots to keep the plane in the air?
@720grandmaslap I was in a plane that was hit by lightning. Pretty horrifying until we realized we weren't plummeting to the ground. But the lights and engines were out for awhile before the Captian got us up and running again.
@wierdwesterner Not at all, but remember that small surfaces will ice up first. Due to the pitot tubes being small and prominantly placed they would be a prime candidate for icing, heating device or not. The Airbus DAIDS give the pilot sufficiant warning of ice on the control surfaces.
This documentary has been made obsolete by the find of the voice & data recorders recently. The captain was sleeping and a rather inexperienced co-pilot pitched the nose up all the time till impact. The captain with his sleepy eyes didn't even notice. Even without airspeed data you can keep a plane from stalling with nose slightly down and enough thrust. Pitch, altitude and thrust data were not compromised. Pitch was the issue.
@Jeeef100 yes because it clearly states that when a pitot tube gets blocked the air speed will drop... there was a big section in the documentary explaining that the pilot couldn't rely on his Primary Flight Display because the pitot tubes where blocked... why do you think they crashed? maybe you need to watch it again.
@ryan1111111555555555 : pitots have been blocked before. The problem was that the inexperienced joystick copilot at the helm didn't realize that the only way to get out of a stall is to pitch the nose slightly down, whatever airspeed data say or don't say. Altitude meters can fail too but in that case dislodge the pressure compensation. In a glider you know pretty well you're going down by your ears hurting.
@flemishdreams Oh yes I understand that, just because the Pilot couldn't rely on his PFD doesn't mean the plane should crash, as it stated in the documentary, there's a procedure for this, but I was replying to the guy who had no idea about the film he just watched.
@flemishdreams That's because stall recovery was not trained on the line at the time, only "approach to stall" recognition. On approach to stall the book said to set the pitch to 5 degrees nose-up and select TOGA - and even this only applied to low altitude. The last time any of the crew flew an actual stall recovery was in a single-engine trainer years before when training for their PPL (or French equivalent).
@ryan1111111555555555 Only the airspeed indication was non-functional (and in fact it came back online shortly before they stalled out). The altimeter, VSI and ADI (artificial horizon) were all working fine on the PFD throughout. They crashed because the airline (and the industry as a whole) were not training stall recognition properly.
@turricaned to be honest I think I could've recovered that stall, you can feel it in your guts when you're stalling, you lift out of your seat, I would've put the nose 5 degrees down and throttle on full power to gain air speed, then I would've tried to slightly pull back on the yoke to see if the G-force would push me into my seat, if it does then you know the plane is flying with sufficient air speed, if the floating feeling didnt go away, I would've pushed the nose forward again.
@ryan1111111555555555 You need to take two things into account before making a statement like that - 1. Swept-wing jets do not stall in the same manner as straight-wing trainers or fighters and 2. It's one thing to recover in daylight and good weather and quite another in the dead of night in the vicinity of bad weather. Also important is that you can't always rely on physiology to tell the truth - witness the Flash Airlines crash for an example.
@turricaned I'm a software engineer, not a pilot - and thanks to a very kind TRE friend of mine I was given the opportunity to attempt the accident sequence in a full-motion A320 simulator. We had to wind the trim all the way back manually as the A320 seems to have hard autotrim limits, but I managed to recover from the stall. However, I knew what was coming and had rehearsed the escape in my mind for hours. These guys had no such luxury.
@turricaned No I understand that, but my point was that I wouldn't have done the same thing they did, when your stalling you need nose down to pick up air speed, they didnt even do that, let alone actually follow the stall procedure.
@ryan1111111555555555 No, the PF did not follow any published procedure and the PNF did not seem to feel he had the authority to overrule him (despite being more experienced, they were the same rank, and the Captain had designated the PF as relief pilot). The point is that whatever we know now about stall, real stalls were not being trained on the line - only approach to stall, and the technique for ATS was not applicable at high altitude.
Guys, how many flights are there each day. Close to 1,000,000. How many fatal crashes has there been. One every 5 years, if that. And, there hasn't been any fatal crashes in 2011 and of course 2012. Come on, you guys don't know how safe it is to fly.
@StarTrekRocks100 umm I know flying is safe but there have been a lot of fatal flights in 2011 such as the one that killed the Russian hockey team (and I believe there was also the one which killed the Argentinan Presdient) - I agree flying is safe but there have been crashes recently resulting in death
@StarTrekRocks100 - there's been way more plane crashes than that. true not always fatal but - who'd want to end up in hospital or even lose their luggage, that alone can ruin your life. medical insurance, loss of work, disability, permanent impairment, loss of important memories etc and objects. all make for a very very shitty existence.
23 commercial crashes in 2011 with 470 fatalities.Still is the safest form of transport but with about 5 dollars per ticket could be twice as safe. People do not value life enough
@StarTrekRocks100 That may be the case....but putting one's life into another derlicts hands at 30,000-40,000 feet in the air. There should be no accidents caused by human error....more so with trivial and correctable matters that bring down most commercial aircraft. It aint like you can jump out or call someone that the pilot or crew is seriously screwing up...and about to kill you and hundreds more.
