My opinion is that mornings are the best time for tests, the brain and body are fresh and not tired, that's what happened to the captain , he had a long day ,mentally he was tired😢 thanks Mauricio for your videos in English
@@austindarrenor Actually getting the automatics engaged is quite high on the list of the priorities in an engine out situation, it frees up a bit of brain space.
@@mitseraffej5812Yeah, I could see that. I guess the big mistake wasn't choosing the autopilot but the altitude that made the plane pitch up and fall sideways. Ouch.
It sounds like you've been flying for many, many years. The first time I flew somewhere I was four yrs old. It was on an SAS DC-7 from LAX to CPH. 1960. I still have vivid memories of the flt 😃
It's not Captain Wagner but Warner. I also would like to mention the name of the first officer, Michel Caïs, who was not initially rostered on this flight. There was no internet in 1994 and I discovered his name on a paper that we all had on our desk, the following morning after the accident, to announce us the loss of our colleagues. 😢 RIP Michel.
A) why so many people on the second ever flight with critical maneuvers on the schedule? B) Height is your friend - even a test pilot's best friend ..... C) how was the auto pilot performing in the very same test in simulators? Did they even run this test first in a simulator? D) Yes, be fresh when you are going to request 100% of your own performance! There was a lot to learn out of the loss of by far too many lives!
So in essence, a fatal flaw was uncovered in this test flight. Most failures don't occur at desired altitudes to permit the required time to recover. The test pilots were not at fault for this, rather they were victims of a flawed system. My condolences to their families
If the test pilots could not control this and they knew it was going to happen...what chance would a crew have if it happened out of the blue?....The crew died in the name of improving airline safety as many before them did
@@bayouflier6641 According to the video Airbus made changes to the A330 systems as a result of this accident, so I guess there must have been something wrong with the original.
@@bayouflier6641 everyone knows altitude is life. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been selected as test pilots if they were incompetent, but yes, after watching the video again, they made poor choices. My comment was based on the auto pilot flaw, so yes, there was definitely a problem with the aircraft, reinforced by the fact changes were made to the system. Call me ignorant if you want
Sometimes I wonder if some pilots think that laws of physics or aerodynamics do not apply to them. Several instances of wing stall because of low speed and/or nose too high in B52, C17, C130, ATR accidents where it was essentially pilot overconfidence or error at really low height.
@@MPCFlightsyep, they most definitely learned their lesson, if the plane that you are soon to buy crashes, do not buy it. your airline would probably go defunct, or something along the lines of that
I didn't see any effort to use the rudder to offset the loss of thrust from the left engine. In the USAF pilot training, the crews were always reminded to "step on the good engine' when dealing with differential thrust. When dealing with the loss of an engine, some crashes occurred because the pilot stepped on the wrong rudder pedal increasing the yaw and losing control of the aircraft.
I know its easy to arm chair quarterback but jeeze it blows my mind that they let the planes get so far out of whack before trying to do something. as soon as it did that crazy amount of pitch up I would have either added the power back to the idled one or pushed the nose over. Like what did you expect to happen running on one engine AND pulling the power back on the one creating thrust. MMMMaaannn. Rip
With all due respect to the comments below, I believe NO test flight of any kind to be conducted at such low altitude ,in that case 2000', that's deadly.
In the Beginning of Aviation it was Aircraft 'Limitations'...then it was Human Body 'Limitations'...Now it is On-Board Computer 'Limitations' to Flight....
Agree. The plane was pitched up aggressively, nearing a stall, and the pilots reduced power?? Disengage auto pilot, nose down, and full power immediately.
Geeze, not even at 2000’ in a huge, heavy aircraft and they tried this stupid test? There was another crash with a smaller Airbus trying to finish off tests at 5000’ and still stuffed it into the drink! I wouldn’t try that in a Cessna at 2000’!
