This was a fully automated, unmanned test drone. Due to a computer malfunction,and the fact that there were no pilots on board the aircraft, there was no way of saving it from it's impending doom.
@Jay18Jay The common misconception of Air France Flight 296 being an unmanned plane flown by a computer was created after TLC released a show without researching the crash appropriately, and mistook fly-by-wire as a fully automated system, not requiring pilots.
@YTSMalumni2010 You're so stupid you do NOT even know what eubonics is. Our type absolutely hate eubonics. That should give you a clue little idiout boy.
@YTSMalumni2010 Ummm I think I'm speakin i n redneck... I'm thinkin you're fucking stupid. I'm thinkin you're a jackass. I'm thinkin this plane is Air France flight 296. I'm thinkin that TLC, DSC, BBC aren't all liars like you. I'm thinkin you should shut the fuck up.!
@YTSMalumni2010 The point is that you are pointless. No one believes you. You spew worthless drivel. You expect everyone to belive you just because you say so when the rest of the credible world says othwise. Who are you? Nobody. A troll who types whacko shit on a keyboard!
The whole point about this crash is that the plane *wasn't* flown by the computer. The pilot disabled the multiple ways in which the computer would have made the plane speed up and climb, purely so that he could demonstrate how low and slow he could fly. When he realised too late that he was about to fly into the trees, he attempted to climb but airliner engines couldn't speed up quick enough to save the plane. The pilot disabled the computer's safeguards, which is why the plane crashed.
@Mrmartinnico So this documentary as well as others and the media AND the government, AND the interviews with passengers...All a lie? Only people who think this was an unmanned flight is a few trolls on YT. Oh BTW why would an experimental test flight by Airbus be painted in Air France colors
The aircraft was flown by a pilot and a co-pilot. The Captain was Michel Asseline. Passengers were on board this aircraft. 3 of those passengers unfortunately perished in the accident. R.I.P. You shall not ne forgotten, victims of AF296.
To all opposing the actual facts, at least have the respect not to deny the loss of 3 souls, and offer us some evidence relative to your idea.
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 It was full. Check Wikipedia. This unmanned garbage started with stupid Americans using the video on The 'Learning' Channel without bothering to get their facts right.
@cageordie the learning channel or tlc is arguably the most informative network in television history. i think i'll take there word over wik'IF'pedia so UNMANNED + FLOWN BY A COMPUTER
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 You are not serious, are you? Unlike this pathetic and erroneous TLC program, wikipedia cites the official reports and offers links. I wonder why are they not running this episode on TLC anymore?
@VWaudiRULEs flying a plane with a computer is a very controversial method of flying a plane. i hope you become more accepting of uav's in the future because there is nothing wrong with them
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 Depends what you mean by flying with a computer. Maybe UAVs can one day become reality, but for now they are limited to reconnaissance. The pilot is very much alive and in fact the AF447 conclusions are to raise major issues with pilot training. The Airbus philosophy includes the pilot, despite the automation. So far it is working fine, given the crew is adequate.
@VWaudiRULEs i think pilots are fast becoming a thing of the past. just like the plane in this video i think all planes should be fully automated and this includes the food and beverage services. just imagine getting thirsty on a flight and quenching for a soda then POW- up comes and ice cold can of coca cola. thats aviation baby!
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 If the plane in this video was fully automated, it probably would not have crashed. On the other hand, one has to think what happens if all 5 fully-redundant flight computers fail - extremely unlikely, but still. Airbus aircraft are designed to be managed in such situations by the crew, at least until the systems are restored. Pilots are also needed for situations like the A330 and 777 ADIRU failures over Perth, and also the Hudson landing and the BA 777 crash landing.
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 Yeah you see where that got this aircraft. And that is with a pilot monitoring the computer. And we won't even get into flght 447.
@pietenpol2010 whats this 447, is that the air france plane that they found at the bottom of the atlantic a couple months ago? that plane was struck by lightning
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 Really latest I heard it was intact when it hit the water in a stalled condition. It was in a stalled condition from 38000ft. The computer was no feeding the pilots the proper info and being in IMC they had no visual references. Also there is no "feel" built into the Airbus controls So they had no feel of the aircraft either. All the facts won't be out for awhile. But I'm sure it will show Airbus and Air France at fault. Or at least partially so.
@pietenpol2010 the plane flew into back to back supercells dumbass, it crashed because of the weather conditions. likely a lightning strike
btw if a plane gets strucks by lightining its not going to shatter into a million little pieces so im not sure why you keep mentioning that 'the plane was intact' when it made contact with the ocean
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 I will still state that lightning strikes are harmless to large aircraft. This is common knowledge. And according to what was released so far from the flight dadta recorder. The plane did not encounter extreme turbulence. Follow the latest news. Oh wait everyone lies but you of. You're the only one who knows the facts--lol The facts are this is a video of flight 296 and proven by many sources. 136 passengers on board 2 pilots 3 fatalities.
For those who still don't get it: The "unexpected" computer reaction at the airshow was stall protection ,which saved 133 lives. The other 2 "strange happenings" have nothing to do with fly-by-wire, as those were old a300/310 with no such system. It has plenty to do with pilots unfamiliar with the plane and accidentally messing with the elev.trim. Yet, the planes did not crash after the aerobatics. "Cheap french crap":) Btw, this video is from the mid 90s. Old and wrong.
@VWaudiRULEs Bon, I of not, glad this anniversary of, this unmanned of the crash, I of not pilot sans avion, unmanned, merci, please, poor English translate skill
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 Umm, the A320 is not driven by a computer. The computer overrides the pilot, when he is about to mess up. In this case here it prevents a stall. It helped the pilots of US1549 get the plane down safely (according to the NTSB report, the plane was in alpha protection mode 150ft to touchdown and prevented a loss of control while flying at 125kts with Flaps setting 2). The computer also executes pilot commands, better than any pilot, as seen on US1549.
@VWaudiRULEs How about the no response to power input? That is not stall protection. How about all the other Airbus "anomalies" The investigation of flight 447 is going to be interesting;)
@pietenpol2010 What Airbus "anomalies"? Can you provide real details? The response to power may have been an issue back in 1988 and there was an air bulletin sent by Airbus, but AF never sent it to their pilots. Bottom line is here the crew DISCONNECTED the autothrottle intentionally and they were at 30 ft. 100ft was the planned altitude but even that is not safe. The national standard was 500ft, the min decision alt for the airfield was around 150ft. They were fooling around with a full plane.
@pietenpol2010 You're late on the news. All data from the CVR and FDR has been processed long time ago and no bulletins have been sent to the operators of the A330. A small summary has been issued by the BEA. There was no 44deg pitch up. There was 16dg pitch up and 44dg AoA. The pilots knew FL370 was out of reach, but climbed to FL380 with no airspeed data. They knew very well they were pulling up. The feel of conventional controls does not provide info on which way is up (that's how many
@pietenpol2010 crashed), the attitude indicator shows where is up and AF447 never lost that data. The only piece of info they were missing was the speed. The proper procedure t is to point the nose at 5dg and apply CLIMB thrust. They never did anything close to it, but the CVR shows they knew right away they were in that kind of situation. The reason this could even happen is because the Airbus protections are designed to disengage in alternate law, which comes when there is no reliable data.