I think having 3 tubes that are the same design makes them all prone to the same problem. There are very differenet methods of making an air speed indicator,,, and air speed is too vital not to have a back up system of a different design..
Why don't they just use GPS data to determine the airspeed as a backup incase the pitot-tubes fail? The Garmain that I use in my car can also tell speed, why can't airplanes?
@jancoetzer12 There is a large differers in airspeed and groundspeed. De latter can't feature in climb and descent. That is the same in the car, it doesen't show correct speed over and down the hills.
@Foxx1981 For your information, I am a student pilot and I DO know about this kind of stuff, I just forgot for about a minute or so. You shouldn't call people stupid morons when you have no idea what their background is. Think twice before you make your next comment, idiot!
@jancoetzer12 : I do gliding. I would like to convince any commercial flier to practice gliding as a hobby or whatever. If things break down, even all engines, any plane becomes a glider. It's pretty ignorant to call anybody a moron unless he is a moron ;-)
I just found this transcript online.. Very disturbing to know that an inexperienced copilot made a series of grave mistakes.. RIP all those innocent lives
@ROTAX129 Airbus is safer than Boeing... fact, you cant argue it, because its the stone cold truth, go look it up, or do you want me to do it for you? either way you'll see the truth, oh and also, Airbus have sold more planes per year than Boeing for the past 6 years, fact, so suck on that you Boeing fanboy :)
@thefencejumperengine please tell me what type of wing Boeing 777 uses. Hint: the same type.
Please tell me what all new Beings use for controls? Hint: the same concept of fly-by-wire electronics with a flight management and autopilot computers.
Please tell me which aircraft has statistically, per plane produced, had more accidents because of mechanical breakdowns? Hint: it's an american company.
I like Boeings, but you Boeing fans are uneducated and stupid.
@thefencejumperengine no you don't, you're some spotty little teen cunt that likes to spew disinformative bullshit all over the internet to feel important while you sit in your moms basement in your unwashed semen-encrusted undershorts
@bg11215 It can trigger a stall warning, which is a lot different than an actual stall. The stall warning sounds a significant amount of time before the aircraft is in danger of entering the stall regime.
Actually, airplanes are probably the safest mode of transportation. But, nothing in the world is 100% safe, including airplanes. By the way, my uncle is a pilot so listen to this.
You would have to fly from New York to Los Angeles 250 times each day for 2 years just to have a 1% chance of having an airplane crash.
So, technically, it's safer to fly on an airplane than cross the street.
@StarTrekRocks100 wait! 250 times a day for 2 years?!!! oh my God! that is crazy and a lot of flying. and you wouldn't even think that it's safer to fly than to cross the street. that is something else. it's been years since i've been on a plane, and i still get nervous even thinking about flying on a plane......lol
@StarTrekRocks100 While this is true, you're much more likely to walk away from a car crash or being run over than surviving a plane crash. Especially one that has fallen 37,000 feet in to the sea.
@StarTrekRocks100 yeah I know. its just that if somethign does go wrong, it just seems like there isnt much middle ground going by these episodes. you generally die...and before you die, you have a 3minute horror ride on the way down. and you dont have any semblence of control over your fate, unlike a car when there is a mechanical problem you can just try and pull over. but what are you going to do? I guess you have to still fly.
i would be interested in seeing the probability of surviving an aircraft crash compared to the probability of surviving an auto accident, pedestrian/auto accident bike/auto accident and then compare these probabilities with the probability of each of these accidents occurring separately to reach an overall survival probability in the case of an airplane crash...i forgot most of the statistics i learned, but is a two-way anova appropriate here? or pearson-r? any takers?
"They were not successful in surviving the event" <-- Euphemism much?
lekoman 1 day ago
Comment removed
kmerszei 1 day ago
why cant they use GPS for a back up way to calculate speed of the aircraft? it works on my Android phone, why cant it work for a plane?
maydayfire 2 days ago
@maydayfire It can and it does and it is used all the time usually as the primary source too. Your phone version is less accurate derivative of what is used on aircraft and other global navigation systems used now for about two decades
gacwalker 1 day ago
@gacwalker I forgot to add. the GPS only calculates the speed of the aircraft over the ground....not the speed relative to the air. It is the airspeed that is most crucial, not the speed traveling over the ground
gacwalker 1 day ago
@gacwalker then how come GPS speed estimates did not back up the pitot tubes that malfunctioned in this flight?
maydayfire 10 hours ago
that was some weak ass simulation, how about an over the top one with a kick ass storm.
