TERROR on the Tarmac | Qantas 747 Runway Catastrophe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- This is the air crash investigation of Qantas Flight 1, a Qantas Boeing 747 flying from Sydney, Australia to London Heathrow, UK. On its Kangaroo route it was scheduled to land in Don Mueang International Airport, when it landed, it suffered a violent runway excursion on Runway 26L. Using the Final Report, this video will give you many different reasons that led up to this accident.
I would love to hear what you think about this incident, comment down below and let me know what you think.
Final Report: www.atsb.gov.a...
@MentourPilot 's video giving a more in depth look at the emergency evacuation: • WHY did This Airplane ...
The aircraft involved VH-OJH 'City of Darwin’ was 9 years old at the time of this incident. Rolling off the production line on 23 July 1990, her first flight on 14 August and entered service by operating Vancouver to Sydney as the QF587 on 02 September 1990.
She was our 38th Boeing 747.
Following her return to service she was affectionately known by our crews as 'the Golf Buggy' due to her near excursion through the golf course at the end of the old Bangkok Airport's** runway.
She returned to service and operated faithfully and reliably until her last commercial flight from Johannesburg landing in Sydney on 04 September 2012, on 04 October she was ferried to the Pinal Airpark, Marana, AZ via Los Angeles.
The following year she was unceremoniously scrapped.
There will never be any other aircraft as so beautifully unique and instantly recognisable as the Boeing 747, inclusive of all iterations, that flew so beautifully, broke so many records, withstood so many challenges and insults but safely continued to be controllable, and genuinely changed the face of commercial aviation making access to international air travel possible for so many.
She was the ultimate 'game changer' and will always hold the 'Queen of the skies' crown.
She undeniably was an absolute pleasure to fly on and I’m endlessly grateful for the many mile and hours I’ve spent in her exceptionally wonderful company.
Airports and the myriad of networks she operated through are now more banal and ordinary in her noticeable absence.
Thank goodness some operators have the good sense to see the value and immense potential she offers having invested in the B747-8i in their fleets. By comparison the A380 is failed 'freighter' and not even a flash in the pan with the B747's remarkable and unbeatable achievements.
** this incident occurred at Don Muang Airport, the current Bangkok International Airport is Suvarnabhumi.
Well researched and crisply presented. Keep up the good work. This channel has great potential.
Thank you!
Fantastic video! What a crazy chain of events! If they had remembered the full reverse thrust it should have slowed the speed without the need for the braking.
Yes, exactly! If only.
It's imperative with larger planes that you do NOT "get wishy-washy" about decision making. This relates more to the Captain's hand pushing the FO's back on the throttles AFTER calling for a go-around. If you make a decision in a BIG piece of equipment, FOLLOW THROUGH is more important than saving a few bucks! The risk of bouncing back and forth during those "make or break" moments is that you don't do anything EFFECTIVELY.
That said, and I'm no commercial pilot (mind you)... I think it would be a fine personal guideline when confronting obvious poor weather and visibility to just make a point of being "well below" the prescribed speed. This doesn't require earth-shaking numbers. It just means deliberately making sure you're travelling slower in poor vis and potentially poor braking conditions than the "company standard". They can get pissy if they want about a few gallons of gas every time I land their plane, but in the slightly longer run, when I haven't broken anything simply for "buying a little more time" and for "making it easier on myself" it's going to SAVE them money, time, frustration, and publicity for the worst reasons...
Obviously, this is a "judgment call", and someone with years (or decades) more experience and expertise than I have would know better what the risks and benefits will be. Still, so long as you're not about to dip OUTSIDE the performance envelope, coming in as slow and relatively low as tolerable is probably preferable to any alternative under such conditions... just to be a little more prepared for "surprises". Weird sh*t happens out in the real world. You can't guess or rely on intuition for everything...
In experimentals and ultralights, as well as driving about everything of every class with wheels on it, I've salvaged myself the opportunities to avoid more trouble just dropping (and being willing to drop) a few mph for that extra second or two to read the situation and make my choice... then COMMIT to it. ;o)
Such good quality videos, how are you not getting more views!?
All of your comments and likes should help that! Thank you :)
Excellent quality, addictive stuff
Much appreciated Andy!
A $100M repair bill meant that airplane was in the hangar for a very, very long time. Must have been a massive project.
I actually watched a Mentour Pilot clip of this flight just earlier, what a coincidence that you end up uploading the same flight very soon after! :-)
It is a crazy incident. I had a few comments requesting I covered this accident. I said I would oblige. So here it is 😬
@@CuriousPilot90 Since I'm Australian I'm intrigued by any incidents involving Australian airlines!
I managed to get over to Australia a few years back. Such a fantastic country, I only visited Melbourne and Perth. Melbourne in particular, is one of my favourite places in the world.