@VWaudiRULEs This is what one of the highest time A330 pilots had to say: The aircraft "can not be stalled." When the flight controls are in "normal law" is a reasonably true statement. However, in "alternate law," as was the case here, stall protection can be lost. If we ever practiced this in the simulator, I don't remember it. Despite all of my experience in the aircraft, I am not the least bit certain that I would have been able to maintain control under the same circumstances.
@pietenpol2010 slowed down for turbulence, like in the case of AF447 is very important, but they still didn't even do that. The aircraft will reach an AoA equilibrium on its own. This may include losing altitude if there isn't sufficient thrust, but there won't be a stall, as long as the crew doesn't pull up. The AF447 CO did pull up, and probably exceeded the ceiling, without full power. Then once in the stall, he set the power to IDLE. Many cases in history when pilots do illogical things.
@VWaudiRULEs Here is what FAA human factors specialist Dr Kathy Abbot has to say about modern Flight protection aircraft. "Failure assessment is difficult, failure recovery is difficult, and the failure modes were not anticipated by the designers." BTW all data has been released but the final report has not and it will be some time before it is.
@pietenpol2010 I agree. The aircraft is actually not that difficult to handle once failure occurs (Qantas A380 uncontained engine failure, US1549, A330 and B777 Adiru failures - good crews interact with the systems effectively and achieve improved safety), but crews have to be trained. Automation can spoil pilots. What about the Colgan crash - just bad airmanship. AF447 is expected to raise the question of pilot training.
@VWaudiRULEs The Airbus pilot also had this to say: Taking into consideration that Air France 447 was at FL 350 (where the safe speed envelope is relatively narrow), that they were in the weather at night with no visible horizon, and that they were likely experiencing at least moderate turbulence, it does not surprise me in the least that the pilots lost control of the aircraft shortly after the autopilot and autothrust disconnected.
@pietenpol2010 We all thought this crew was confused and overwhelmed. However, once the FDR and CVR were found, it was rumored the data implicated the crew to a very high extent. So far the BEA has only indirectly confirmed this. The CO intentionally pulled up to FL380 and that's not something anybody had imagined them doing. For some reason, they blew this one big time. Even once stalled, they could have recovered for a long time. But pulling up and setting thrust to IDLE is not useful here.
@VWaudiRULEs And this which proves feel is imp. : Unfortunately, airline pilots rarely practice hand-flying at high altitude, and almost never do so without autothrust engaged. As a result, we forget that the aircraft is very sensitive to control inputs at high altitude, and overcontrol is the usual result. Because the Airbus sidestick provides no feedback "feel" to the pilot, this problem is dramatically compounded in this aircraft.
@pietenpol2010 The factual part of his statement is correct. In fact, the protections are lost for certain when in alternate law. However, there have been many cases of the same problem due to deficient draining in the pitot tubes under the same natural phenomenon of ice building up in cruise. None of those crews followed the memory items, which are exceptionally simple to execute (5dg up, CL thrust). However, those crews didn't crash, because they didn't do anything. Adding thrust when having
@pietenpol2010 The sidestick is different, but it isn't that hard to fly. The greatest jet ace, an Israeli pilot, for example, having scored his kills in Mirages and Israeli versions of it, didn't like the F-16 for the same reason. Doesn't mean the F-16 isn't better. It's different, and in the end it is more capable. AF447 didn't overreact. They did the wrong things and they meant to do what they were doing. One minute to impact both COs tried moving the stick at the same time!
@pietenpol2010 Oh, and also, may pilots -military and commercial - have crashed because trusting "feel" and not their instruments. The difference with AF447 is that the event lasted 4 minutes and they had partial control, as well as the chance to recover, but didn't initiate the procedure. There are aircraft that will not forgive a stall and the crew would be battling the plane for those 4 mins, with no chance to recover.
@Mrmartinnico Actually there were 4 passengers. The pilot was the only one to survive the crash. Watch the video it tells you plainly that there were passengers.
@farquarish I would like to be livings in your countryings, I have some friends who have corner shops and I am hopings to come over and be workings very soonings.
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 So this documentary is BS? The other documentaries are BS? Other REAL media sources are BS? I think the only BS is spewing from you;)
Okay, once and for all time, there were people on this plane. If you dispute this, try listening to the complete video. At 4:10 the narrator mentions "pilot error" being the cause of the crash. Unless R2D2 was flying the plane we're talking about human beings here. So if you're saying that this video claims that the plane was unmanned it proves you're ignorance because you obviously can't stay awake for more than 4 minutes!
There were two Operational Engineering Directives released prior to this accident but that the pilots were not made aware of until after: One regarding the engines having difficulty increasing from low RPM quickly at low altitude, and another regarding the altimeter's inability to maintain it's accuracy. Both of these issues likely had a major impact on this accident.
The information in this video is false. Our producers jumped the gun and stated this was an unmanned plane without doing the proper research. Those idiots are now in the unemployment line. This was Air France flight 296. 3 were killed, 1 adult and 2 children. Dozens were injured. We at TLC/Discovery want to apologize for this mistake and the grief it has caused.
I DEMAND THIS VIDEO BE REMOVED FROM YOUTUBE IMMEDIATELY OR FACE LEGAL ACTION.
@CEOofTLC If you are truly who you say you are, can you please explain this was no "computer gone mad" accident, and that neither are the aerobatics of the other 2 airbusi shown later, as those didn't have computers (they were older A300/310), and unfamiliarity with the controls caused the PIC to mess up the elevator trim, while intending to do something else. It's amazing those 2 accidents were a save
@GiulianoMagno So you think that pilot should be allowed to stall and roll plane beyond safe limits? Inside safe limits computers give full control to pilot, it just prevents pilot from stalling and overbanking the plane, and thats what pilot really never needs to do.
Number 1. cause of plane crashes is pilot error, thousands of lives have been lost just because pilot simply forgot to monitor airspeed or got disorientated and overbanked the plane. Computer could have saved all of them.
@GiulianoMagno Isn't it great that your Boeing will let you stall and crash. Turkish Airlines and Thompson Fly have both recently stalled 737s, the Turkish 737-800 crashed because the autothrottle retarded the thrust levers during an attempted stall recovery. The Thompson 737-300 reached 44 degrees pitch and 82 kts before recovering, partially because autotrim had wound in a lot of nose up and the full throttle engines exceeded the tail authority in that condition.
@GiulianoMagno Pilot decisions like stalling? Who needs those. The 777 has FBW and will try to resist a dangerous maneuver by the crew, but the crew can overpower the computer with physical force. I haven't heard of any situations where this has been useful. However, there are many situations where the Airbus protections, like alpha protection have been useful - in this incident, and also in the Hudson landing.