Fuxy22 2 days ago
if i got that response wrong; plz forgive me and let me know who i should respond to i didn't want to upsett anyone tyvm
Pebscorner 2 days ago
@aircrashuploader; thank God for yr girlfriend....... tymv for uploading all these videos
Pebscorner 2 days ago
@aircrashuploader i flew that plane once but i wasnt flying that time coz i wanted to spend time with my girlfriend
lukeyyanstee 3 days ago
33:07 - Instant popsicle.
denelson83 5 days ago
I wonder when embraer willbuild a bigger plane to challenge a320¿
mPky1 5 days ago
@mPky1 They build the E-Jet and the 190 series can more or less compete with the 737 and A320... Embraer is successful because they are not reckless from a business perspective. Trying to compete with Airbus and Boeing is a foolhardy feat... Proof is in the L-1011, although one of the greatest airliners ever built, Lockheed didn't have the ground to stand on against the two giants of the airliner world...
kmerszei 1 day ago
It seems to me and from watching other investigation shows, the computers dump and shutdown all the auto stuff whenever some critical fsilure occurs. It seems that many times the pilots forget to power up again and crash,
mPky1 5 days ago
As usual its the pilots that killed all those people.
taags 6 days ago
@taags look at the history of airbus planes before condeming the pilots
krugerfuchs 6 days ago
why do air us put the joysticks on the left hand side when most ppl are right?
mPky1 1 week ago
why do they say ten knots makes a lot of diff and yet they dropped a lot more when slowing down not to stress plane when entering the storm.
mPky1 1 week ago
@mPky1
When they slowed down the aircraft, the flight management systems were able to compensate by adjusting thrust and attitude to maintain flight.
When they lost airspeed indication, and the auto-flight control disengaged, then dropping airspeed, even by ten knots, without also lowering the nose of the aircraft, could induce a stall.
Airbus puts the joystick on the left, to free the pilot's hand for the throttles. Since there is no tactile feedback, the French feel it doesn't matter.
skeilak 6 days ago
@skeilak im guessing the joy is on the right for the copilot or is it always on the left?having played lots of computer games, i kknow for a fact my left hand is not as good as my right,and that's for games.
I only commented on the ten knots bandwidth because the prog said the safe range was give or take ten knots, up and below.
mPky1 5 days ago
@mPky1
Fly-by-wire fighter planes always locate the stick on the right, and the throttle on the left.
I would guess you are correct about the copilot's stick.
That plus/minus 10 kts. flight envelope does seem very tight, but I have heard that said before.
Of course the real problem is, whenever humans are suddenly hit with a confusing critical situation, only thorough training can stop a disaster. That's a lesson these shows drive home again, and again.
skeilak 5 days ago
yes other flight crash shows love to have survivors tell us how scared they were etc.
mPky1 1 week ago
why do they always say the first priority is to eliminate terrorism. almost no planes have ever been blown up mid flight lockerbie is the only one I can think of. you would hope they ignore nonsense causes and focus on real sources of trouble.
mPky1 1 week ago
@mPky1 air india 182 is another a number of mid air break ups have happened i knew someone killed in one
krugerfuchs 6 days ago
@krugerfuchs thanx for pting out air india.'still the terrorism count is small and hardly warrants top priority over others.
mPky1 6 days ago
what a mystery! this would have been one of the scriest crashes to ever expeiriance!
celineprettygirl 1 week ago
"They were not successful in surviving the event." - A compelling theory.
TheLightningStalker 1 week ago
a few days ago i heavily insulted somebody on some other air crash video, because he was ranting about air france. i think i have to apologize. there are quiet a few air france crashes...
beidlgsicht 1 week ago
As a software developer, common-sense says if all pitot tubes speed readings are unreliable, then rely on on average speed of ground radar or GPS speed which probably planes are already equipped with.
miscs7 1 week ago in playlist history ch
Why are there no "remote flight recorders" ? Or a distributed flight recording system, shared on multiple locations inside a plane ? (wings; tail; rudder) Collecting live flight data, received by antennas and/or satellites, must be possible today ?
bekohl 1 week ago
Comment removed
KILLUSALL92 1 week ago
I watched this documentary before going to Russia this past fall. Hurricane Irene cancelled my original Aeroflot flight so then they rebooked me on Air France. My god wasn't I scared! I remember thinking why did I watch this before flying on Air France!? Hell...why did I watch this before flying period!?
Timic83pronc 2 weeks ago
@Timic83pronc Holy shit, another Aeroflot survivor. I flew them in 1993. It was the worst experience in my life. Aeroflot being the world's most deadly and most hijacked airline in aviation history (by a long shot ) probably didn't help my anxiety. Flying a Tu-154 from Miami to Iceland to Moscow was hell on earth. The plane was hot (like 98 degrees the entire flight), the stewardesses were rude and unhospitable, and the food was a step away from the barf it later became.
StollandSon 1 week ago 6
AIRBUS IS CRAP.
MyAccount4TrollingU 2 weeks ago
@MyAccount4TrollingU No, your sense of logic is crap.
StollandSon 1 week ago
14:53 Route Discontinuity on FMC.
zulquarnainanwar 2 weeks ago
wow these bbc documentaries are way better, they dont spend a heck lot of time on the passengers, they focus on the plane and the crew better than natgeo does
mahirharoon 2 weeks ago
The aforementioned A320 footage was famous in the US as the new 737 400-600 series had just come out and our media ran the 1988 A320 crash up the flagpole for Boeing. Most TV outlets said the plane was being flown by remote control when it crashed. For about a decade that false story was propogated in this country. It's one reason it took two decades for american carriers to use the A320. So believe me, glutinous, I know what I'm talking about and am used to correcting people on that footage.
