Very helpful. Applaud your efforts to presents a well laid out, watchable summary of the Board's findings. Giving faces and voices to the Board will go a long way in ensuring the public understands the value you provide to the country.
I am not a pilot but I am glad to see they make these videos. These videos makes me feel safer in taking a flight. I find it interesting how they looked into phone records to show the person did not take full advantage of her rest time. I am a bus driver. Our company believes you can go home and return to work with as little of 6 hours off and be fully rested. Not possible. Thank you for post g. The video.
FINALLY!! A video from the US government that is well-produced and informative. Throw out all those old FAA "instructional videos" - no one has the patience to watch them anymore. Learn from the style and the content of this superb NTSB report - and this will, of course, get to more pilots in a meaningful way.
Richard: If you liked this video and thought it was well made you should check out some of the videos made by the US Chemical Safety Board - Available here on TH-cam.
This was a good video and a step in the right direction for the ntsb. Kudos to the ntsb for a good presentation. Although I hope we don't have any more crashes (mishaps), if they do occur I hope ntsb will continue this video effort to present lessons learned to the public and aviation community.
These video summaries are a fantastic tool to disseminate information about the results of accident investigations. It is my hope that the NTSB continues and expands with this type of format. Very well done!
Yes, it really is true that pilots need to make the decision to "go around" much more easily. There is a natural tendency to "fix this" when any non-optimal situation arises, which is [usually] okay at early stages, but unfortunately becomes a firm or fixed decision "to fix this" all the way to disaster. I consider myself a prudent, rational pilot, but I must say, I have watched so many videos that show pilots getting locked into the "gonna fix this" attitude all the way to disaster has made me feel totally willing and happy to "take the safe way out" before uncomfortable/difficult/strange/weird/odd situations get very deep. To take the time to collect my thoughts, make a new plan, and try again takes a great deal of pressure off, and is quite a relief. I'll bet pilots who watch dozens to hundreds of crash videos/reconstructions have a much better safety records. Seriously.
In general in the pilot community, pilots know about the hill north of the BHM airport; that it is a tricky approach even under day visual conditions. When hearing that UPS had crashed at BHM, my pilot friend's first comment was, "They hit the hill." And that is even before knowing anything more than it had crashed. The flight should never have been dispatched at night without a working ILS (which was planned to be available to the longer runway 6 a mere 10 minutes after their scheduled arrival - and which in reality was fully functional just 5 minutes after the crash.) This video report is a fair summary of the accident, but even the full report did not discuss the "Get-home-itis" mindset on the part of both the crew and the company culture. Were the pressures to perform too exacting for the simple task of flying some boxes from A to B? I think, yes. I'd gladly answer to the customers why their package was 10 minutes late rather than try to explain why it never got delivered. The key question was why the crew did not go around as required when the stabilized approach criteria (several of them) were not satisfied.
+Beverly Sweeny I live in Birmingham, i agree with you about the hill, Ive never seen large aircraft come in that way landing, they have been bringing some in from the other end over 20.59 but I can imagine that is tricky at night with the hill & trees right ? doesnt look like a easy one if you dont fly in that way right?
I thought the same thing. Why not go around and set it up again. Plus the ILS would have been available. But we never know what the crew was thinking. Complacency may have entered into this as well. Tragic accident
In the days before "CAT 3" landing systems all runway landings with below visuals due to fog an automatic ruling to use an alternate landing destination was observed. Other than a mechanical equipment failure UPS expects their pilots to complete their mission as planned on time.
While no gross errors on the part of the crew, it is a group of small ones that caused this tragedy. My thoughts to the crew, and their family. Lesson learned: Attention to detail is extremely important, we can't assume computers have that covered. It is still our responsibility as humans to keep watch.
Thank you for producing this video. I think one thing that was left out of this video is that one factor pilots routinely face is the pressure to land by their employers. It would probably cost UPS thousands of dollars if this go-round resulted in even a 30 minute delay. And no pilot wants to be known as captain go-round. I'd bet that their career path is probably affected by even one or two go rounds and if you have three, you're probably going to end up flying puddle-jumpers in Alaska.
For anyone who wants to arm-chair quarterback the decision making of the crew, keep in mind, you were not there. For crews that fly these approaches day in and day out, things can often become routine. These are not cessna pilots who fly an ILS once every month to stay current. These people fly everyday. In weather and conditions that would make most people crawl under their bed. We are all human and can make mistakes. Fortunately, it is because of the tremendous training, standardization and dedication of professional flight crews, these type of things don't happen very often. But no matter how much training and technology you have, these type of things WILL happen at some point. It is part of the inherent risk of flying. Over all of my years in aviation I have learned this, unless you can prove that the pilot or crew was absolutely incompetent, never judge their actions. Someday someone else may judge yours!
+Jeff Burosh If we don't judge their actions, then we can't learn from their mistakes and their deaths become meaningless. The NTSB judges them and so can we; using the available information. The two pilots made a significant number of mistakes and exercised poor judgement and it killed them.
+John Ferguson John, I completely understand your point. Of course we don't just ignore what happened and chalk it up to bad luck. Any data we can gather from their deaths helps improve the system. I get that. However, more the point I am trying to make is there is a tendency for people to make judgements about the actions of crews which really are unwarranted. Even the NTSB doesn't issue "judgements". They issue probably causes. I think this is a crucial distinction. The era in which we live is so crowded with data about almost everything we do that we tend to get into this arm chair quarterback mode about everything. Even people who do no know anything about a subject tend to think they know what those involved SHOULD have done. I have had this exact process levied against me on several occasions and, to be frank, I don't like it. My comments were more toward the judgements levied by those commenting on the video and less about the NTSB findings.
Considering the gravity -- no pun intended -- of the situation in piloting even a mere Cessna, it doesn't require years of flight time as the pilot of a commercial jet, following a run as a military fighter pilot, to know that nothing should be considered 'routine' in the cockpit. Maintaining respectful observance of that as a cardinal rule is the highest mark of consummate professionalism in a pilot. Easier said than done, yes, but the lethal sequence of critical errors made by these two is mind-boggling. It all seemed to have begun with whatever influences resulted in the co-pilot being away from the hotel room for a lengthy period and spending lavish amounts of time on her phone rather than resting. There's the 'routine': people typically think they can 'handle it'. Not unlike when someone insists on driving after drinking. She forgot to reset the computer, and the first domino was pushed. You're right, they weren't flying a puddle jumper. They weren't mowing the lawn in the trailer park eight beers into a Sunday morning, either. Ethically, there was no more or less responsibility in flying this jet than there would be in flying a Piper Cub, but somehow the stakes seem arguably bigger given the nature of the situation and the total amount of loss. My mind immediately took the direction of thinking 'jilted lover suicide', with the two pilots being involved in some tryst gone awry and the Captain saying "Suck someone else's dick? Here you go, bitch," as he pushed the yoke forward at 400 feet.
It's the brevity of the situation NOT the gravity of the situation. Brevity 1. shortness of time or duration; briefness : the brevity of human life. 2. the quality of expressing much in few words; terseness: Ironically, it is long-winded Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet who famously says that brevity is the soul of wit.
Yes, good report I live in Birmingham and arrived at airport at day break after crash. None of us pilots could understand why they flew plane into the ground. I now understand with this report. I have heard this many times where a series of events leads to a tragic ending when those events forces you out of your routine.
Fatigue was also a MAJOR contributing factor in this accident. However cargo carriers were legally exempted from the rest requirements the passenger carriers have to adhere to after intense lobbying from the likes of UPS and FedEx. Why did those cargo carriers want the exemption, nothing other then saving them MONEY.
Pileits blood on their hands. This is why I'm pro lynching. Lynch the fucker responsible for the cut in the budget.. Then see what happens to workers rights. #BRINGBACKTHEUNIONPOWER
The lady in the video explains that both pilots had adequate rest time, and the captain had used his time to rest, but the FO had not (left her hotel for a long time and had used her phone a lot in that time).
The full accident report showed that UPS would be complying with even the strictest fatigue rules in existence. The FO was given the time to sleep, and just didn’t use it.
- As much as I’d like to blame air carrier management for that aspect, if you read the full (and very thorough) report, the lack of rest really was due to the FO’s choices and actions. That said, you are correct about the difference in the regulations, which is patently absurd - it’s not a special different species of humanoid that flies cargo, we’re all subject to essentially the same physical/mental/emotional limitations.