I don't think that the Airbus-philosophy is a good one, but one more thing: You're American and I'm German, but you prefer Airbus and I like the Boeing philosophy very much.
Isn't that Crazy?
Where's our patriotism?
And by the way we should think about Air France Flight 447, what happend there over the Atlantic? I think it has probably to do with the A330 fly by wire system. But it's to early; they don't know much about this Crash.
@GiulianoMagno I'm not American, but it is my home. Plenty of airlines here have been getting Abuses. Maybe you don't like it, but the Abus philosophy has been getting popular. About AF447, they know EVERYTHING, but have released only the basics. There is absolutely no reason to thing FBW was at fault. The aircraft was in alternate law and the pilots had full control. It's time to end the speculation about bad computers, turbulence breaking the composites, the tail breaking off, lightning, etc.
@VWaudiRULEs Not in the Hudson landing because all manouvers were well within the limits. It prevented nothing. How about all the Airbus "anomalies" that have been reported and...what about flt 447. The aircraft attained 44deg pitch up and remanind stalled from 38000ft "til impact. The pilots were not getting proper info. And in IMC with no "feel" built into the controls They have no way of knowing which way is even up.
@pietenpol2010 As for the Hudson, it's time someone reads the NTSB report. First thing the bus did was retrim itself constantly to keep flying straight, allowing the pilots to concentrate on attempting the restart and assessing the situation. The plane approached the river well below the procedure speed, designated with a green dot, and with flaps only at setting 2. For the last 150ft the plane went into alpha protection and prevented a dangerous AoA at the low speed, which gave max performance
@pietenpol2010 and prevented a stall, which would have been very fatal for a water landing. It also kept the plane perfectly straight, which is also very important for a water landing. Sully did a great job at calling out the decisions, but he didn't execute the ditching the best way, in fact bleeding off speed and then attempting to flare a lot, but he was going only 125knots at flaps 2.
by the way .. I'm 14 .. I'm boren in 5/3/1997 however .. I'm so intreted about flying
I know that FLY_BY_WIRE is mainly used for millitary ... and the A320 was the first passenger jet uses this secondly : how will the plane taxi with no man onboard ! or talk to the ATC ? the plane was manned .. and its conformed !!! and dont imilliate me
@killmuster It is you who is sick when you mention incest!!
Now, You are just a fly by night who will be off this page in a week, But I will be here all year posting the truth.
The reason there is a cockpit, is that is where the computer is, did you expect there to be a massive hole in the front??
Now, again, if you google Mitchall Assline, there is no reference to this crash, try it, Then, when you have grown a pair, come back and say sorry, I will be waiting.
@killmuster But the only command refused by the flight computer was the command to stall in an attempt to climb, while at 30ft, 120kias, max AoA, and engines spooling up from idle. If the computers didn't override the pilot's input, who had already placed the aircraft in grave danger, the most probable outcome would have been a catastrophic stall, with the aircraft plunging down nose first and banking to one side, and then there would have been 136 fatalities. So the Airbus philosophy worked
@killmuster "but the Flight computer refusing ther commands"
Again, the command the flight computer refused was to increase the AoA beyond their resources and cause a stall, and then a crash that would kill everyone onboard.
@GiulianoMagno This is gross misrepresentation. None of these incidents were related computer problems. The "trying to land" comment by the desperate pilot of the A320 refers to the stall protection, which saved the craft from a catastrophic stall and a possible full loss of life (there are 133 survivors as a result). The pilot had descended recklessly low, redced power, and attained max AoA (by turning off one of the safety features), you son't climb in a siltation like this. Just read about it
@GiulianoMagno I agree with you. I mean, what's the point of studying so hard to become a pilot for the end of the day to only sit and monitor the airbus.. I prefer boeing, the passion of flying is to pilot an airplane, not to sit and fly in an airplane and just feed it with info...
The funny thing is that the Unmanned Plane retards hold this video clip as the Holy Grail of their position with the copy to be taken as gospel.
What they don't tell you is that later in the same show, running the same clip, the same narrator reads:
"A strange series of events followed...the first took place at an airshow in France, with the plane flown by AirFrance's star A320 pilot. Miraculously, the pilot survived. 3 passengers didn't."
@hibob418 As the CEO of The Learning Channel, I can tell you you are correct. We here at TLC are trying to bury the mistake we made of this being an unmanned flight. It aired only one time before we pulled it, but the shame and embarrassment remains.
@YTSMalumni2010 now i understand why you are always cranky and unhappy. you fly for southwest. we pay our 15 year old hostesses at Bob's Big MANNED more than southwest pays their pilots. the offer i made you washing dishes part time for $7.30 per hour at one of my restaurants still stands. it would be a significant increase in pay from what you are making at southwest, believe me.
i think we can build a better unmanned plane. and when i say 'we' i dont mean the french because they already fucked this one up, i mean we as a society
It was a manned flight. The a320 was flying by wire, The first civillian aircraft to do so. The reason the accident happened was that when the flight of 296 was planed there was no line of trees at that hight at the end of the runway. When the Captain realised what was happening, he applied power to climb, The computer ignored this and thus kept on flying. this of course had the outcome that the A320 flew into the trees.
@mitch19636 One correction: the computer did not ignore the request for more power, the pilot simply applied it too late. It takes several seconds for engines that size to spool up after power is applied in the cockpit. If you watch the original video, you can actually hear the engines starting to spool up right before the plane hits the trees.
@mitch19636 And withou computer aircraft would have just stalled to the trees. Pilot tried to pull up when he was too slow and low, it takes engines some seconds to spool up so plane would have stalled without computer that prevented them from stalling the plane.
@NA734 the answer is that there are a group of trolls, namely mk3stargazer, zoracsitemanager & foxyunkoxy who spam every page they can find about this crash with the " unmanned plane " crap & like to bully people who disagree with their bullshit. they pretend to be employees of youtube & threaten people with account deletion. they dont work for youtube & cannot delete your account, no matter what they might claim
the facts are it was a piloted aircraft - the plot was jailed for manslaughter
@m3zane I've been through the "troll-crap". And frankly, I have to say that I'm wondering how can they find entertaining to try and prove the opposite of what has really happened... It just mesmerizes me how one can persist in such a rebellious way.
@m3zane The best would be to shot those Bastards . I had a nice conversation with mk3stargazer, zoracsitemanager & foxyunkoxy ... They create new accounts to spread there lies .
@Quattroowner i am sure that post natal abortion would be a fine solution for these fuckwits who troll these pages daily spamming about it being an "unmanned plane"
they are just intent on spreading lies & disinformation about this crash, intent on bullying & harassing people, trying to add something to their very sad, lonely friendless existence
so far they have had numerous accounts deleted by youtube - foxairfieldmaverick & zoracsitemanager the latest to be terminated
@m3zane You are right , MOJOATARI was one of there accounts ... In my country these People would have a nice Room in the " Psychologisches Landeskrankenhaus "
This is why I get really nervous every time I get on an Airbus. I'm glad the uploader included the more complete version; this video is too often clipped to where all you see is the crash. It's nice having the aircraft explained.