StollandSon 2 weeks ago
@StollandSon Yes you are absolutely right.
Funny how its ignored that B737 had rudder design problem which brought two 737s down in early and mid 90´s before fixed. But of course rarely anyone remembers that.
Pvjinflight 2 weeks ago
@StollandSon FUCK ISLAM
MyAccount4TrollingU 2 weeks ago
@MyAccount4TrollingU OK, good for you. and what does Islam have to do with this? The plane went down because the pitot tubes were giving them a wrong AS reading and the pilots failed to put the nose down when they were clearly in a stall. Yup, sounds like Islam alright...have another drink, pal.
StollandSon 1 week ago
@StollandSon Islam has an answer for this accident.If Allah wishes so,passengers should die anyway..Ask to any saudi guy.He will answer so...
tosa275 1 week ago
@tosa275 Oh, bs; ask any Jew or Christian and they'll say that if God wishes it, that plane is going down. Ask any Aleister Crowley fellating teen about it and they'll say Lucifer wishes the plane to go down. It's not about religion as much as it was about the clogged pitot tubes. With so much that you can blame on Islam or any religious thought including atheism, can't you just let AF 447 go w/o the redneck neocon garbage? Ya let's start WW3 w/ Iran bc you gubers and jews want it.
StollandSon 1 week ago
0:23 ------ 2e? retarde?
MegaFlights 2 weeks ago
The opening statement about Airbus not having previous fatalities is wrong - The 3rd Airbus manufactured, had 3 fatalities when a french pilot crashed into trees at the end of the runway, which was a bad introduction to the Airbus worldwide. Can't remember the YouTube title though.
glutinousmaximus 3 weeks ago
@glutinousmaximus WRONG - The opening statement says the A330 had never had a fatality. The crash that you are mentioning is the A320 which is newer and not a widebody. So their statement is indeed correct.
StollandSon 2 weeks ago
@StollandSon Sorry - It seems you're WRONG!! My memory was also a little faulty on the number of fatalities, which was actually 5. A clip from Wikipedia: "...On 30 June 1994, trouble struck during certification of the Pratt & Whitney engine when an A330 crashed near Toulouse.[38] Both pilots and the five passengers died.[39] The flight was designed to test autopilot response during a one-engine-off worst-case scenario with the centre of gravity near its aft limit...." Check it...
glutinousmaximus 2 weeks ago
@glutinousmaximus Ooops, I did it again! The fatalities were actually 7!
glutinousmaximus 2 weeks ago
@glutinousmaximus Again, seven people were on board that TEST FLIGHT and all died. They were all pilots, flight engineers, and airbus engineers on a TEST FLIGHT. (Not paying passengers like the June 26, 1988 A320 crash at an air show that was filmed which killed three on the third A320 ever built seen here watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE )
StollandSon 2 weeks ago
@glutinousmaximus Ya, it was on Mayday, and it was a 320. The crash in question was on June 26, 1988 and it was indeed three people who died. It was in Habsheim, France and went down when the pilot did a low altitude pass at an airshow with people on board. The AP turned on thinking he was about to land and brought the plane down. THIS is the plane in the footage you are referring to as the crash was filmed. That's the youtube footage, so you are indeed wrong.
StollandSon 2 weeks ago
@StollandSon Though in my understanding computer did not prevent them from pulling up because of landing mode, but because their speed was so slow that they were about to stall if it had been pulled up.
The landing mode just simply cant work that way if you think logically... What if there is go around in low altitude? Surely it does not prevent pilot from doing it.
So it was stall protection, not landing mode which acted. And probably it saved plane from stalling to the forest.
Pvjinflight 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
StollandSon 2 weeks ago
@glutinousmaximus check it out; here's the youtube footage you are talking about. Clearly an A320.
watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE
StollandSon 2 weeks ago
@glutinousmaximus And lastly, the airline listed for your A330 incident is Airbus Industries - because it was a test flgith loaded with test pilots and flight engineers.
Whereas the 1988 crash that is the youtube video you were originally referring to is an Air France crash and had 138 paying PASSENGERS on board.
Sorry, you're wrong; you might want to check it.
StollandSon 2 weeks ago
I flew out of this - increase the speed and pitch of the aircraft. The pilot was distracted by flight warnings??? C'mon - "task saturated" give me a break, fly the damm plane! Great 10 other crews sat there as well and take manual control, FLY the aircraft.