A word to the film editors: you need to find better footage for the in-cockpit shots. Don't use 20 year old footage of a 747 cockpit when the accident is about a A300 in 2013. Attention to detail baby... it's not just for pilots :-)
This thread highlights how dumb most pilots are: one says it's 747, one says it's a 737 and another says it's a 767 lol. You all can't even agree on what you're angry about haha
love to understand engineering on a deeper level. sadly these tragic accidents offer the most insight regarding how and why safety is of utmost importance within engineering and the operation of heavy machinery.
I wonder what kills pilots in what appear to be an intact cockpit. Are the floor or nose wheel coming up, do the seats tear loose is it panels and instruments flying around or G-force ? What can be done to improve pilot safety in the cockpit ?
It is the G-force that gets them. Even if strapped in going from landing speed to zero speed is very damaging to the body. Organs tend to lose there positions in the body thus creating major blood vessels to tear.
i know of a high school kid whose chest hit the steering wheel when he slid off an icy road into a tree, he looked fine externally after the accident but his heart was leaking from the impact and he died shortly after.
Outstanding! Many kudos to this innovative effort by the NTSB. This tragic accident may have otherwise been added to the “heap” of yet another perfectly airworthy airplane, operated by an experience crew, that was somehow mysteriously flown into the ground for no good reason. Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT): so sad, so needless, yet so real. CFIT continues to pose a significant threat to commercial aviation, and may never be totally eliminated. But there is good news: we’re getting better and we’re learning more with each accident. We must examine these tragedies and devise new strategies to better equip pilots with the knowledge and awareness to more aggressively stop these events before they develop. It is very obvious that the NTSB has a sense or urgency and commitment to eliminating the insidious CFIT threat to commercial airliners with this thoughtful and galvanizing video. There has to be a meaningful, and useful “take away” from this tragedy, as such the NTSB has started the conversation that must take place amongst all pilots and airline professionals everywhere. I would encourage all pilots to take heed to the advice at the end of this video by giving some serious thoughts to the ideas presented.
What was the reported ceiling and did they ever report breaking out below the clouds? Waiting for the ILS to be available may not have been an option. I am only an ASEL-IA but when things don't 'look' right, it is time to go missed and try again.
G'day, Yay Team...! You know that, & I know that, but we're not facing penny-pinching bean-counters who worry about Schedules and Fuel/Maintenance costs of the extra Flight Time...; and maybe our grip on our Egos is strong enough that we'd rather back off and start again, than try to make a bad approach lead to a good landing by force of Denial... We ARE sitting in our Armchairs and breathing in & out, rather than pushing up Daisies..; so we must've done something reasonably right.., it seems ? ;-p Ciao !
Maxx - I just finished reading the entire accident report. The crew had know idea that they were in trouble until almost the very end. While a lot of mistakes were made that fact that they blew right past the MDA without a concern is troubling. What it appears to show is that they need to go out and shoot non-precision approaches in something like a Piper Arrow.
***** G'day, Yay Team...! I reckon an even better idea would be to require that ALL Pilots should have to commence their Learnings in Sailplanes, ideally one with no Electrical System & only Analogue Instruments, so as to learn to fly the Wing, from the beginning ; rather than being bedazzled by the Smelly Noisemaker and all the fancy instrumentation to be found in "Basic Trainers" this past 20 years. A fact of life is that the 1930s-40s Luftwaffe trained it's Pilots on Primary Gliders & Sailplanes, whereas the Allies *all* started their Ab-Initio Courses on powered Aeroplanes, and the Luftwaffe Pilots - on a per-capita basis, shot the shitfeathers off the Allies...; the "Top Scoring Allied Fighter Pilot in WW-2" was Johnie Johnson, and his 40 Aerial Victories do not amount to even One Eighth of the Tally racked up by the Luftwaffe's Erich Hartmann (352). It's a mindset/headspace/attitude thing..., some pilots fly the Wing, others drive their Motors, up & around & through the Sky..; and the ones who learn to fly without Engines pay a lot more attention everafter to how much Air they *actually* have under their Wings, especially when getting anywhere close to The Big Round Flat Obstacle Under The Sky. Glider Pilots know they can't "just open the Taps & have another go", so therefore they *try much harder* to not fcuk up the Approach in the first place. Low technology teaches perfection, and perfectionists pay more attention to the things which matter, and "Foolproof" Systems merely allow greater foolishness to appear to be acceptable, but only when nothing goes wrong. ;-p Ciao !
WarblesOnALot Unfortunately, I have no glider experience. When I was doing my commercial check ride in an Arrow the designated examiner required a power off landing. My flight instructor knew he would do this so we practiced it am my home airport of KMQS. The hershey bar Arrows tend to come down like a brick when power is removed. I was able to do the spot landing exactly as the DE wanted so I passed on my first try. Even though I am basically a klutz at sports, flying came easy to me - probably from building an flying control lines planes as a kid and two years of college level physics classes. The Arrow which I had used only had a wings leveler able to track a heading bug for an autopilot. None of the 172s and 182s that I flew for the Civil Air Patrol had autopilots. With the CAP you had to fly with a check pilot once a year. I always did an IPC during the yearly checkout and asked to check pilot to make me sweat. I think the big iron ATPs should be required to show proficiency in hand flying in all phases of operation. Who knows, 'George' may stage a wildcat strike on you!
mike klaene Absolutely, I agree... At my end of the scale, anybody who advocates adjusting their Glidepath down their Finals to land, by tweaking the Descent-Rate dialed into the Autopilot is not really any kind of a Pilot, at all... Mind you, I take an Olde School position, but then again the Wright Brothers had a better Aeroplane in 1903 than what I taught myself to fly in (see my "Personal Aeroplanology" Playlist).., but back when Piper Arrows were State Of The Art I used to work assembling them for the Australian agent (Ansett General Aviation, in 1979)... I'm a big believer in Flying Aeroplanes, rather than Going Aviating In Aircraft..., if that makes sense ; Aircraft Aviate for some "Purpose" or "Mission" or "to make money", whereas people Fly Aeroplanes for the Fun of it... So, a Spitfire with Guns fitted and Armed, looking for Messerschmits, is an Aircraft, being Aviated..., just as is a Crop Duster, or an Airliner full of International Passengers..; but the disarmed Spitfire at an Airshow, the Pawnee tow-launching Sailplanes, or the Airliner flying Tourist Return-trip No-Landings Joyrides to Antarctica..., are all AEROPLANES GOING FLYING, even though they may be the same Airframes and Engines, in the same Sky... It's what people think they're "good for" which makes the difference... I can thoroughly recommend doing an Ab-Initio Course on Sailplanes, and if you can conceal your Powered Exerience it can be even more informative...; I didn't tell my Gliding Instructor that I had a couple of hours in a Pitts S-2a until after I startled her when we got to Practice Rope Breaks, & I'd pulled a "Splitarse Turn" after she barked at me for not turning tight enough... Biggles has a lot to answer for... ;-p Ciao !
+BlackLabelSlushie The FAA is fully funded. They have tens of billions of dollars in the trust fund. They just waste it and don't use the money wisely.
All runways cannot be served by ILS approaches. for one thing the topography and landscape must be level enough to accommodate a 3 degree slope to the runway [ including obstacle clearance limits ] . I cant imagine why defense has to be prioritized above all the other things that we waste billions on.
Even if you had 100% ILS approaches in the USA, You will have to be proficient in doing non precision approaches as a Pre Requirement to becoming Instrument rated and also operating outside the country. If there is one weakness almost universally among crews it is Non precision approaches proficiency.
Sorry for the dumb question here, but what is a non-precision approach? I Googled it, but the explanation is way over my head. Is there a simple way to explain it? In my mind, when I hear the word "non-precision", I think, "not accurate". But that can't be right----why would an airplane fly into an airport "not accurate"? Do they just guess? No, I know that's not the answer----I'm just trying to get across my layman's interpretation of what this could possibly mean. Thanks.
smitty195 A precision approach is usually based off a ground antennas that shoot two radio "beams" perpendicular to each other like a T. One guides you horizontally, one guides you vertically, and you follow where they intersect all the way down to about 200' off the ground. At that point, you need to actually see the runway and land visually. These antennas shoot a more precise beam and are intended for little more than getting an aircraft low enough to see the runway. A nonprecision approach is usually based off of a different ground radio station that is meant for enroute navigation or GPS. The instruments that read this second ground station are less sensitive as it is more intended for long range navigation instead rather than getting an aircraft down to the runway. These don't have vertical guidance. Because of the lack of vertical guidance, you base your descent usually on distances from this station. For example: 15+ miles out, you must be at least 3500' up; between 6-15 miles out, you "step down" to 2000' up; between 1.8-6 miles out, you "step down" to your final height of 600' above the runway; between 0.5-1.8 miles, you search for the runway; if you don't see the runway by 0.5 miles at 600', you abort the approach and climb back up to a safe altitude. Not all airports have the ability to have precision approaches because of terrain, funding (initial cost + how much it cost to keep it running all the time), weather is clear 99% of the time, or the amount of the amount of traffic into the airport just doesn't justify it.