Except this plane wasn't unmanned. You apparently didn't watch the whole video. I'm not going to engage in this stupid argument because I have better things to do, but I will present the facts here. First, this was Air France Flight 296, which, according to the Aviation Safety Network, carried 136 occupants, 3 of whom died. I know you are not a site manager and have no control over my account, so don't bother playing that card.
you down with uav's?! yo you know me!!!
that's some old skool unaughty by unature
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 4 days ago
Oh my god, can you image if people would have been on board ? Would have been a bit scary
yynnmmbb 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yynnmmbb indeed, lucky nobody was on here
mk3stargazer 3 months ago
@yynnmmbb They were
sonex424 1 month ago
i love lecturing the non-believers about this unmanned flight and gradually allowing them to work their way back into society
YTSMalumni2010 3 months ago
thank goodness no passengers were on board
YTSMalumni2010 4 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 hey look its you arguing again. 3 passengers died and your still wrong
0187Koffi 4 months ago 2
@0187Koffi multiple computers were on board
YTSMalumni2010 3 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 Multple troll idiots say this flight was unmanned and think people are gonna believe them with out any proof!
pietenpol2010 3 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 And multiple asshole trolss are spewing shit!
sonex424 3 months ago
@0187Koffi They're just little lowlife trolls:)
sonex424 3 months ago
This was a fully automated, unmanned test drone. Due to a computer malfunction,and the fact that there were no pilots on board the aircraft, there was no way of saving it from it's impending doom.
Jay18Jay 4 months ago
@Jay18Jay You are, um, wrong.
StreifProductions 4 months ago
Comment removed
sonex424 4 months ago
@Jay18Jay Got any proof?....didn't think so..."cause there is none---lol
pietenpol2010 4 months ago
@Jay18Jay The common misconception of Air France Flight 296 being an unmanned plane flown by a computer was created after TLC released a show without researching the crash appropriately, and mistook fly-by-wire as a fully automated system, not requiring pilots.
Foxx1981 4 months ago
look at the uav
YTSMalumni2010 5 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 Look at the little worthless troll
sonex424 4 months ago in playlist a320 crash
@sonex424 look how unmanned that plane is
YTSMalumni2010 4 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 Look what a stupid fucking asshole you are
sonex424 4 months ago
@sonex424 and thats why we call you 'ebonics sonex'....dungeon child
YTSMalumni2010 4 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 You're so stupid you do NOT even know what eubonics is. Our type absolutely hate eubonics. That should give you a clue little idiout boy.
sonex424 4 months ago
@sonex424 then quit speaking in your nigger jive talk!
which state do you live in?
YTSMalumni2010 4 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 Ummm I think I'm speakin i n redneck... I'm thinkin you're fucking stupid. I'm thinkin you're a jackass. I'm thinkin this plane is Air France flight 296. I'm thinkin that TLC, DSC, BBC aren't all liars like you. I'm thinkin you should shut the fuck up.!
sonex424 4 months ago
@sonex424 my point is that your manner are atrocious
YTSMalumni2010 4 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 The point is that you are pointless. No one believes you. You spew worthless drivel. You expect everyone to belive you just because you say so when the rest of the credible world says othwise. Who are you? Nobody. A troll who types whacko shit on a keyboard!
sonex424 3 months ago
The whole point about this crash is that the plane *wasn't* flown by the computer. The pilot disabled the multiple ways in which the computer would have made the plane speed up and climb, purely so that he could demonstrate how low and slow he could fly. When he realised too late that he was about to fly into the trees, he attempted to climb but airliner engines couldn't speed up quick enough to save the plane. The pilot disabled the computer's safeguards, which is why the plane crashed.
lexo30 5 months ago
Where's the rest of this? I'd be very interested to see the rest of it.
Griskabora 5 months ago
I see the fool YTSMalumni2010 is still making his childish comments.
farquarish 6 months ago 6
i have some good news people: this plane was only unmanned and flown by a computer
YTSMalumni2010 6 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010
Fucking moron.
Urindunk 5 months ago
@YTSMalumni2010 Haha you're spreading fiction on here too?!
HuDaFuK 4 months ago
Air show fly by gone wrong...
cabrame 6 months ago
@SuperAppleOSX there was air crash investigation, but no passengers
Mrmartinnico 6 months ago
@Mrmartinnico So this documentary as well as others and the media AND the government, AND the interviews with passengers...All a lie? Only people who think this was an unmanned flight is a few trolls on YT. Oh BTW why would an experimental test flight by Airbus be painted in Air France colors
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@Mrmartinnico exactly, no passengers were on board
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 6 months ago
The aircraft was flown by a pilot and a co-pilot. The Captain was Michel Asseline. Passengers were on board this aircraft. 3 of those passengers unfortunately perished in the accident. R.I.P. You shall not ne forgotten, victims of AF296.
To all opposing the actual facts, at least have the respect not to deny the loss of 3 souls, and offer us some evidence relative to your idea.
NA734 6 months ago
0:38 looked so nasty
sashman3988 6 months ago
most of the other video's say this plane was unmanned so thats what i tend to believe
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 It was full. Check Wikipedia. This unmanned garbage started with stupid Americans using the video on The 'Learning' Channel without bothering to get their facts right.
cageordie 7 months ago
@cageordie the learning channel or tlc is arguably the most informative network in television history. i think i'll take there word over wik'IF'pedia so UNMANNED + FLOWN BY A COMPUTER
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 You are not serious, are you? Unlike this pathetic and erroneous TLC program, wikipedia cites the official reports and offers links. I wonder why are they not running this episode on TLC anymore?
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs flying a plane with a computer is a very controversial method of flying a plane. i hope you become more accepting of uav's in the future because there is nothing wrong with them
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 Depends what you mean by flying with a computer. Maybe UAVs can one day become reality, but for now they are limited to reconnaissance. The pilot is very much alive and in fact the AF447 conclusions are to raise major issues with pilot training. The Airbus philosophy includes the pilot, despite the automation. So far it is working fine, given the crew is adequate.
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs i think pilots are fast becoming a thing of the past. just like the plane in this video i think all planes should be fully automated and this includes the food and beverage services. just imagine getting thirsty on a flight and quenching for a soda then POW- up comes and ice cold can of coca cola. thats aviation baby!
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 If the plane in this video was fully automated, it probably would not have crashed. On the other hand, one has to think what happens if all 5 fully-redundant flight computers fail - extremely unlikely, but still. Airbus aircraft are designed to be managed in such situations by the crew, at least until the systems are restored. Pilots are also needed for situations like the A330 and 777 ADIRU failures over Perth, and also the Hudson landing and the BA 777 crash landing.
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 Yeah you see where that got this aircraft. And that is with a pilot monitoring the computer. And we won't even get into flght 447.