OnlineAutoAuctions 3 weeks ago
I dont understand how heated pitot tubes are suseptable to iceing upon contact with super cooled water, yet the aircraft's unheated aluminum skin is not? shouldn't the entire aircraft have been transformed into a block of ice as the super cooled water struck the metal surfaces?
goodkarma33 3 weeks ago
@goodkarma33 No, because the leading edges of the aircraft wings are extremely smooth and polished and are heated making it really had for ice to grip on them. Pilot tube however are front facing super thin tubes, which offer much more grip for the ice to accumulate. What is dumb is that if they would have used GPS speed for aproximate refference, thy might have been able to detect precursor sign of stall
julienjjj 3 weeks ago
plz upload the Polish Airlines crash landing
FIFAflex1 3 weeks ago
@FIFAflex1 yeah man when polish do something good like they always have nobody gives a dam
55dickhead 3 weeks ago
They found the black box, if your interested look it up, a pilot wrote a book about it a couple weeks ago.
charles4hl 3 weeks ago
Une perte de la vitesse, une assiette à cabré, de la glace sur le pitot?
flylisbone1 3 weeks ago
this would make a bad in flight film
JoblessDerrick 3 weeks ago
really? most commerical pilots do not come from retired air force?
flameout12345 3 weeks ago
ive been on airfrance before
ultimateaero97099 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheRdAussie 3 weeks ago
why would a plane that is 350 miles of the coast of Brazil be manouvering around storm clouds? shouldnt they be well above the clouds by then?? dont passenger planes travel at 35000 ft (11000 m) ???
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1greenMitsi Didn't you hear earlier that thunderstorms range in altitude from sea level to 50,000ft (16.7km)
TheRdAussie 3 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi like they said @ 17:42 thunderstorms could go to 50,000ft so it's best to deviate if possible.
rekarts 3 weeks ago
@rekarts arent the highest clouds found at around 20,000 ft? are those storms from space...? sorry i still dont get it
1greenMitsi 3 weeks ago
@1greenMitsi the earth's atmosphere, the troposphere, reaches from the surface to about 56,000ft...thunderstorms can occur anywhere in this region.
rekarts 3 weeks ago
This is so much better than the other program I saw on this accident. This deals much more with the actual events and accident. The other one was mostly about the human side and the victims families and very little about the possible faults the crew was faced with. As it was, after the recorders were found, they now know the Captain was not in the cockpit when the autopilot disconnected.
av8rdav 3 weeks ago
Air France always has drama!
natefan 1 month ago 15
does anyone know what the Bermuda triangle is about ?
Gencturk92 1 month ago
@Gencturk92 Bermuda Triangle is known for ships and aircrafts disappearing in mysterious circumstances
ArshavinatorTheTres 4 weeks ago
@ArshavinatorTheTres why would ships and aircraft's disappear in the ocean ? its probably the captain or the crews fault, just like the titanic when it hit the iceberg.
Gencturk92 4 weeks ago
@Gencturk92 Yes i know that but thats what its known for. If you got a problem then i suggest you go and change the wikipedia entry.
ArshavinatorTheTres 3 weeks ago
The trick with GPS is that most rules aren't written to allow its use as a primary flight instrument. You're more likely to find little 1- or 2-person planes operating under "experimental" rules capable of flying by GPS than you are in a highly sophisticated fly-by-wire system in a major airliner.
pfeilspitze 1 month ago
This had to be mostly pilot error. Even with the automatic systems down, the plane still had thrust. They still had power, altitude, aerodynamic lift and plenty of fuel. This plane should not have gone down. It must have been the pilot's inability or inexperience that failed to manage that crisis. Also adrenaline. When it's your neck out there, you're going to worry about dieing, that will cause you to make poor judgements and that effect is not well addressed in an after-the-fact simulation.
sunnchilde 1 month ago
there are not even close to a million flights a day. It still very safe to fly.
futureATC6 1 month ago
One thing i think this highlights is automation has kinda "slowed down" pilots these days? Sure there are less crashes due to autopilot, but when it switches off mistakes seem to happen more often? If they was flying that from lift off to landing, no issues would have happened because they would have been in control at ALL times, knowing exactly what the plane is doing. With autopilot they was only in full control for a few minutes and yet managed to crash a plane!
AdamWebb1982 1 month ago
storms at 35000 feet ??? could it b
sertox12345 1 month ago
what we learned from this documentary? Never use airplanes
Kunggi1 1 month ago
this might have been downed due to the wildly changing magnetic field of the planet over the south american landmass.
NWOareScum 1 month ago
lucabaracuda! why dont you go suck on P tube?! fucktard! it's called "air speed" moron! how do you get that from a GPS ?
michaelbjames82 1 month ago
@michaelbjames82 yeah and ? GPS doesnt stand for ground. I bet if they try hard they can make a system that will tell speed of planes via satellites.
lucabaracuda987 1 month ago
@lucabaracuda987 - they could use gps to get airspeed, if planes use gps then you just take two or more co-ords and the time it took to go from one to the next one. but that'd only be for what already passed.
NWOareScum 1 month ago
@lucabaracuda987 It was originally developed to locate targets & missile positions. They already have that ability for aircraft. It was developed for that basically.
shananagans5 1 month ago
14:40 The Rio de Janeiro city is quite misplaced on the map.About 1000 miles, 1600 km nortth from the real location... =O
Leonardodemiranda 1 month ago
Bermuda Triangle!!!