G forces rip your guts out internally. You will look normal and dead at the same time, sitting in your seat with the straps on. It's sad how this happens.
Humans weren’t made to travel at high speeds. When you’re in a car and brake, anything not fastened will fly forward. So when you go from traveling 150 knots to almost 0 knots in such a short time (at impact) your organs keep going and basically get crushed.
@@blueb0g - I’d disagree - they both made a few error that on any other day would have been fairly minor “oops,” type errors - unfortunately the environment on that day was less forgiving and the holes in the Reason (Swiss-cheese) model aligned tragically.
@@bradcrosier1332 They flew badly. They crashed because they didn't monitor their flightpath. The fact that they would have got away with it in other conditions is irrelevant because it always takes a confluence of factors to crash, that doesn't take away from poor performance.
@@blueb0g - I agree they got behind the aircraft, and I’ll grant you could call that flying badly. I’d say it was more a loss of situation awareness, because when you read the full report, they really didn’t recognize that they were losing it until very end. It’s definitely an argument for the first step in re-establishing SA: Get to a safe altitude to sort things out. I still think merely saying “they flew badly” is much too simplistic an answer, which merely points fingers and fails to provide any meaningful guidance for others to learn from.
I read the accident report , I watched the hearing and I used to fly A306, which is why I thought that it was a shame that more authentic images were not included.
Why not LNAV, VNAV approach for the longer runway. Normally the problem is speed control, if your speed is ok, than you can adjust your path. Another question from NTSB is why they failed to carry out a Missed Approach. Normally if a First Officer screw up than it is better to go totally on manual flying. I agree that sequencing waypoints are important, but if it was NOTAMISED unavailability of ILS, than in Route 2 the Captain should have built a non precision approach for the longer runway (FMCs are very accurate in lateral navigation). It appears that fatigue/routine had played its part. I agree with the NTSB, mental confusion is the killer.
Whenever the landing gear is down they lose a lot of the altitude warnings like the ground proximity warning system, because the plane’s cpu thinks it’s about to land and is expected the ground to be there.
Pilots could have waited/held for the ILS runway to reopen. A careful reading of this, and many other transportation safety reports, reveals complacency in many areas, and on many levels. Acknowledging, understanding, and mitigating complacency should be priorities.
***** I don't know what the delay was in restoring the ILS but if a crew of a (relatively) modern transport category aircraft cannot make a non-precision approach without packing it into the ground then they should not be in a cockpit. I believe fatigue was a major issue in the failure to properly program the FMC but there was a breakdown in CRM after that at several essential steps. I would be looking at the company's training standards as well following this crash. Disclaimer: I haven't read the full report.
Peter Lovett At the beginning of this video report the investigators mention that the aircraft was given Runway 18 to land on, which had only the Localizer operational. Then the investigators say that the aircraft and the pilots failed to capture the Glide Slope (ILS). My question is did Runway have ILS or only the LOC. Can anyone confirm this? I have watched the video 3 times.
Phiroze Cama India The Flight Management Computer can generate an approach overlay based on the LOC approach. The FMC uses known altitudes for the approach to generate a virtual or "pseudo" glideslope. Essentially you can fly the approach using the FMC as primary guidance, with the actual LOC as a backup. Depending on aircraft and company procedures/authorizations, they may have been flying the actual LOC and just using the pseudo glideslope from the FMC. There are so many modes and options in modern avionics, it's easy to get caught out if you don't really know your system and pay close attention to the details. Very sad that we keep doing this to ourselves. Blue skies and tailwinds my friends
***** After reading the entire report, I am amazed as to why they did not query BHM approach as to what is up with the ILS. I am just a single engine guy with an instrument rating who has to hand fly all my approaches - but I will ask the approach controllers about current weather if things are looking off. But these two had no clue that they were in trouble - IMHO.
My condolences on the occasion of losing two crew members on that flight. I have to let the National Transportation Safety Board comments and observations stand alone [ without comment ] because of its completeness and persuasive findings. There are things mentioned here, that have occurred in my own experiences that did not end in tragedy, However there is quite a lot of information here, that is beneficial to many pilots about being proficient in interacting with the Flight management Computer.
blunt force trauma. They were in the seats with harness. The aircraft is just moving so fast heavy object. The metal can take quite a crush but the body will burst
Why did the NTSB find this captain at fault for not communicating what he was doing but allowed Sully to get away uncriticized for his not telling Skiles or the cabin crew he was going to land in the Hudson? Double stAndard. Hey they admitted they had to get deference to Sully because he was already a hero before their first interview of him. I just answered my own question case you missed it
Sully told ATC that they were going into the Hudson at least 3 times. No doubt Skiles could hear what he was saying since he was sitting right beside him. I'd say he had a heads up. While Sully was prepping for that, Skiles was trying to restart the engines, and Skiles did tell the cabin crew to have the passengers brace for an emergency landing.
These investigation/crash videos are very captivating. I have 2 questions; 1: Has there ever been a drunk pilot? (Example: Movie Flight). 2: Can you please make a video on Amtrak crash 188? If there's a final investigation report. I made a school project on my own investigation. I hope to see the investigation and look how accurate/how far off I was. Thanks!
When I got my first airline job my "initiation" was answering one question, which was, "All pilots are either alcoholics, smokers, or womanizers, which one are you"? Jokes aside, as far as your first question...yes, there has been airline pilots caught drunk. In 2002 BOTH American West Airlines pilots scheduled to make a trip from Miami, FL to Phoenix, AZ were suspected of being drunk. They made it as far as pushback before they were ordered to return to the gate. They were ultimately convicted of operating an aircraft while intoxicated. Here's a link to the full description - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_West_Airlines_Flight_556#Background
@@flyboy242 - Also a Northwest flight back in the 80’s IIRC (could have been the 90’s, I’m getting old and dates get fuzzy). I’m sure there have been others as well. That said, I do not recall there being any discussion of impairment from any source other than lack of sleep in the NTSB report, and that is certainly not something they would gloss over.
Excellent idea to make videos like this! A paper report by comparison is a more dry medium and I suspect that a lot of those reports become forgotten in a filing cabinet somewhere. Such videos on the other hand are more accessible, not only for pilots, The video felt a bit short? I think there would be enough material in the official report to fill about 12 to 15 minutes of video.
Why not use a professional narrator and skip the music? This presentation more closely resembles a television documentary than a companion to an official report.
NTSB needs to be at out local airport grilling the living plop out these here in St Croix with actual on the spot inspections, daily drug testing and so on.
UPS and other next day air delivery carriers would be out of business if that was the rule. Airports like LAX, MSY and MIA simply have too much distance between them. Your thoughts need some more work.
The quality of the video and the audio is so poor that I, and others here with me, abandoned the production. Pity because there would have been a lot to learn
This was during a time where educated and competent people ran the ntsb. Now I see home boys with dreads trying to speak two coherent sentences. Trump needs to fix both the FAA and NTSB!
The only people armchair quarterbacking these pilots are not professional pilots. 172 pilots, maybe. But anyone who has worked in the industry understands how quickly a routine day can go sideways
seems painfully obvious that all aircraft need a monitor for distance to ground, rate of descent and both an alarm and auto pilot engagement feature. i am sure many design engineers wanted this included in their instrument capabilities but, yet again, time and money constraints from those that print the money, have murdered yet another crew. fortunately the fed will soon be gone forever and those who run it also... one way or another.
Airliners are among aircraft that use Radar Altimeters to provide the vertical definition that you mentioned, A vertical speed indicator is present at each pilot position and that instrument provides climb and sink rates. Pilots are trained to verify that there is a visual [ computer ] conformation of autopilot engagement and there is an alarm [ lights and audio ] to accompany autopilot disengagement.
You’d be wrong - we have that, but out of necessity it has to be desensitized (more accurately, its alerting parameters change) when on final approach or it would go off on every landing - resulting in a nuisance alarm which crews learn to tune out and ignore, the problem with that being it then gets ignored when there really is a hazardous condition. Unfortunately in this case, the crew remained within the alerting parameters (as I recall, it’s been a since I read the full report).