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 whats this 447, is that the air france plane that they found at the bottom of the atlantic a couple months ago? that plane was struck by lightning
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 6 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 Really latest I heard it was intact when it hit the water in a stalled condition. It was in a stalled condition from 38000ft. The computer was no feeding the pilots the proper info and being in IMC they had no visual references. Also there is no "feel" built into the Airbus controls So they had no feel of the aircraft either. All the facts won't be out for awhile. But I'm sure it will show Airbus and Air France at fault. Or at least partially so.
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 BTW lightning strikes do not harm large commercial aircraft. What school of aircraft design are you from? Lego?
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 the plane flew into back to back supercells dumbass, it crashed because of the weather conditions. likely a lightning strike
btw if a plane gets strucks by lightining its not going to shatter into a million little pieces so im not sure why you keep mentioning that 'the plane was intact' when it made contact with the ocean
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 6 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 I will still state that lightning strikes are harmless to large aircraft. This is common knowledge. And according to what was released so far from the flight dadta recorder. The plane did not encounter extreme turbulence. Follow the latest news. Oh wait everyone lies but you of. You're the only one who knows the facts--lol The facts are this is a video of flight 296 and proven by many sources. 136 passengers on board 2 pilots 3 fatalities.
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs Bon, I of not this video unmanned crash
MicheIAsseline 7 months ago
@MicheIAsseline Right, captain. What is your alibi? What were you doing that day, if not being reckless?
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs Non alibi, never need alibi, no use to you.
MicheIAsseline 7 months ago
A300 is better than an A320.
fs10inator 7 months ago
@fs10inator
That's definitely right; the A300 is the best Boeing, Airbus ever built.
GiulianoMagno 7 months ago
@fs10inator Erm... it's a completely different class of aircraft.
cageordie 7 months ago
to many airbus crashes, the french can't build planes!!!
bdf70 8 months ago
@bdf70 lol get ur facts right before making a full out of urself ^^
luvyouOonot11 7 months ago
i got a 777 and it will let me do what i want to do wen i want to and a computer when i need it and a yolk not some joystick at my left hand
hamellious 8 months ago 4
For those who still don't get it: The "unexpected" computer reaction at the airshow was stall protection ,which saved 133 lives. The other 2 "strange happenings" have nothing to do with fly-by-wire, as those were old a300/310 with no such system. It has plenty to do with pilots unfamiliar with the plane and accidentally messing with the elev.trim. Yet, the planes did not crash after the aerobatics. "Cheap french crap":) Btw, this video is from the mid 90s. Old and wrong.
VWaudiRULEs 8 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs Bon, I of not, glad this anniversary of, this unmanned of the crash, I of not pilot sans avion, unmanned, merci, please, poor English translate skill
MicheIAsseline 7 months ago
@MicheIAsseline poor English? You're also a disaster at the flight deck! Thank God for the Airbus alpha protection.
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@VWaudiSUCKCRAP would you trust you '88 runaway quatro if it was fully automated and driven by a computer?
ie you rode shotgun and allowed a computer to control the steering and pedals
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 Umm, the A320 is not driven by a computer. The computer overrides the pilot, when he is about to mess up. In this case here it prevents a stall. It helped the pilots of US1549 get the plane down safely (according to the NTSB report, the plane was in alpha protection mode 150ft to touchdown and prevented a loss of control while flying at 125kts with Flaps setting 2). The computer also executes pilot commands, better than any pilot, as seen on US1549.
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 "ie you rode shotgun and allowed a computer to control the steering and pedals"
Any aircraft with an autopilot does that. Gee, can't the workers' union come up with something better these days?
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs How about the no response to power input? That is not stall protection. How about all the other Airbus "anomalies" The investigation of flight 447 is going to be interesting;)
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 What Airbus "anomalies"? Can you provide real details? The response to power may have been an issue back in 1988 and there was an air bulletin sent by Airbus, but AF never sent it to their pilots. Bottom line is here the crew DISCONNECTED the autothrottle intentionally and they were at 30 ft. 100ft was the planned altitude but even that is not safe. The national standard was 500ft, the min decision alt for the airfield was around 150ft. They were fooling around with a full plane.
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 You're late on the news. All data from the CVR and FDR has been processed long time ago and no bulletins have been sent to the operators of the A330. A small summary has been issued by the BEA. There was no 44deg pitch up. There was 16dg pitch up and 44dg AoA. The pilots knew FL370 was out of reach, but climbed to FL380 with no airspeed data. They knew very well they were pulling up. The feel of conventional controls does not provide info on which way is up (that's how many
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 crashed), the attitude indicator shows where is up and AF447 never lost that data. The only piece of info they were missing was the speed. The proper procedure t is to point the nose at 5dg and apply CLIMB thrust. They never did anything close to it, but the CVR shows they knew right away they were in that kind of situation. The reason this could even happen is because the Airbus protections are designed to disengage in alternate law, which comes when there is no reliable data.
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs This is what one of the highest time A330 pilots had to say: The aircraft "can not be stalled." When the flight controls are in "normal law" is a reasonably true statement. However, in "alternate law," as was the case here, stall protection can be lost. If we ever practiced this in the simulator, I don't remember it. Despite all of my experience in the aircraft, I am not the least bit certain that I would have been able to maintain control under the same circumstances.
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 slowed down for turbulence, like in the case of AF447 is very important, but they still didn't even do that. The aircraft will reach an AoA equilibrium on its own. This may include losing altitude if there isn't sufficient thrust, but there won't be a stall, as long as the crew doesn't pull up. The AF447 CO did pull up, and probably exceeded the ceiling, without full power. Then once in the stall, he set the power to IDLE. Many cases in history when pilots do illogical things.
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs Here is what FAA human factors specialist Dr Kathy Abbot has to say about modern Flight protection aircraft. "Failure assessment is difficult, failure recovery is difficult, and the failure modes were not anticipated by the designers." BTW all data has been released but the final report has not and it will be some time before it is.
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 I agree. The aircraft is actually not that difficult to handle once failure occurs (Qantas A380 uncontained engine failure, US1549, A330 and B777 Adiru failures - good crews interact with the systems effectively and achieve improved safety), but crews have to be trained. Automation can spoil pilots. What about the Colgan crash - just bad airmanship. AF447 is expected to raise the question of pilot training.
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs The Airbus pilot also had this to say: Taking into consideration that Air France 447 was at FL 350 (where the safe speed envelope is relatively narrow), that they were in the weather at night with no visible horizon, and that they were likely experiencing at least moderate turbulence, it does not surprise me in the least that the pilots lost control of the aircraft shortly after the autopilot and autothrust disconnected.
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 We all thought this crew was confused and overwhelmed. However, once the FDR and CVR were found, it was rumored the data implicated the crew to a very high extent. So far the BEA has only indirectly confirmed this. The CO intentionally pulled up to FL380 and that's not something anybody had imagined them doing. For some reason, they blew this one big time. Even once stalled, they could have recovered for a long time. But pulling up and setting thrust to IDLE is not useful here.