MrRoyalSatin 1 month ago
why the super cool water only freezes at the pitot tube?why not at every other surfaces such as front mirror in the cockpit?
KaKaGaNu 1 month ago
aliens!!!!
KaKaGaNu 1 month ago
first rule of flying is aviate isnt it???speed and pitch surely are the basics!
simonfrmgb 1 month ago
seriously ive seen quite a few air accidents with this investigation videos, and some of them were cause by pilots not knowing the speed. I can see my fricken car speed all the time with my GPS WHY in the name of GOD aren't planes speed told by sattelites rather than rely-ing on shitty tubes.
lucabaracuda987 1 month ago
@lucabaracuda987
@lucabaracuda987
What an ignorant fellow......
waspy88 1 month ago
this was the most amazing documentary EVER!
jpa6791 1 month ago
This is an interesting theory, but if super cooled water froze the piton probes, would such conditions not also cause icing on the flight surfaces? If this also happened, and the anti-icing features on the wings failed to clear the ice (like the heating element in the probe could not deal with that icing), then would this not also explain the inability of the pilots to keep the plane in the air?
frigatenerd 1 month ago
amazing documentary! Thanks for uploading
suddenurge 1 month ago 11
Everyone needs to know the safety of a plane.
CoolMCVids 1 month ago
You have 300x the chance of being struck by lightning than of being killed in a plane.
720grandmaslap 1 month ago
@720grandmaslap I was in a plane that was hit by lightning. Pretty horrifying until we realized we weren't plummeting to the ground. But the lights and engines were out for awhile before the Captian got us up and running again.
megoofychick 1 month ago
If the pitot tubes are frozen up, is it beyond the realms of possibility that some or possibly all of the control surfaces were frozen as well?
wierdwesterner 1 month ago
@wierdwesterner Not at all, but remember that small surfaces will ice up first. Due to the pitot tubes being small and prominantly placed they would be a prime candidate for icing, heating device or not. The Airbus DAIDS give the pilot sufficiant warning of ice on the control surfaces.
FionnMarr 1 month ago
20:01 That storm looks just like the U.S. lol
FANJG24 1 month ago
This documentary has been made obsolete by the find of the voice & data recorders recently. The captain was sleeping and a rather inexperienced co-pilot pitched the nose up all the time till impact. The captain with his sleepy eyes didn't even notice. Even without airspeed data you can keep a plane from stalling with nose slightly down and enough thrust. Pitch, altitude and thrust data were not compromised. Pitch was the issue.
flemishdreams 1 month ago
did they raise the wreck?
666crazytrain1 1 month ago
@666crazytrain1 : no they found the voice and flight data recorder. Pilot error.
flemishdreams 1 month ago
you can buy a gps watch ...which has air speed.
dadtipping 1 month ago
@dadtipping air speed with a gps .. nice one ..
nico2006t 1 month ago
is it me or is the speed at 38:08 30 knots???????
Jeeef100 1 month ago
@Jeeef100 yes because it clearly states that when a pitot tube gets blocked the air speed will drop... there was a big section in the documentary explaining that the pilot couldn't rely on his Primary Flight Display because the pitot tubes where blocked... why do you think they crashed? maybe you need to watch it again.
ryan1111111555555555 1 month ago
@ryan1111111555555555 : pitots have been blocked before. The problem was that the inexperienced joystick copilot at the helm didn't realize that the only way to get out of a stall is to pitch the nose slightly down, whatever airspeed data say or don't say. Altitude meters can fail too but in that case dislodge the pressure compensation. In a glider you know pretty well you're going down by your ears hurting.
flemishdreams 1 month ago
@flemishdreams Oh yes I understand that, just because the Pilot couldn't rely on his PFD doesn't mean the plane should crash, as it stated in the documentary, there's a procedure for this, but I was replying to the guy who had no idea about the film he just watched.
ryan1111111555555555 1 month ago
@flemishdreams That's because stall recovery was not trained on the line at the time, only "approach to stall" recognition. On approach to stall the book said to set the pitch to 5 degrees nose-up and select TOGA - and even this only applied to low altitude. The last time any of the crew flew an actual stall recovery was in a single-engine trainer years before when training for their PPL (or French equivalent).
turricaned 1 month ago
@ryan1111111555555555 Only the airspeed indication was non-functional (and in fact it came back online shortly before they stalled out). The altimeter, VSI and ADI (artificial horizon) were all working fine on the PFD throughout. They crashed because the airline (and the industry as a whole) were not training stall recognition properly.
turricaned 1 month ago
@turricaned to be honest I think I could've recovered that stall, you can feel it in your guts when you're stalling, you lift out of your seat, I would've put the nose 5 degrees down and throttle on full power to gain air speed, then I would've tried to slightly pull back on the yoke to see if the G-force would push me into my seat, if it does then you know the plane is flying with sufficient air speed, if the floating feeling didnt go away, I would've pushed the nose forward again.