I worked this crash. More fun facts. There is a hill in front of runway 18, that has a gully. The plane clipped a tree with one wing at the top. This caused that side of the plane to dip down dramatically. As the plane crashed into the gully that wing dragged the ground and the plane cartwheeled back up the other side of the gully. The pilots were ejected and found dead, bodies intact, in their seats quite a distance from the plane. The plane was carrying a large amount of prescription drugs and guns (for all you conspiracy theorists). You see the picture of the nose somewhat in tact, there was also a wing that was intact before it burned into a pile of molten aluminum. Other than that, there wasn't anything bigger than your average house door. I did not see either of the individuals in the video at the site, but the NTSB people that I did meet were really great people and great to work with. Top of the line individuals and incredibly bright.
You just asked the exact same question I was going to ask. I am an accident reconstruction expert (no, not with airplanes----with motor vehicles). I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about with airplanes, but there are similarities in my job and that of some at that NTSB, where we both are fact-gatherers and must piece together what happened and account for every single piece of debris. There could be one tiny piece of "something" that is 50 feet further away from the accident than anything else----how did that get there? That's what I do---figure out how it got there and how everything happened. So I was just observing the crash scene in this video, and I have to say that it would be very interesting for the flight deck crew to still be strapped in their seats, but located away from the plane. Let me put this a different way that lay-people can understand: How many traffic accidents have there been in the USA where one of the occupants (doesn't matter who----the driver, the passenger, whatever) is found seat-belted to their seat but the seat is thrown clear of the car? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that question but I do have an educated guess, and my guess is that the number is zero. I've read some really weird reports in my career, and I've seen some really weird, bizarre stuff at accident scenes.....but my God, I can't even imagine something like a car and body separated from the car and intact. People ejected from the car---yes. "Stuff" ejected from the car----yes. But not a person seat-belted in. That would be breaking new ground and I would not know how to investigate that, other than to just apply the same mathematics to that as everything else at the scene, but we do not have things like coefficient of friction, known speed rates, etc, for a human belted into a seat that gets ejected and intact. We would have to go to a university professor at M.I.T., Stanford, or some other prestigious institution to find out how the hell to make sure we're doing it right.
The NTSB report is available online. It's very easy to search. I'm going to pull up the NTSB report on this crash right now and use keywords to search through the document for what "no one" is saying happened. I just don't believe it.
Can we do a "chick in the seat next to me killed me" skyshark compilation? I am not saying women are over-represented in Pilot error incidents resulting in fatalities. ( I am typing it)
ummm...she did help fly the plane- that was the problem...... Look up Colgan 3407...plane is in deep stall, she retracts flaps to "assist" in the death sequence. In all fairness the male pilot was also a complete moron. But they may have pulled out of it if the female copilot didnt retract the flaps at load speed.
I think we're saying the same thing - women fuck that shit up big time. In this case the NTSB note cellphone overuse by the dumb bitch as a potential factor to her inability to pay attention on the flight day.
disclaimer: I dont fly and dont operate anything more complicated than my sons' BX-22.(tractor)..... I do read these things and have for years. I think you guys have become entirely to dependent upon various cockpit aids to the point that they have begun to bite ya in the butt, Seems that the computer drives the aircraft and youse guys merely manage the computer... Maybe the tail is wagging the dog? Just a thought from the peanut gallery...
Music is a language and given the nature and source of these videos, there shouldn’t be any music in any of them. This is the problem: in your mind’s eye, replace the music being played with someone reading out of a book. It doesn’t work, does it? No matter who is reading out of whatever book, it simply won’t work. This is literally how people who are sensitive to music experience it. So, in this video, I’m hearing conflicting dialogue. I’m hearing the narrator and the interviewees, but behind them, I’m hearing a composer prattle on about something Asian-esque that could not, under any circumstance, pertain to airline safety. I know it wasn’t intended to be - nor was it overtly - disrespectful to the pilots who died and the professionals commenting on the accident however, the net effect was enough to make me stop watching it…….and pointlessly waste my time writing this.
I'm observant and attuned, but you're overly sensitive. ; ] I worked with a friend a few years back, doing a lot of fence-building, landscaping, stonework and the like. If he was stressed, sometimes he would make remarks about sudden but recurring distractions, such as a windchime or an intermittently yapping dog in the distance. I'd notice these elements, but they didn't bother me. They were part of the day's soundtrack. Your heightened sensitivity to the music in this video made me think of that. ; ]
“Sensitive” was a poorly chosen word. What would have been more appropriate was “fluent” but, that wouldn’t cover the folks you are talking about - and they shouldn’t be ignored. Plus, I have to “de-snob” my writing or I tend to come off like a …. Well…..snob, actually. “Sensitive” is what you’re talking about…..being sensitive to any sound. Which most people have bouts of now and again in life. But, fluent is a bit more subtle. Say you worked for a company that transferred you to a country where you aren’t fluent with the language -Japan, for instance. After six months or so, you’re still struggling to keep up with conversations in Japanese. You’re getting it but, it’s a chore. If you’re sitting on a bus one day, having a broken conversation with a co-worker on the way home from work and someone sitting a few rows back strikes up a conversation in English, you’re going to have trouble continuing the conversation in Japanese. A part of your brain will be going, “Hey….we know THIS….let’s listen to this conversation because I don’t have to work near as hard as with this Japanese stuff.” And you’ll have trouble staying in the conversation with your co-worker because you’ll be wanting to get involved with the other conversation. You’re not sensitive so much as you just want to go there because it’s easier for you to understand, so you can’t ignore it. This is actually why playing music in stores and what-not is somewhat rude.
Great idea by the NTSB to produce these videos. It's hugely helpful to the pilot community.
+Ron Williams yeah these videos are great thank you NTSB!
Very helpful. Applaud your efforts to presents a well laid out, watchable summary of the Board's findings. Giving faces and voices to the Board will go a long way in ensuring the public understands the value you provide to the country.
I am not a pilot but I am glad to see they make these videos. These videos makes me feel safer in taking a flight. I find it interesting how they looked into phone records to show the person did not take full advantage of her rest time. I am a bus driver. Our company believes you can go home and return to work with as little of 6 hours off and be fully rested. Not possible. Thank you for post g. The video.
FINALLY!! A video from the US government that is well-produced and informative. Throw out all those old FAA "instructional videos" - no one has the patience to watch them anymore. Learn from the style and the content of this superb NTSB report - and this will, of course, get to more pilots in a meaningful way.
Richard: If you liked this video and thought it was well made you should check out some of the videos made by the US Chemical Safety Board - Available here on TH-cam.
Not to sound cheesy but I'm so glad that the N.T.S.B. exists.
This was a good video and a step in the right direction for the ntsb. Kudos to the ntsb for a good presentation. Although I hope we don't have any more crashes (mishaps), if they do occur I hope ntsb will continue this video effort to present lessons learned to the public and aviation community.
These video summaries are a fantastic tool to disseminate information about the results of accident investigations. It is my hope that the NTSB continues and expands with this type of format. Very well done!
Yes, it really is true that pilots need to make the decision to "go around" much more easily. There is a natural tendency to "fix this" when any non-optimal situation arises, which is [usually] okay at early stages, but unfortunately becomes a firm or fixed decision "to fix this" all the way to disaster. I consider myself a prudent, rational pilot, but I must say, I have watched so many videos that show pilots getting locked into the "gonna fix this" attitude all the way to disaster has made me feel totally willing and happy to "take the safe way out" before uncomfortable/difficult/strange/weird/odd situations get very deep. To take the time to collect my thoughts, make a new plan, and try again takes a great deal of pressure off, and is quite a relief.
I'll bet pilots who watch dozens to hundreds of crash videos/reconstructions have a much better safety records. Seriously.
It must be hard to work in the NTSB. All the time dealing with deaths and sorrow.
Interesting video. It cleared up a 'mystery'. I hadn't heard the final word on this accident but, I remember all of the initial speculation. Thanks.
Thanks for posting, excellent video that all commercial pilots should watch.
In general in the pilot community, pilots know about the hill north of the BHM airport; that it is a tricky approach even under day visual conditions. When hearing that UPS had crashed at BHM, my pilot friend's first comment was, "They hit the hill." And that is even before knowing anything more than it had crashed. The flight should never have been dispatched at night without a working ILS (which was planned to be available to the longer runway 6 a mere 10 minutes after their scheduled arrival - and which in reality was fully functional just 5 minutes after the crash.) This video report is a fair summary of the accident, but even the full report did not discuss the "Get-home-itis" mindset on the part of both the crew and the company culture. Were the pressures to perform too exacting for the simple task of flying some boxes from A to B? I think, yes. I'd gladly answer to the customers why their package was 10 minutes late rather than try to explain why it never got delivered. The key question was why the crew did not go around as required when the stabilized approach criteria (several of them) were not satisfied.