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs And this which proves feel is imp. : Unfortunately, airline pilots rarely practice hand-flying at high altitude, and almost never do so without autothrust engaged. As a result, we forget that the aircraft is very sensitive to control inputs at high altitude, and overcontrol is the usual result. Because the Airbus sidestick provides no feedback "feel" to the pilot, this problem is dramatically compounded in this aircraft.
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 The factual part of his statement is correct. In fact, the protections are lost for certain when in alternate law. However, there have been many cases of the same problem due to deficient draining in the pitot tubes under the same natural phenomenon of ice building up in cruise. None of those crews followed the memory items, which are exceptionally simple to execute (5dg up, CL thrust). However, those crews didn't crash, because they didn't do anything. Adding thrust when having
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 The sidestick is different, but it isn't that hard to fly. The greatest jet ace, an Israeli pilot, for example, having scored his kills in Mirages and Israeli versions of it, didn't like the F-16 for the same reason. Doesn't mean the F-16 isn't better. It's different, and in the end it is more capable. AF447 didn't overreact. They did the wrong things and they meant to do what they were doing. One minute to impact both COs tried moving the stick at the same time!
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 Oh, and also, may pilots -military and commercial - have crashed because trusting "feel" and not their instruments. The difference with AF447 is that the event lasted 4 minutes and they had partial control, as well as the chance to recover, but didn't initiate the procedure. There are aircraft that will not forgive a stall and the crew would be battling the plane for those 4 mins, with no chance to recover.
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@SuperAppleOSX no there weren't
Mrmartinnico 8 months ago
@Mrmartinnico Actually there were 4 passengers. The pilot was the only one to survive the crash. Watch the video it tells you plainly that there were passengers.
jushootem 8 months ago
@jushootem the plane was unmanned, thankfully
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 @MicheIAsseline Unmanned, because having Michel Asseline at the controls is like having no one at the controls
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs lol thats good enough for me
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 7 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320: What a peasant. You should be whipped within an inch of your life and staked out in the midday sun.
farquarish 7 months ago
@farquarish thats sounds a bit like they did to jesus. then again unmannists from around the world honor me the same as jesus
StPetesYTSMemptyA320 7 months ago
@farquarish I would like to be livings in your countryings, I have some friends who have corner shops and I am hopings to come over and be workings very soonings.
Maybe you could come and do shoppings?
I know you care.
MrBROADBANDlNGS 6 months ago
@StPetesYTSMemptyA320 So this documentary is BS? The other documentaries are BS? Other REAL media sources are BS? I think the only BS is spewing from you;)
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
lol stupid french idiots
eminemkingofrap1 9 months ago
Okay, once and for all time, there were people on this plane. If you dispute this, try listening to the complete video. At 4:10 the narrator mentions "pilot error" being the cause of the crash. Unless R2D2 was flying the plane we're talking about human beings here. So if you're saying that this video claims that the plane was unmanned it proves you're ignorance because you obviously can't stay awake for more than 4 minutes!
Grow a brain people... or display your ignorance.
berthling 9 months ago 2
hopefully there weren't passengers
Mrmartinnico 9 months ago
There were two Operational Engineering Directives released prior to this accident but that the pilots were not made aware of until after: One regarding the engines having difficulty increasing from low RPM quickly at low altitude, and another regarding the altimeter's inability to maintain it's accuracy. Both of these issues likely had a major impact on this accident.
jameshisself 9 months ago
The information in this video is false. Our producers jumped the gun and stated this was an unmanned plane without doing the proper research. Those idiots are now in the unemployment line. This was Air France flight 296. 3 were killed, 1 adult and 2 children. Dozens were injured. We at TLC/Discovery want to apologize for this mistake and the grief it has caused.
I DEMAND THIS VIDEO BE REMOVED FROM YOUTUBE IMMEDIATELY OR FACE LEGAL ACTION.
Edward Sabin
CEOofTLC 10 months ago
@CEOofTLC If you are truly who you say you are, can you please explain this was no "computer gone mad" accident, and that neither are the aerobatics of the other 2 airbusi shown later, as those didn't have computers (they were older A300/310), and unfamiliarity with the controls caused the PIC to mess up the elevator trim, while intending to do something else. It's amazing those 2 accidents were a save
VWaudiRULEs 10 months ago
Comment removed
vindo99 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is a link to photos of the passengers right after the crash and at the 20 year reunion, plus photos of the memorial to the three victims.
Replace the dashes with dots.
crashdehabsheim-net/Les%20passagers%20du%20vol-htm
It's disrespectful to the poor souls who perished in this crash to ignore their passing. Unmannist are sick.
azimuth361 10 months ago
UNmannedism is sweeping the world!!!
SuperDingoDude 11 months ago
Real men fly a plane with a yoke!
The Airbus Fly-by-wire system is nonsens!!!
You're the pilot and not some crazy french- computer!!!
IF AIN'T A BOEING I'M NOT GOING!!!!
GiulianoMagno 11 months ago 46
@GiulianoMagno The newer Boeing's still have a yoke and are fly-by-wire...
em4rulz 11 months ago
@em4rulz Yes you're right, but in the Boeing's there's no computer that can forbid the pilots decisions.
GiulianoMagno 11 months ago 16
@GiulianoMagno So you think that pilot should be allowed to stall and roll plane beyond safe limits? Inside safe limits computers give full control to pilot, it just prevents pilot from stalling and overbanking the plane, and thats what pilot really never needs to do.
Number 1. cause of plane crashes is pilot error, thousands of lives have been lost just because pilot simply forgot to monitor airspeed or got disorientated and overbanked the plane. Computer could have saved all of them.
Pvjinflight 9 months ago
@GiulianoMagno Isn't it great that your Boeing will let you stall and crash. Turkish Airlines and Thompson Fly have both recently stalled 737s, the Turkish 737-800 crashed because the autothrottle retarded the thrust levers during an attempted stall recovery. The Thompson 737-300 reached 44 degrees pitch and 82 kts before recovering, partially because autotrim had wound in a lot of nose up and the full throttle engines exceeded the tail authority in that condition.
cageordie 7 months ago
@GiulianoMagno Pilot decisions like stalling? Who needs those. The 777 has FBW and will try to resist a dangerous maneuver by the crew, but the crew can overpower the computer with physical force. I haven't heard of any situations where this has been useful. However, there are many situations where the Airbus protections, like alpha protection have been useful - in this incident, and also in the Hudson landing.
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs
I don't think that the Airbus-philosophy is a good one, but one more thing: You're American and I'm German, but you prefer Airbus and I like the Boeing philosophy very much.
Isn't that Crazy?
Where's our patriotism?
And by the way we should think about Air France Flight 447, what happend there over the Atlantic? I think it has probably to do with the A330 fly by wire system. But it's to early; they don't know much about this Crash.