ryan1111111555555555 1 month ago
@ryan1111111555555555 You need to take two things into account before making a statement like that - 1. Swept-wing jets do not stall in the same manner as straight-wing trainers or fighters and 2. It's one thing to recover in daylight and good weather and quite another in the dead of night in the vicinity of bad weather. Also important is that you can't always rely on physiology to tell the truth - witness the Flash Airlines crash for an example.
turricaned 1 month ago
@turricaned I'm a software engineer, not a pilot - and thanks to a very kind TRE friend of mine I was given the opportunity to attempt the accident sequence in a full-motion A320 simulator. We had to wind the trim all the way back manually as the A320 seems to have hard autotrim limits, but I managed to recover from the stall. However, I knew what was coming and had rehearsed the escape in my mind for hours. These guys had no such luxury.
turricaned 1 month ago
@turricaned No I understand that, but my point was that I wouldn't have done the same thing they did, when your stalling you need nose down to pick up air speed, they didnt even do that, let alone actually follow the stall procedure.
ryan1111111555555555 1 month ago
@ryan1111111555555555 No, the PF did not follow any published procedure and the PNF did not seem to feel he had the authority to overrule him (despite being more experienced, they were the same rank, and the Captain had designated the PF as relief pilot). The point is that whatever we know now about stall, real stalls were not being trained on the line - only approach to stall, and the technique for ATS was not applicable at high altitude.
turricaned 1 month ago
@ryan1111111555555555 lol soz ahah
Jeeef100 1 month ago
it makes me sad that after more than 1000hrs. of flight training (each) these two pilots are basically being blamed for not flying the airplane.
mbpilot 1 month ago
When it comes to widebodies, looks like Boeing has produced the safest metals.
trent8002003 1 month ago
So many times on AIC, has stall or the imminence of stall been the culprit! rather worrying really....insufficient training for this event?
baldacchinoster 1 month ago
And, Air France is actually one of the safest airlines in the world.
StarTrekRocks100 1 month ago
Guys, how many flights are there each day. Close to 1,000,000. How many fatal crashes has there been. One every 5 years, if that. And, there hasn't been any fatal crashes in 2011 and of course 2012. Come on, you guys don't know how safe it is to fly.
StarTrekRocks100 1 month ago 24
@StarTrekRocks100 umm I know flying is safe but there have been a lot of fatal flights in 2011 such as the one that killed the Russian hockey team (and I believe there was also the one which killed the Argentinan Presdient) - I agree flying is safe but there have been crashes recently resulting in death
GoldDragonflame 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 there have been fatal crashes in 2011 but they haven't reached worldwide media
PPiTTislakatamia 1 month ago 3
@StarTrekRocks100 well im going by train sorry i hate planes
imkoolkiller99 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 its 5000 flights a day.... 2 billions of passengers a year
charlydethibault 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 agreed,leaving out everything but statistics,flying is even safer than driving a car too
udfbino 1 month ago
Comment removed
thegrandboulevard 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 Ur right and there are more car crashes tha plane ones :)
Ipodmaniac666 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 - there's been way more plane crashes than that. true not always fatal but - who'd want to end up in hospital or even lose their luggage, that alone can ruin your life. medical insurance, loss of work, disability, permanent impairment, loss of important memories etc and objects. all make for a very very shitty existence.
NWOareScum 1 month ago
23 commercial crashes in 2011 with 470 fatalities.Still is the safest form of transport but with about 5 dollars per ticket could be twice as safe. People do not value life enough
EsbenFHansen 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 That may be the case....but putting one's life into another derlicts hands at 30,000-40,000 feet in the air. There should be no accidents caused by human error....more so with trivial and correctable matters that bring down most commercial aircraft. It aint like you can jump out or call someone that the pilot or crew is seriously screwing up...and about to kill you and hundreds more.
505stealth 1 month ago
another air france crash!? in name of god how many crash have this company!?!?!?!?
TheMediatore88 1 month ago
There should be a stall training simulator..
uae1666 1 month ago
I think having 3 tubes that are the same design makes them all prone to the same problem. There are very differenet methods of making an air speed indicator,,, and air speed is too vital not to have a back up system of a different design..
Rob187ok 1 month ago
Why don't they just use GPS data to determine the airspeed as a backup incase the pitot-tubes fail? The Garmain that I use in my car can also tell speed, why can't airplanes?
jancoetzer12 2 months ago
@jancoetzer12 There is a large differers in airspeed and groundspeed. De latter can't feature in climb and descent. That is the same in the car, it doesen't show correct speed over and down the hills.
robert12547 1 month ago
@jancoetzer12 because an airplane relies on airspeed, not ground speed
so tired of ignorant uninformed morons asking this stupid incompetent question
Foxx1981 1 month ago
@Foxx1981 For your information, I am a student pilot and I DO know about this kind of stuff, I just forgot for about a minute or so. You shouldn't call people stupid morons when you have no idea what their background is. Think twice before you make your next comment, idiot!
jancoetzer12 1 month ago
@jancoetzer12 : I do gliding. I would like to convince any commercial flier to practice gliding as a hobby or whatever. If things break down, even all engines, any plane becomes a glider. It's pretty ignorant to call anybody a moron unless he is a moron ;-)
You're not. :-p
flemishdreams 1 month ago
Ha hands on stick time 48:39 XD
pYronYcAIDS 2 months ago
I just found this transcript online.. Very disturbing to know that an inexperienced copilot made a series of grave mistakes.. RIP all those innocent lives
oklahomaisgreat 2 months ago
Why do Air France have so many accidents?