A similar crash in Guam with Korean airlines was caused by a non working ILS and a tired pilot. Not a good combination.
+Beverly Sweeny I live in Birmingham, i agree with you about the hill, Ive never seen large aircraft come in that way landing, they have been bringing some in from the other end over 20.59 but I can imagine that is tricky at night with the hill & trees right ? doesnt look like a easy one if you dont fly in that way right?
I thought the same thing. Why not go around and set it up again. Plus the ILS would have been available. But we never know what the crew was thinking. Complacency may have entered into this as well. Tragic accident
gunsaway1 that is true
In the days before "CAT 3" landing systems all runway landings with below visuals due to fog an automatic ruling to use an alternate landing destination was observed. Other than a mechanical equipment failure UPS expects their pilots to complete their mission as planned on time.
Atlanta center always leaves us very high going into BHM, it’s always a problem.
While no gross errors on the part of the crew, it is a group of small ones that caused this tragedy. My thoughts to the crew, and their family. Lesson learned: Attention to detail is extremely important, we can't assume computers have that covered. It is still our responsibility as humans to keep watch.
Thank you for producing this video. I think one thing that was left out of this video is that one factor pilots routinely face is the pressure to land by their employers. It would probably cost UPS thousands of dollars if this go-round resulted in even a 30 minute delay. And no pilot wants to be known as captain go-round. I'd bet that their career path is probably affected by even one or two go rounds and if you have three, you're probably going to end up flying puddle-jumpers in Alaska.
thank you, this!
For anyone who wants to arm-chair quarterback the decision making of the crew, keep in mind, you were not there. For crews that fly these approaches day in and day out, things can often become routine. These are not cessna pilots who fly an ILS once every month to stay current. These people fly everyday. In weather and conditions that would make most people crawl under their bed.
We are all human and can make mistakes. Fortunately, it is because of the tremendous training, standardization and dedication of professional flight crews, these type of things don't happen very often. But no matter how much training and technology you have, these type of things WILL happen at some point. It is part of the inherent risk of flying. Over all of my years in aviation I have learned this, unless you can prove that the pilot or crew was absolutely incompetent, never judge their actions. Someday someone else may judge yours!
+Jeff Burosh If we don't judge their actions, then we can't learn from their mistakes and their deaths become meaningless. The NTSB judges them and so can we; using the available information. The two pilots made a significant number of mistakes and exercised poor judgement and it killed them.
+John Ferguson John, I completely understand your point. Of course we don't just ignore what happened and chalk it up to bad luck. Any data we can gather from their deaths helps improve the system. I get that. However, more the point I am trying to make is there is a tendency for people to make judgements about the actions of crews which really are unwarranted. Even the NTSB doesn't issue "judgements". They issue probably causes. I think this is a crucial distinction.
The era in which we live is so crowded with data about almost everything we do that we tend to get into this arm chair quarterback mode about everything. Even people who do no know anything about a subject tend to think they know what those involved SHOULD have done. I have had this exact process levied against me on several occasions and, to be frank, I don't like it. My comments were more toward the judgements levied by those commenting on the video and less about the NTSB findings.
Considering the gravity -- no pun intended -- of the situation in piloting even a mere Cessna, it doesn't require years of flight time as the pilot of a commercial jet, following a run as a military fighter pilot, to know that nothing should be considered 'routine' in the cockpit. Maintaining respectful observance of that as a cardinal rule is the highest mark of consummate professionalism in a pilot.
Easier said than done, yes, but the lethal sequence of critical errors made by these two is mind-boggling.
It all seemed to have begun with whatever influences resulted in the co-pilot being away from the hotel room for a lengthy period and spending lavish amounts of time on her phone rather than resting. There's the 'routine': people typically think they can 'handle it'. Not unlike when someone insists on driving after drinking. She forgot to reset the computer, and the first domino was pushed.
You're right, they weren't flying a puddle jumper. They weren't mowing the lawn in the trailer park eight beers into a Sunday morning, either. Ethically, there was no more or less responsibility in flying this jet than there would be in flying a Piper Cub, but somehow the stakes seem arguably bigger given the nature of the situation and the total amount of loss.
My mind immediately took the direction of thinking 'jilted lover suicide', with
the two pilots being involved in some tryst gone awry and the Captain saying "Suck someone else's dick? Here you go, bitch," as he pushed the yoke forward at 400 feet.
It's the brevity of the situation NOT the gravity of the situation. Brevity 1.
shortness of time or duration; briefness :
the brevity of human life.
2.
the quality of expressing much in few words; terseness:
Ironically, it is long-winded Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet who famously says that brevity is the soul of wit.
Yes Jeff, we know we weren't there because had we been there, we would've been killed by that shitty crew as well.
Yes, good report I live in Birmingham and arrived at airport at day break after crash. None of us pilots could understand why they flew plane into the ground. I now understand with this report. I have heard this many times where a series of events leads to a tragic ending when those events forces you out of your routine.
please commit more resources to produce these quality videos
May the pilots of flight 1354 rest in peace =(
Christian Saenz Yes you are right
Fatigue was also a MAJOR contributing factor in this accident. However cargo carriers were legally exempted from the rest requirements the passenger carriers have to adhere to after intense lobbying from the likes of UPS and FedEx. Why did those cargo carriers want the exemption, nothing other then saving them MONEY.
Pileits blood on their hands. This is why I'm pro lynching. Lynch the fucker responsible for the cut in the budget.. Then see what happens to workers rights. #BRINGBACKTHEUNIONPOWER
The lady in the video explains that both pilots had adequate rest time, and the captain had used his time to rest, but the FO had not (left her hotel for a long time and had used her phone a lot in that time).
The full accident report showed that UPS would be complying with even the strictest fatigue rules in existence. The FO was given the time to sleep, and just didn’t use it.
Would not invest in UPS for sure!
- As much as I’d like to blame air carrier management for that aspect, if you read the full (and very thorough) report, the lack of rest really was due to the FO’s choices and actions.
That said, you are correct about the difference in the regulations, which is patently absurd - it’s not a special different species of humanoid that flies cargo, we’re all subject to essentially the same physical/mental/emotional limitations.
A word to the film editors: you need to find better footage for the in-cockpit shots. Don't use 20 year old footage of a 747 cockpit when the accident is about a A300 in 2013. Attention to detail baby... it's not just for pilots :-)
thank you !
If you are looking for details then you need to do some more research. It's a 767 cockpit. :)
This thread highlights how dumb most pilots are: one says it's 747, one says it's a 737 and another says it's a 767 lol. You all can't even agree on what you're angry about haha
Who cares?
WOW!! you just broke my stupid-ometer gauge! Well done, I will use your next comment as manure in my garden.
The NTSB does great work. Tragic crash.
love to understand engineering on a deeper level. sadly these tragic accidents offer the most insight regarding how and why safety is of utmost importance within engineering and the operation of heavy machinery.
It seems to me that the alternative runway is inherently higher risk. It isn’t surprising that a crash resulted. It is just a matter of statistics.
I wonder what kills pilots in what appear to be an intact cockpit. Are the floor or nose wheel coming up, do the seats tear loose is it panels and instruments flying around or G-force ?
What can be done to improve pilot safety in the cockpit ?
It is the G-force that gets them. Even if strapped in going from landing speed to zero speed is very damaging to the body. Organs tend to lose there positions in the body thus creating major blood vessels to tear.
i know of a high school kid whose chest hit the steering wheel when he slid off an icy road into a tree, he looked fine externally after the accident but his heart was leaking from the impact and he died shortly after.
Brian steff magnussen G forces, they’re bodies would have looked fine after impact. But they’re insides were a messed.
Outstanding! Many kudos to this innovative effort by the NTSB. This tragic accident may have otherwise been added to the “heap” of yet another perfectly airworthy airplane, operated by an experience crew, that was somehow mysteriously flown into the ground for no good reason. Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT): so sad, so needless, yet so real. CFIT continues to pose a significant threat to commercial aviation, and may never be totally eliminated. But there is good news: we’re getting better and we’re learning more with each accident. We must examine these tragedies and devise new strategies to better equip pilots with the knowledge and awareness to more aggressively stop these events before they develop. It is very obvious that the NTSB has a sense or urgency and commitment to eliminating the insidious CFIT threat to commercial airliners with this thoughtful and galvanizing video. There has to be a meaningful, and useful “take away” from this tragedy, as such the NTSB has started the conversation that must take place amongst all pilots and airline professionals everywhere. I would encourage all pilots to take heed to the advice at the end of this video by giving some serious thoughts to the ideas presented.