GiulianoMagno 7 months ago
@GiulianoMagno I'm not American, but it is my home. Plenty of airlines here have been getting Abuses. Maybe you don't like it, but the Abus philosophy has been getting popular. About AF447, they know EVERYTHING, but have released only the basics. There is absolutely no reason to thing FBW was at fault. The aircraft was in alternate law and the pilots had full control. It's time to end the speculation about bad computers, turbulence breaking the composites, the tail breaking off, lightning, etc.
VWaudiRULEs 7 months ago
@VWaudiRULEs Not in the Hudson landing because all manouvers were well within the limits. It prevented nothing. How about all the Airbus "anomalies" that have been reported and...what about flt 447. The aircraft attained 44deg pitch up and remanind stalled from 38000ft "til impact. The pilots were not getting proper info. And in IMC with no "feel" built into the controls They have no way of knowing which way is even up.
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 As for the Hudson, it's time someone reads the NTSB report. First thing the bus did was retrim itself constantly to keep flying straight, allowing the pilots to concentrate on attempting the restart and assessing the situation. The plane approached the river well below the procedure speed, designated with a green dot, and with flaps only at setting 2. For the last 150ft the plane went into alpha protection and prevented a dangerous AoA at the low speed, which gave max performance
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@pietenpol2010 and prevented a stall, which would have been very fatal for a water landing. It also kept the plane perfectly straight, which is also very important for a water landing. Sully did a great job at calling out the decisions, but he didn't execute the ditching the best way, in fact bleeding off speed and then attempting to flare a lot, but he was going only 125knots at flaps 2.
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@em4rulz You say they still have a yolk?
Do you think they are made of eggs?
Oh no oh no oh no, this plane was unmanned and flown by a computer.
PhantomDog666 11 months ago
@PhantomDog666
There was 2 pilots
and the captain's name is mitchall assline
this accedent was in 1988
killmuster 10 months ago
@killmuster You say the captains name was "mitchall assline"?
And the "accedent" was in 1988?
Firstly, there was no captain, it was UNmanned.
Secondly, I take it that you were born in 1988.
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
are you trying to imlliate me? ? firtable
firstable The plane was manned !!! with 2 pilot
by the way .. I'm 14 .. I'm boren in 5/3/1997 however .. I'm so intreted about flying
I know that FLY_BY_WIRE is mainly used for millitary ... and the A320 was the first passenger jet uses this secondly : how will the plane taxi with no man onboard ! or talk to the ATC ? the plane was manned .. and its conformed !!! and dont imilliate me
killmuster 10 months ago
Listen mahmood, OK, you are 14, I now understand why you sound retarded.
Firstly, I am not trying to imlliate you, I have no idea how,or what that means.
Secondly, you say firtable firstable, boren, intreted,? It was unmanned & that is conformed!
Can I just say, It is so nice talking to someone who has a higher IQ than m3zane and foxybobsbigboys,
But the truth is, this plane was UNmanned and flown by computer on a test flight, it is well known, when you get older you will know the facts ok.
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
ok ... this was not a test flight - it was an airshow over habshime airfield
and about manned or unmanned .. I'm not forcing you to belive it !
do I really sound retarede !!! ?
killmuster 10 months ago
@killmuster Belive me,, you really sound retarede.
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
NO I DONT
killmuster 10 months ago
@retarede Sadly, yes, but maybe your English translation needs work, what is your native tongue?
If it is English, then you need help, but if it is Arabic then you are not so bad.
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
My english is good
but I writte in a hurry so I dont mind of the spelling or the gramer was right
killmuster 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
the plane was manned by captain mitchall assline, i saw 1 hour ago at national geographic channel...it killed 3 passenger, 2 girls and 1 boy...
please more searching info at uncle google ok? hihihihi
vindo99 10 months ago
@vindo99 Listen boy, you say Mitchall Assline?
I suggest, that during your monthly bathing time, you research UNmanned crash. It will show this one.
Indonesian you may be, but that is no excuse for acting dumb you bajingan tengik
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhantomDog666
ok bro...what ever u say...
vindo99 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
ok bro..what ever u say...
vindo99 10 months ago
@vindo99 I am not your bro you Anjing!
It proves you know nothing about this crash by using the name Mitchall Assline like the other idiot below.
Two halfwits,never make a whole one.
Get papa to disconnect his internet,as clearly you are a waste of oxygen.
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
Shut up
The captain's name was mitchall assline
you sayed below that no one was onboard
ow ... you are right .... but all pilots in the whole universe are stuped !! and dont know facts
well congoratolations for your over foolness
if thr plane was fully automatic ... why the hell there is a cockpit ??? until now, there is NO such a jetliners can do every thing by it self !!
I just found my self flying to france ;) I'm not retard you jerk
killmuster 10 months ago
@killmuster What the??
This plane was unmanned, period.
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
I dont know why you claim and insest that its unmanned !!!
I conform
if The plane was fully automatic
why the hell there is a cockpit ... answer this qution !! will the plane taxi all by it self ?
you sick ! you know that ?
killmuster 10 months ago
@killmuster It is you who is sick when you mention incest!!
Now, You are just a fly by night who will be off this page in a week, But I will be here all year posting the truth.
The reason there is a cockpit, is that is where the computer is, did you expect there to be a massive hole in the front??
Now, again, if you google Mitchall Assline, there is no reference to this crash, try it, Then, when you have grown a pair, come back and say sorry, I will be waiting.
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666
Listen ....
If you mean by unmanned that there is no pilots onboard
you need a highly qualified profficional Psychiatrist
But if you mean that there was pilots onboard ... but the Flight computer refusing ther commands .. you are right !!!
killmuster 10 months ago 8
@killmuster You are correct, there was no pilots onboard, and I do not need profficional psychiatrist thank you.
PhantomDog666 10 months ago
@killmuster But the only command refused by the flight computer was the command to stall in an attempt to climb, while at 30ft, 120kias, max AoA, and engines spooling up from idle. If the computers didn't override the pilot's input, who had already placed the aircraft in grave danger, the most probable outcome would have been a catastrophic stall, with the aircraft plunging down nose first and banking to one side, and then there would have been 136 fatalities. So the Airbus philosophy worked
VWaudiRULEs 10 months ago
@killmuster "but the Flight computer refusing ther commands"
Again, the command the flight computer refused was to increase the AoA beyond their resources and cause a stall, and then a crash that would kill everyone onboard.
VWaudiRULEs 6 months ago
@killmuster Non, le unmanned crash I of not le pilot
MicheIAsseline 10 months ago
@PhantomDog666 The accident and news reports would beg to differ with you:)
pietenpol2010 6 months ago
@GiulianoMagno This is gross misrepresentation. None of these incidents were related computer problems. The "trying to land" comment by the desperate pilot of the A320 refers to the stall protection, which saved the craft from a catastrophic stall and a possible full loss of life (there are 133 survivors as a result). The pilot had descended recklessly low, redced power, and attained max AoA (by turning off one of the safety features), you son't climb in a siltation like this. Just read about it
VWaudiRULEs 10 months ago
@GiulianoMagno But yeah go ahead and prefer Boeing, when pilot makes an error im rather in Airbus than in Boeing.