@@CuriousPilot90 I’m from perth
@@Konigwilson123
😜
This is a situation where costs impacted on a pilots clear and correct choices in regards to landing flap and reverse thrust. If there was ever a case where good airmanship would dictate the use of maximum flap available and judicious use of reverse thrust and also braking action, this is it. Should have been flap 30, maximum reverse, autobrake 4. You can always reduce reverse and manually override the autobrake.
Great Video!
I worked on the first seven 747-400s including that Qantas. Of all the Boeing brain farts, a close second right behind MCAS was the "wire wrap" on the forward cargo E-bay. It was the most electrical labor intensive stupidity I ever saw on aircraft. Decades later I worked on the first five 747-8s down in San Antonio. They had gone back to legacy style wiring thankfully.
Im not in any way related to the aviation sector but here just here out of morbid curiousity. This channel is one among the two aviation channels i can watch bcs the narration is not overtly technical..
I've never heard of Qantas pilots being this incompetent.
Glad everyone made it.
It's not pilots. They had instructions not to use full thrust reverses (to save fuel). So, pleae address your question to Qantas management.
But they saved gas by not using reversers.
Yeah.
Hope QANTAS exec noticed the irony
@@c8Lorraine1 I doubt it - he is just too stupid for that.
Love this channel good content and listens to the community
Good video
Agreed.
Thanks :)
I would like sq006 747 which collided with Barrie’s at takeoff and crashed in taipei
I’ll take a look, always happy for recommendations! 😁
Agree with Technoblade sq006 was crazy
Not a good sign is it when they have to save money by going easy on the reverse thrusters. Is that an airline you want to fly on?
It's because Qantas' tickets are so expensive, no one except rich people want to fly on them. They are so expensive because they normally don't cut corners like all the budget airlines and actually retain their staff (at least better than the budget carriers). In doing that they have to save money somehow.
@@pwhnckexstflajizdryvombqug9042 It’s better to pay more and arrive alive. One should not fly on airlines because of cheap fares.
Rain Man in 1988 "Qantas never crashed", Flight 1 in 1999: "Hold my beer"
😢Capt. Should have been PF. Unstabilized GA not executed correctly by FO.
2nd officer? I thought the 400 only have two pilots, hmm.
They would have been a pilot in training.
How do they keep those windscreen wipers on the plane😳???
I think because no reverse thrust or flap 30 caused it
I agree, full reverse thrust should have negated the loss of braking by the wheels and flap 30 would have increased drag and allowed for a slower approach speed.
Does this count as a crash?
Why did you change the thumbnail
Just experimenting if one will increase views or not.
Or Qantas 72?
Thanks for the suggestions. I’ll have a look 😁
I want to see an idiot who made a rule not to use full thrust reverses with a reasoning that this way they would save fuel. I am pretty much sure that people like him who just want to please higher management with such "efficient" cost cutting proposals and do not care or do not know how things are done in reality are promoted to higher levels.
It wasn't a rule not to use reverse thrust, it was just a concept that "don't use it unless you need to". The pilots then got into a habit of not using it (because you normally don't need it) and when they went into this situation, they didn't realise the would need it, and when push came to shove they fell back on what they were used to. The Qantas management even in this situation would have been completely fine with them using reverse thrust.
Green dot another decent channel.
Too much automation
🎶 Pᵣₒmₒˢᵐ
What happened to the first officer. Did QANTAS ground him. Bit embarrassing in front of his wife
It was the SOs wife.
Do you want to fly on an airline that tells its pilots not to use reverse thrust to save money?
It looks like the captain was very hesitant, thankfully there were no victims!
It is a testament to the aircraft manufactures, this aircraft was repaired and flown again!
@@CuriousPilot90 747's very hardy strong birds that could take a lot of stress.
I think sq006 would be a good idea my cousin was in it and survived with no injury
No reverse thrust 😮 what a joke
Company policy
I wonder if curios pilot can replace mentour pilot
How about Air France 447?
Aerodrome
Sorry to be pernickety but the plane was called the Spirit of the Skies, not the Queen of the skies. I only know this because of the real picture you posted. You can just see the name at the front of where the vegetation starts. The Co-Pilot must have had small hands. Ha Ha
I probably wasn’t clear! But the 747 in general is referred to as the ‘Queen of the skies’ 😬
@@CuriousPilot90 I have never heard that term before and i knew that most Aircraft are given a name, so when i saw "The Spirit of.............." i thought you were meaning its givin name and had gotten it wrong. It is a coincidence that the names are close. My Apologies!
Another wonderful presentation.
Great video🤩✈
Thank you.
Video is too dark............useless video.....................Paul