What was the reported ceiling and did they ever report breaking out below the clouds?
Waiting for the ILS to be available may not have been an option. I am only an ASEL-IA but when things don't 'look' right, it is time to go missed and try again.
G'day,
Yay Team...!
You know that, & I know that, but we're not facing penny-pinching bean-counters who worry about Schedules and Fuel/Maintenance costs of the extra Flight Time...; and maybe our grip on our Egos is strong enough that we'd rather back off and start again, than try to make a bad approach lead to a good landing by force of Denial...
We ARE sitting in our Armchairs and breathing in & out, rather than pushing up Daisies..; so we must've done something reasonably right.., it seems ?
;-p
Ciao !
Maxx - I just finished reading the entire accident report. The crew had know idea that they were in trouble until almost the very end. While a lot of mistakes were made that fact that they blew right past the MDA without a concern is troubling. What it appears to show is that they need to go out and shoot non-precision approaches in something like a Piper Arrow.
*****
G'day,
Yay Team...!
I reckon an even better idea would be to require that ALL Pilots should have to commence their Learnings in Sailplanes, ideally one with no Electrical System & only Analogue Instruments, so as to learn to fly the Wing, from the beginning ; rather than being bedazzled by the Smelly Noisemaker and all the fancy instrumentation to be found in "Basic Trainers" this past 20 years.
A fact of life is that the 1930s-40s Luftwaffe trained it's Pilots on Primary Gliders & Sailplanes, whereas the Allies *all* started their Ab-Initio Courses on powered Aeroplanes, and the Luftwaffe Pilots - on a per-capita basis, shot the shitfeathers off the Allies...; the "Top Scoring Allied Fighter Pilot in WW-2" was Johnie Johnson, and his 40 Aerial Victories do not amount to even One Eighth of the Tally racked up by the Luftwaffe's Erich Hartmann (352).
It's a mindset/headspace/attitude thing..., some pilots fly the Wing, others drive their Motors, up & around & through the Sky..; and the ones who learn to fly without Engines pay a lot more attention everafter to how much Air they *actually* have under their Wings, especially when getting anywhere close to The Big Round Flat Obstacle Under The Sky.
Glider Pilots know they can't "just open the Taps & have another go", so therefore they *try much harder* to not fcuk up the Approach in the first place.
Low technology teaches perfection, and perfectionists pay more attention to the things which matter, and "Foolproof" Systems merely allow greater foolishness to appear to be acceptable, but only when nothing goes wrong.
;-p
Ciao !
WarblesOnALot Unfortunately, I have no glider experience. When I was doing my commercial check ride in an Arrow the designated examiner required a power off landing. My flight instructor knew he would do this so we practiced it am my home airport of KMQS. The hershey bar Arrows tend to come down like a brick when power is removed. I was able to do the spot landing exactly as the DE wanted so I passed on my first try.
Even though I am basically a klutz at sports, flying came easy to me - probably from building an flying control lines planes as a kid and two years of college level physics classes.
The Arrow which I had used only had a wings leveler able to track a heading bug for an autopilot. None of the 172s and 182s that I flew for the Civil Air Patrol had autopilots. With the CAP you had to fly with a check pilot once a year. I always did an IPC during the yearly checkout and asked to check pilot to make me sweat.
I think the big iron ATPs should be required to show proficiency in hand flying in all phases of operation. Who knows, 'George' may stage a wildcat strike on you!
mike klaene
Absolutely, I agree...
At my end of the scale, anybody who advocates adjusting their Glidepath down their Finals to land, by tweaking the Descent-Rate dialed into the Autopilot is not really any kind of a Pilot, at all...
Mind you, I take an Olde School position, but then again the Wright Brothers had a better Aeroplane in 1903 than what I taught myself to fly in (see my "Personal Aeroplanology" Playlist).., but back when Piper Arrows were State Of The Art I used to work assembling them for the Australian agent (Ansett General Aviation, in 1979)...
I'm a big believer in Flying Aeroplanes, rather than Going Aviating In Aircraft..., if that makes sense ; Aircraft Aviate for some "Purpose" or "Mission" or "to make money", whereas people Fly Aeroplanes for the Fun of it...
So, a Spitfire with Guns fitted and Armed, looking for Messerschmits, is an Aircraft, being Aviated..., just as is a Crop Duster, or an Airliner full of International Passengers..; but the disarmed Spitfire at an Airshow, the Pawnee tow-launching Sailplanes, or the Airliner flying Tourist Return-trip No-Landings Joyrides to Antarctica..., are all AEROPLANES GOING FLYING, even though they may be the same Airframes and Engines, in the same Sky...
It's what people think they're "good for" which makes the difference...
I can thoroughly recommend doing an Ab-Initio Course on Sailplanes, and if you can conceal your Powered Exerience it can be even more informative...; I didn't tell my Gliding Instructor that I had a couple of hours in a Pitts S-2a until after I startled her when we got to Practice Rope Breaks, & I'd pulled a "Splitarse Turn" after she barked at me for not turning tight enough...
Biggles has a lot to answer for...
;-p
Ciao !
Why can't we take a few billion from say the defense budget and ensure that every airport has ILS and top features on every airport?
+BlackLabelSlushie The FAA is fully funded. They have tens of billions of dollars in the trust fund. They just waste it and don't use the money wisely.
All runways cannot be served by ILS approaches. for one thing the topography and landscape must be level enough to accommodate a 3 degree slope to the runway [ including obstacle clearance limits ] . I cant imagine why defense has to be prioritized above all the other things that we waste billions on.
Even if you had 100% ILS approaches in the USA, You will have to be proficient in doing non precision approaches as a Pre Requirement to becoming Instrument rated and also operating outside the country. If there is one weakness almost universally among crews it is Non precision approaches proficiency.
Sorry for the dumb question here, but what is a non-precision approach? I Googled it, but the explanation is way over my head. Is there a simple way to explain it? In my mind, when I hear the word "non-precision", I think, "not accurate". But that can't be right----why would an airplane fly into an airport "not accurate"? Do they just guess? No, I know that's not the answer----I'm just trying to get across my layman's interpretation of what this could possibly mean. Thanks.
smitty195 A precision approach is usually based off a ground antennas that shoot two radio "beams" perpendicular to each other like a T. One guides you horizontally, one guides you vertically, and you follow where they intersect all the way down to about 200' off the ground. At that point, you need to actually see the runway and land visually. These antennas shoot a more precise beam and are intended for little more than getting an aircraft low enough to see the runway. A nonprecision approach is usually based off of a different ground radio station that is meant for enroute navigation or GPS. The instruments that read this second ground station are less sensitive as it is more intended for long range navigation instead rather than getting an aircraft down to the runway. These don't have vertical guidance. Because of the lack of vertical guidance, you base your descent usually on distances from this station. For example: 15+ miles out, you must be at least 3500' up; between 6-15 miles out, you "step down" to 2000' up; between 1.8-6 miles out, you "step down" to your final height of 600' above the runway; between 0.5-1.8 miles, you search for the runway; if you don't see the runway by 0.5 miles at 600', you abort the approach and climb back up to a safe altitude. Not all airports have the ability to have precision approaches because of terrain, funding (initial cost + how much it cost to keep it running all the time), weather is clear 99% of the time, or the amount of the amount of traffic into the airport just doesn't justify it.
So what exactly killed the crew? The cockpit was crumpled but not destroyed. It looked survivable.
G forces rip your guts out internally. You will look normal and dead at the same time, sitting in your seat with the straps on. It's sad how this happens.
Humans weren’t made to travel at high speeds. When you’re in a car and brake, anything not fastened will fly forward. So when you go from traveling 150 knots to almost 0 knots in such a short time (at impact) your organs keep going and basically get crushed.
G force is my best guess, maybe if it was less they would have got out fine
how did the pilots die? looks like there was no fire and there was minimal damage in the cockpit section
As Captain Warren Vanderburgh would have said... they should have flew the plane in stead of typing on the typewriter.
Not really. The problem here was they did both the type writing and the flying badly.
@@blueb0g - I’d disagree - they both made a few error that on any other day would have been fairly minor “oops,” type errors - unfortunately the environment on that day was less forgiving and the holes in the Reason (Swiss-cheese) model aligned tragically.
@@bradcrosier1332 They flew badly. They crashed because they didn't monitor their flightpath. The fact that they would have got away with it in other conditions is irrelevant because it always takes a confluence of factors to crash, that doesn't take away from poor performance.