Pvjinflight 9 months ago
@GiulianoMagno Trailer trash or union worker?
VWaudiRULEs 8 months ago
@GiulianoMagno Haha. Dumbass.
FrancisGage29 8 months ago
@GiulianoMagno I agree with you. I mean, what's the point of studying so hard to become a pilot for the end of the day to only sit and monitor the airbus.. I prefer boeing, the passion of flying is to pilot an airplane, not to sit and fly in an airplane and just feed it with info...
Mcnadio 8 months ago
@GiulianoMagno I lol on floor laughing at thought your comment.
Real men fly a plane with a yoke!
I have of never seen a plane control by an egg!!
Man you of unreal!!
MicheIAsseline 7 months ago
@MicheIAsseline
Okay, I hope you're back on your chair; now please explain me what you're talking about; I'm sorry but I don't understand.
GiulianoMagno 7 months ago
@GiulianoMagno Non chair on back?
MicheIAsseline 7 months ago
@MicheIAsseline
You like Word plays, don't you?
GiulianoMagno 7 months ago
this is hd
dertempler100 1 year ago
The funny thing is that the Unmanned Plane retards hold this video clip as the Holy Grail of their position with the copy to be taken as gospel.
What they don't tell you is that later in the same show, running the same clip, the same narrator reads:
"A strange series of events followed...the first took place at an airshow in France, with the plane flown by AirFrance's star A320 pilot. Miraculously, the pilot survived. 3 passengers didn't."
TLC & UK's Ch.4 "Survival in the Sky" Ep #1 1996
hibob418 1 year ago
@hibob418 As the CEO of The Learning Channel, I can tell you you are correct. We here at TLC are trying to bury the mistake we made of this being an unmanned flight. It aired only one time before we pulled it, but the shame and embarrassment remains.
CEOofTLC 1 year ago
@CEOofTLC as the youngest pilot in the history of southwest airlines i can assure you that this plane was unmanned
YTSMalumni2010 1 year ago
@YTSMalumni2010 now i understand why you are always cranky and unhappy. you fly for southwest. we pay our 15 year old hostesses at Bob's Big MANNED more than southwest pays their pilots. the offer i made you washing dishes part time for $7.30 per hour at one of my restaurants still stands. it would be a significant increase in pay from what you are making at southwest, believe me.
FoxyBobsBigBoy 11 months ago 5
@FoxyBobsBigBoy If you notice YTSM's profile, she lists herself as a "whore" for occupation... LOL...
dravenousone 11 months ago
i think we can build a better unmanned plane. and when i say 'we' i dont mean the french because they already fucked this one up, i mean we as a society
YTSMalumni2010 1 year ago
To all,
It was a manned flight. The a320 was flying by wire, The first civillian aircraft to do so. The reason the accident happened was that when the flight of 296 was planed there was no line of trees at that hight at the end of the runway. When the Captain realised what was happening, he applied power to climb, The computer ignored this and thus kept on flying. this of course had the outcome that the A320 flew into the trees.
mitch19636 1 year ago
@mitch19636 One correction: the computer did not ignore the request for more power, the pilot simply applied it too late. It takes several seconds for engines that size to spool up after power is applied in the cockpit. If you watch the original video, you can actually hear the engines starting to spool up right before the plane hits the trees.
Source: official investigation report.
Smoznizjev 1 year ago 2
@mitch19636 And withou computer aircraft would have just stalled to the trees. Pilot tried to pull up when he was too slow and low, it takes engines some seconds to spool up so plane would have stalled without computer that prevented them from stalling the plane.
Pvjinflight 1 year ago
There were souls on board. Look for "Air Crash Investigation Pilot Vs Plane part 1"
Mitch..
mitch19636 1 year ago
Morel of the story ....dont fly Air France.
TheCozzie99 1 year ago
@TheCozzie99 Idiot.
funkyfrog51 1 year ago
oh well Boeing crashed 10x more than airbus.
madzane94 1 year ago 2
I know it might sound a bit stupid as a question, but how come alot of people are constantly debating if the flight was unmanned or not?
(I believe that there was indeed a pilot, no radio-control crap. And don't start yellin' at me for that).
I mean, if the facts are stated and PROVEN to be true, then why insist?
NA734 1 year ago
@NA734 the answer is that there are a group of trolls, namely mk3stargazer, zoracsitemanager & foxyunkoxy who spam every page they can find about this crash with the " unmanned plane " crap & like to bully people who disagree with their bullshit. they pretend to be employees of youtube & threaten people with account deletion. they dont work for youtube & cannot delete your account, no matter what they might claim
the facts are it was a piloted aircraft - the plot was jailed for manslaughter
m3zane 1 year ago 3
@m3zane I've been through the "troll-crap". And frankly, I have to say that I'm wondering how can they find entertaining to try and prove the opposite of what has really happened... It just mesmerizes me how one can persist in such a rebellious way.
Anyhow, cheers mate!
NA734
NA734 1 year ago
@m3zane The best would be to shot those Bastards . I had a nice conversation with mk3stargazer, zoracsitemanager & foxyunkoxy ... They create new accounts to spread there lies .
Quattroowner 1 year ago 2
@Quattroowner i am sure that post natal abortion would be a fine solution for these fuckwits who troll these pages daily spamming about it being an "unmanned plane"
they are just intent on spreading lies & disinformation about this crash, intent on bullying & harassing people, trying to add something to their very sad, lonely friendless existence
so far they have had numerous accounts deleted by youtube - foxairfieldmaverick & zoracsitemanager the latest to be terminated
m3zane 1 year ago 4
@m3zane You are right , MOJOATARI was one of there accounts ... In my country these People would have a nice Room in the " Psychologisches Landeskrankenhaus "
Quattroowner 1 year ago 2
failure
redraven1243 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What this video does not tell you the pilot was on the ground controlling this UNMANNED test flight
bmwnasher 1 year ago
This is why I get really nervous every time I get on an Airbus. I'm glad the uploader included the more complete version; this video is too often clipped to where all you see is the crash. It's nice having the aircraft explained.
Sleddog116 1 year ago
@Sleddog116 thats why all planes should be unmanned like this one
YTSMalumni2010 1 year ago
@YTSMalumni2010
Except this plane wasn't unmanned. You apparently didn't watch the whole video. I'm not going to engage in this stupid argument because I have better things to do, but I will present the facts here. First, this was Air France Flight 296, which, according to the Aviation Safety Network, carried 136 occupants, 3 of whom died. I know you are not a site manager and have no control over my account, so don't bother playing that card.
Sleddog116 1 year ago
@Sleddog116 dont get worked up, just because you dont know the true story about this crash
YTSMalumni2010 1 year ago
@YTSMalumni2010 No, you're a troll. @Sleddog116 is right. Watch the video idiot. A plane isn't unmanmed when you have a pilot at the controls.
IchHabeKrebse 1 year ago
fully auto FAIL !!!!