MynameisElliott 2 months ago
@MynameisElliott Cause they only fly airbuses :3
ROTAX129 2 months ago
@ROTAX129 Ahhh, makes sense lol.
MynameisElliott 2 months ago
@ROTAX129 LOL! Good one!
SnafuFrank 2 months ago
@ROTAX129 Airbus is safer than Boeing... fact, you cant argue it, because its the stone cold truth, go look it up, or do you want me to do it for you? either way you'll see the truth, oh and also, Airbus have sold more planes per year than Boeing for the past 6 years, fact, so suck on that you Boeing fanboy :)
ryan1111111555555555 1 month ago
A decrease in airspeed by a mere TEN KNOTS could produce a stall??? Holy s**t, I had no idea the margin was that thin for a jet at altitude.
bg11215 2 months ago
@bg11215. Airbus works with a supercritical wing. Meaning that getting into a deep stall is easy if you do not reduce speed by upwinds.
thefencejumperengine 2 months ago
@thefencejumperengine please tell me what type of wing Boeing 777 uses. Hint: the same type.
Please tell me what all new Beings use for controls? Hint: the same concept of fly-by-wire electronics with a flight management and autopilot computers.
Please tell me which aircraft has statistically, per plane produced, had more accidents because of mechanical breakdowns? Hint: it's an american company.
I like Boeings, but you Boeing fans are uneducated and stupid.
Foxx1981 2 months ago
@Foxx1981. Hint: I used to work for Boeing and now works for Airbus. You're an idiot!
thefencejumperengine 1 month ago
@thefencejumperengine no you don't, you're some spotty little teen cunt that likes to spew disinformative bullshit all over the internet to feel important while you sit in your moms basement in your unwashed semen-encrusted undershorts
Foxx1981 1 month ago
@bg11215 I guess it just depends on how close to the threshold you are already flying
baldacchinoster 1 month ago
@bg11215 It can trigger a stall warning, which is a lot different than an actual stall. The stall warning sounds a significant amount of time before the aircraft is in danger of entering the stall regime.
turricaned 1 month ago
12:50 and yet these overpaid asshole pilots are paid $200,000 for autopilot to do most of the work. Ridiculous.
SuperCriticalstrike 2 months ago
@SuperCriticalstrike lol you do it then,you have to work tight hours and you wont actually get $200,000 dollars.
robertkrosl 2 months ago
@SuperCriticalstrike Then take a boat or go Greyhound.
bg11215 2 months ago
Actually, airplanes are probably the safest mode of transportation. But, nothing in the world is 100% safe, including airplanes. By the way, my uncle is a pilot so listen to this.
You would have to fly from New York to Los Angeles 250 times each day for 2 years just to have a 1% chance of having an airplane crash.
So, technically, it's safer to fly on an airplane than cross the street.
StarTrekRocks100 2 months ago 65
@StarTrekRocks100 : Probably the safest mode of transportation....depends on how you definite it.
1) looking at the mileage it's the safest.
2) looking at the time you spend in the plane, it's just below of car traffic and way below ship traffic.
3) counting the times you board a vehicle it even looks worse for a plane
Just to show how one can "bend" statistics.
MrBaebel 2 months ago
@StarTrekRocks100 So basically its safer than putting a ballpoint pen in your mouth.
robertkrosl 2 months ago
@StarTrekRocks100 wait! 250 times a day for 2 years?!!! oh my God! that is crazy and a lot of flying. and you wouldn't even think that it's safer to fly than to cross the street. that is something else. it's been years since i've been on a plane, and i still get nervous even thinking about flying on a plane......lol
TT1478 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 While this is true, you're much more likely to walk away from a car crash or being run over than surviving a plane crash. Especially one that has fallen 37,000 feet in to the sea.
burkezillar 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 If it does crash, you're screwed though.
TheTrollIsYou 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100 yeah I know. its just that if somethign does go wrong, it just seems like there isnt much middle ground going by these episodes. you generally die...and before you die, you have a 3minute horror ride on the way down. and you dont have any semblence of control over your fate, unlike a car when there is a mechanical problem you can just try and pull over. but what are you going to do? I guess you have to still fly.
glennjridge 1 month ago
@StarTrekRocks100
i would be interested in seeing the probability of surviving an aircraft crash compared to the probability of surviving an auto accident, pedestrian/auto accident bike/auto accident and then compare these probabilities with the probability of each of these accidents occurring separately to reach an overall survival probability in the case of an airplane crash...i forgot most of the statistics i learned, but is a two-way anova appropriate here? or pearson-r? any takers?
jpa6791 1 month ago