@@blueb0g - I agree they got behind the aircraft, and I’ll grant you could call that flying badly. I’d say it was more a loss of situation awareness, because when you read the full report, they really didn’t recognize that they were losing it until very end. It’s definitely an argument for the first step in re-establishing SA: Get to a safe altitude to sort things out.
I still think merely saying “they flew badly” is much too simplistic an answer, which merely points fingers and fails to provide any meaningful guidance for others to learn from.
Cockpit video throughout this film is not of an A306 cockpit
LintonVC The cockpit shots are just window dressing. The gold nuggets are in what the people are saying.
I read the accident report , I watched the hearing and I used to fly A306, which is why I thought that it was a shame that more authentic images were not included.
Why not LNAV, VNAV approach for the longer runway. Normally the problem is speed control, if your speed is ok, than you can adjust your path. Another question from NTSB is why they failed to carry out a Missed Approach. Normally if a First Officer screw up than it is better to go totally on manual flying. I agree that sequencing waypoints are important, but if it was NOTAMISED unavailability of ILS, than in Route 2 the Captain should have built a non precision approach for the longer runway (FMCs are very accurate in lateral navigation). It appears that fatigue/routine had played its part. I agree with the NTSB, mental confusion is the killer.
If it is not ILS-landing there will be no proper warnings? First ground warning was about few seconds before impact?
Whenever the landing gear is down they lose a lot of the altitude warnings like the ground proximity warning system, because the plane’s cpu thinks it’s about to land and is expected the ground to be there.
First Officer was a party animal.
Nothing wrong with that on its own.
The cockpit looked intact and servivable
Pilots could have waited/held for the ILS runway to reopen. A careful reading of this, and many other transportation safety reports, reveals complacency in many areas, and on many levels. Acknowledging, understanding, and mitigating complacency should be priorities.
***** I don't know what the delay was in restoring the ILS but if a crew of a (relatively) modern transport category aircraft cannot make a non-precision approach without packing it into the ground then they should not be in a cockpit. I believe fatigue was a major issue in the failure to properly program the FMC but there was a breakdown in CRM after that at several essential steps. I would be looking at the company's training standards as well following this crash. Disclaimer: I haven't read the full report.
Peter Lovett At the beginning of this video report the investigators mention that the aircraft was given Runway 18 to land on, which had only the Localizer operational. Then the investigators say that the aircraft and the pilots failed to capture the Glide Slope (ILS). My question is did Runway have ILS or only the LOC. Can anyone confirm this? I have watched the video 3 times.
Phiroze Cama India The Flight Management Computer can generate an approach overlay based on the LOC approach. The FMC uses known altitudes for the approach to generate a virtual or "pseudo" glideslope. Essentially you can fly the approach using the FMC as primary guidance, with the actual LOC as a backup.
Depending on aircraft and company procedures/authorizations, they may have been flying the actual LOC and just using the pseudo glideslope from the FMC. There are so many modes and options in modern avionics, it's easy to get caught out if you don't really know your system and pay close attention to the details.
Very sad that we keep doing this to ourselves.
Blue skies and tailwinds my friends
Peter Lovett ILS was out for maintenance, and was to be back at about the time 1354 was in the TCA
***** After reading the entire report, I am amazed as to why they did not query BHM approach as to what is up with the ILS. I am just a single engine guy with an instrument rating who has to hand fly all my approaches - but I will ask the approach controllers about current weather if things are looking off. But these two had no clue that they were in trouble - IMHO.
My condolences on the occasion of losing two crew members on that flight. I have to let the National Transportation Safety Board comments and observations stand alone [ without comment ] because of its completeness and persuasive findings. There are things mentioned here, that have occurred in my own experiences that did not end in tragedy, However there is quite a lot of information here, that is beneficial to many pilots about being proficient in interacting with the Flight management Computer.
The cockpit in the pictures is all complete, what killed them .? Did there seats tear loose? Seat belts break? Cargo come thru?
blunt force trauma. They were in the seats with harness. The aircraft is just moving so fast heavy object. The metal can take quite a crush but the body will burst
Do brief your approach more carefully next time.
Nice work, NTSB.
Why did the NTSB find this captain at fault for not communicating what he was doing but allowed Sully to get away uncriticized for his not telling Skiles or the cabin crew he was going to land in the Hudson? Double stAndard. Hey they admitted they had to get deference to Sully because he was already a hero before their first interview of him. I just answered my own question case you missed it
Sully told ATC that they were going into the Hudson at least 3 times. No doubt Skiles could hear what he was saying since he was sitting right beside him. I'd say he had a heads up. While Sully was prepping for that, Skiles was trying to restart the engines, and Skiles did tell the cabin crew to have the passengers brace for an emergency landing.
The Captain was high? Say no more....Case closed.
200' that's not much!
These investigation/crash videos are very captivating. I have 2 questions; 1: Has there ever been a drunk pilot? (Example: Movie Flight). 2: Can you please make a video on Amtrak crash 188? If there's a final investigation report. I made a school project on my own investigation. I hope to see the investigation and look how accurate/how far off I was. Thanks!
When I got my first airline job my "initiation" was answering one question, which was, "All pilots are either alcoholics, smokers, or womanizers, which one are you"? Jokes aside, as far as your first question...yes, there has been airline pilots caught drunk. In 2002 BOTH American West Airlines pilots scheduled to make a trip from Miami, FL to Phoenix, AZ were suspected of being drunk. They made it as far as pushback before they were ordered to return to the gate. They were ultimately convicted of operating an aircraft while intoxicated. Here's a link to the full description - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_West_Airlines_Flight_556#Background
@@flyboy242 - Also a Northwest flight back in the 80’s IIRC (could have been the 90’s, I’m getting old and dates get fuzzy). I’m sure there have been others as well. That said, I do not recall there being any discussion of impairment from any source other than lack of sleep in the NTSB report, and that is certainly not something they would gloss over.
I am still waiting for parcel
Excellent idea to make videos like this! A paper report by comparison is a more dry medium and I suspect that a lot of those reports become forgotten in a filing cabinet somewhere. Such videos on the other hand are more accessible, not only for pilots, The video felt a bit short? I think there would be enough material in the official report to fill about 12 to 15 minutes of video.
Cause of crash: "Get--there--itis."
They came in on one wing and one prayer.
Obviously no one check the NOTAMS.
AT fist I thought I was watching a Crash documentary not a release from the US GOVT.
It is a companion to the crash analysis - a condensed version giving the key information. Do you want your money back, or what?
So … what is the shame thing about a damn go - around ? I don’t get it -
agreed n I can assume it's accurate not like when they'll show an airplane crash about a 747 but use a 727 in the animation . kills me !
EGPWS should have prevented the accident?
Yes but I believe it was too late to correct angle due to terrain & high decent rate. Theres a good accident recreation on YT for this look it up.
Shared in Helicopter safety, FB
Holy shit, another issue in part due to some woman unable to put her fucking cellphone down
And keep her legs crossed
Why not use a professional narrator and skip the music? This presentation more closely resembles a television documentary than a companion to an official report.
Because this is not the official report.
NTSB needs to be at out local airport grilling the living plop out these here in St Croix with actual on the spot inspections, daily drug testing and so on.
I guess it's never their jobs until after a tragedy.
NTSB has no authority to do drug testing or inspections. That would be the FAA. NTSB investigates accidents.
Best thing to do is don't land at small airports. Land at larger airports where they have better facilities.
+n310ea Birmingham isn't a small airport.
UPS and other next day air delivery carriers would be out of business if that was the rule. Airports like LAX, MSY and MIA simply have too much distance between them. Your thoughts need some more work.
Sounds like they wanted to get that flight over quick
S.O.S last stance against a crime against humanity
Tulip at 0:45
Well done.
what happen to mh370 ?
It went into the southern Indian Ocean. There is a lot of information online about that flight, but you won’t find it in an NTSB video.
3:47 How high? I’m high right now just watching this🤷🏾♂️😁
Surely they could have vfr it and landed safely
Yes, they could have. And don't call me Shirley
They made a mistake. Humans will never stop making mistakes
The quality of the video and the audio is so poor that I, and others here with me, abandoned the production. Pity because there would have been a lot to learn
Good Job NTSB
Capitain's Last Word: "Oh God.."
FIrst Officer's Last Words: "Hold on, let me just send this last text and then I'll check for you..."
When you don't have your act together, (go around).
inibuilds a300 brought me here
Flight 1354, 1+3+5+4= 13
THE BUREAU IS GOOD SOMETIMES
if u pay full attention there shouldnt be accidents
Woman who fly airplane upside down, have crackup.
not helpful
Plane wasn’t upside at any point though…
Go Around
I really trust the gubbament todo anything properly
While I agree government sucks at doing most things. Ntsb and csb do a really good job.
These are informative videos but, that incessant drama background 'music' is annoying and pointless.
Next time will use a porn movie soundtrack, wanker!
I think we know the only thing that the first officer was good at.
Busy being out and about or on her phone the day before. Laughing before the approach.
This was during a time where educated and competent people ran the ntsb. Now I see home boys with dreads trying to speak two coherent sentences. Trump needs to fix both the FAA and NTSB!
The whole video i was screaming “go around” so many crashes could be avoided if u just do a go around.
The only people armchair quarterbacking these pilots are not professional pilots. 172 pilots, maybe. But anyone who has worked in the industry understands how quickly a routine day can go sideways
Thank you for stating the truth to some of these arm-chair wonders!
seems painfully obvious that all aircraft need a monitor for distance to ground, rate of descent and both an alarm and auto pilot engagement feature. i am sure many design engineers wanted this included in their instrument capabilities but, yet again, time and money constraints from those that print the money, have murdered yet another crew. fortunately the fed will soon be gone forever and those who run it also... one way or another.
Airliners are among aircraft that use Radar Altimeters to provide the vertical definition that you mentioned, A vertical speed indicator is present at each pilot position and that instrument provides climb and sink rates. Pilots are trained to verify that there is a visual [ computer ] conformation of autopilot engagement and there is an alarm [ lights and audio ] to accompany autopilot disengagement.
You’d be wrong - we have that, but out of necessity it has to be desensitized (more accurately, its alerting parameters change) when on final approach or it would go off on every landing - resulting in a nuisance alarm which crews learn to tune out and ignore, the problem with that being it then gets ignored when there really is a hazardous condition. Unfortunately in this case, the crew remained within the alerting parameters (as I recall, it’s been a since I read the full report).
I worked this crash. More fun facts. There is a hill in front of runway 18, that has a gully. The plane clipped a tree with one wing at the top. This caused that side of the plane to dip down dramatically. As the plane crashed into the gully that wing dragged the ground and the plane cartwheeled back up the other side of the gully. The pilots were ejected and found dead, bodies intact, in their seats quite a distance from the plane. The plane was carrying a large amount of prescription drugs and guns (for all you conspiracy theorists). You see the picture of the nose somewhat in tact, there was also a wing that was intact before it burned into a pile of molten aluminum. Other than that, there wasn't anything bigger than your average house door. I did not see either of the individuals in the video at the site, but the NTSB people that I did meet were really great people and great to work with. Top of the line individuals and incredibly bright.
Who cares what some dumb lying ass on youtube thinks.
That hurts my feelings. Totally true, I was there.
Riiight, I'm sure you were.
Well, I was.
You just asked the exact same question I was going to ask. I am an accident reconstruction expert (no, not with airplanes----with motor vehicles). I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about with airplanes, but there are similarities in my job and that of some at that NTSB, where we both are fact-gatherers and must piece together what happened and account for every single piece of debris. There could be one tiny piece of "something" that is 50 feet further away from the accident than anything else----how did that get there? That's what I do---figure out how it got there and how everything happened. So I was just observing the crash scene in this video, and I have to say that it would be very interesting for the flight deck crew to still be strapped in their seats, but located away from the plane. Let me put this a different way that lay-people can understand: How many traffic accidents have there been in the USA where one of the occupants (doesn't matter who----the driver, the passenger, whatever) is found seat-belted to their seat but the seat is thrown clear of the car? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that question but I do have an educated guess, and my guess is that the number is zero. I've read some really weird reports in my career, and I've seen some really weird, bizarre stuff at accident scenes.....but my God, I can't even imagine something like a car and body separated from the car and intact. People ejected from the car---yes. "Stuff" ejected from the car----yes. But not a person seat-belted in. That would be breaking new ground and I would not know how to investigate that, other than to just apply the same mathematics to that as everything else at the scene, but we do not have things like coefficient of friction, known speed rates, etc, for a human belted into a seat that gets ejected and intact. We would have to go to a university professor at M.I.T., Stanford, or some other prestigious institution to find out how the hell to make sure we're doing it right.
The NTSB report is available online. It's very easy to search. I'm going to pull up the NTSB report on this crash right now and use keywords to search through the document for what "no one" is saying happened. I just don't believe it.
arrogance and incompetence.
Communicate !
there was a stupid mountain in the way. bulldoze it away :p
Rodriguez Larry Anderson Matthew Hernandez Linda
Can we do a "chick in the seat next to me killed me" skyshark compilation?
I am not saying women are over-represented in Pilot error incidents resulting in fatalities. ( I am typing it)
Seriously - dumb woman, put down your phone and stop texting or posting to Facebook and help fly the plane you dumb bitch.
ummm...she did help fly the plane- that was the problem...... Look up Colgan 3407...plane is in deep stall, she retracts flaps to "assist" in the death sequence.
In all fairness the male pilot was also a complete moron. But they may have pulled out of it if the female copilot didnt retract the flaps at load speed.
I think we're saying the same thing - women fuck that shit up big time. In this case the NTSB note cellphone overuse by the dumb bitch as a potential factor to her inability to pay attention on the flight day.
i mean... at least i dont gotta do the air cargo at work today.
(im just joking i work at ups im fooked in the head don take me seriously😭)
2:40😁😳🙄🤔2:45
disclaimer: I dont fly and dont operate anything more complicated than my sons' BX-22.(tractor)..... I do read these things and have for years. I think you guys have become entirely to dependent upon various cockpit aids to the point that they have begun to bite ya in the butt, Seems that the computer drives the aircraft and youse guys merely manage the computer... Maybe the tail is wagging the dog? Just a thought from the peanut gallery...
Elsie Kay I agree, it has all become way to Complex. (Little peanut)
yeh,I wuz gonna suggest a 3rd driver, which would still be cheaper than a broken/busted aircraft. The airlines would upchuck over that one... GBG
the Big lie 2:30
Music is a language and given the nature and source of these
videos, there shouldn’t be any music in any of them. This is the problem: in
your mind’s eye, replace the music being played with someone reading out of a
book. It doesn’t work, does it? No matter who is reading out of whatever book,
it simply won’t work.
This is literally how people who are sensitive to music experience
it. So, in this video, I’m hearing conflicting dialogue. I’m hearing the narrator
and the interviewees, but behind them, I’m hearing a composer prattle on about
something Asian-esque that could not, under any circumstance, pertain to
airline safety. I know it wasn’t intended to be - nor was it overtly -
disrespectful to the pilots who died and the professionals commenting on the
accident however, the net effect was enough to make me stop watching it…….and
pointlessly waste my time writing this.
Music should be in music videos _only_.
cool
I'm observant and attuned, but you're overly sensitive. ; ] I worked with a friend a few years back, doing a lot of fence-building, landscaping, stonework and the like. If he was stressed, sometimes he would make remarks about sudden but recurring distractions, such as a windchime or an intermittently yapping dog in the distance. I'd notice these elements, but they didn't bother me. They were part of the day's soundtrack. Your heightened sensitivity to the music in this video made me think of that. ; ]
“Sensitive” was a poorly chosen word. What would have been more appropriate was “fluent” but, that wouldn’t cover the folks you are talking about - and they shouldn’t be ignored.
Plus, I have to “de-snob” my writing or I tend to come off like a …. Well…..snob, actually.
“Sensitive” is what you’re talking about…..being sensitive to any sound. Which most people have bouts of now and again in life. But, fluent is a bit more subtle.
Say you worked for a company that transferred you to a country where you aren’t fluent with the language -Japan, for instance. After six months or so, you’re still struggling to keep up with conversations in Japanese. You’re getting it but, it’s a chore. If you’re sitting on a bus one day, having a broken conversation with a co-worker on the way home from work and someone sitting a few rows back strikes up a conversation in English, you’re going to have trouble continuing the conversation in Japanese.
A part of your brain will be going, “Hey….we know THIS….let’s listen to this conversation because I don’t have to work near as hard as with this Japanese stuff.” And you’ll have trouble staying in the conversation with your co-worker because you’ll be wanting to get involved with the other conversation. You’re not sensitive so much as you just want to go there because it’s easier for you to understand, so you can’t ignore it.
This is actually why playing music in stores and what-not is somewhat rude.
Katherine Wilson is a babe!
So...they were garbage pilots....
First in one month comment
So Tipical, so instedd óv flýé thé Plâiń Shé wás oń Fácé-Bôõkś Mobéeël Fôné úńt Crâshês thé Plâińê