@@oneworldawakening That makes no sense though. Modern Airbus aircraft have flight protections. I can only imagine that being a prototype the software was 'buggy'. Having said that, reducing the power on the remaining engine providing thrust was rather foolish.
I always what happened with this particular accident, especially as far as the aircraft’s attitude (roll,pitch,yaw). Another case of too low and too slow. R.I.P. to the victims and families affected.
This video misses the smoking gun!! Did Airbus edit the text? Airbus stall and attitude protections in this model “disappear “ momentarily during autoflight altitude capture mode. The autopilot was set to capture 2000 ft. Momentarily all protections were lost. I believe Airbus changed this. Funny this video just blames the pilots
I felt kind of cheated by this video. - No voice commentary - Clickbait claim "changed avaiation for ever", but that tends to be the same for all crashes. It's called "implementing lessons learned".
That looks like a 'Boeing' maneuver. Why would would you not go to 15 thousand and do the engine out for a first go round? Then if it was successful and no problems, major or minor were noted the process could be repeated at lower altitudes progressively. Most especially as this was not a test of the test pilots but one of the airplane. What was important here was how the plane functioned, something that could have been tested at altitude just as well as right off the ground. Seems a loss of cockpit resource management big time. The pilot may or may not have been tired even if he was the others should have called him on it. I am assuming this was a planned maneuver reviewed in the flight plan and discussion before take off. It would be very irresponsible to have pulled it unannounced in a new and unproven plane!! As a test bed there should have been a myriad of instrumentation not least of which would be a cockpit voice recorder. It would have been interesting to hear and see the inputs. It just sounds like a cowboy stunt that needlessly killed the occupants.
The thrust reversers are only activated if the first condition is true. There is no way for the pilots to override the software decision and activate either system manually. In the case of the Warsaw accident, neither condition was fulfilled, so the most effective braking system was not activated. Because the plane landed inclined (to counteract the anticipated crosswind), the required pressure of 12 combined tons on both landing gears necessary to trigger the sensor was not reached. The plane's wheels did not reach the minimum rotation speed because of a hydroplaning effect on the wet runway. Only when the left landing gear touched the runway did the automatic aircraft systems allow the ground spoilers and engine thrust reversers to operate. Because of the braking distances in the heavy rain, the aircraft could not stop before the end of the runway. The computer did not actually recognize that the aircraft had landed until it was already 125 meters beyond the halfway point of Runway 11. Airbus LOGIC knew better.😪
Absence of attitude protection in the autopilot's altitude capture mode; Uncertainty in allocation of tasks between the captain and co-pilot; the co-pilot rotated the aircraft "firmly and very fast" to a takeoff attitude of more than 25°, compared with the usual 14.5° used for the first, successful takeoff; The captain carried out test procedures immediately after takeoff: autopilot engage, throttling back the left engine, and tripping the hydraulic circuit breaker; this took him temporarily "out of the piloting loop." Lack of visual indication of autopilot mode, obscured by the extreme pitch attitude; Crew overconfidence in expected aircraft response. YIKES, AB "LOGIC" strikes again!
Other than the fuselage being the same diameter, it is a clean sheet design. New wing, taller gear, bigger engines, better electronics, etc. And let’s not forget: all 727 models, all 737 models, all 757 models: same fuselage diameter.
@@gordonbryan8381 the B727 & B737 may share an identical fuselage, but not the B757 . . . the B757 might have the same fuselage diameter but not the same fuselage (airframe) . . . the B757 is a 40% clean sheet design, but not entirely . . .
@@chandrachurniyogi8394 Thanks for the response. My comment was based solely on the fuselage being the same standard Boeing tube. Thanks for your info.
Statistics says otherwise. Boeings are falling out of the skies with design flaws, but the FBW airbuses hasn’t really had 1 accident in almost 40 years were the core cause was a design problem.
Air France 447: Pilot Error Deutsche Lufthansa Flight 2904: Pilot Error Air Inter Flight 148: Pilot Error Airbus Industrie Flight: Pilot Error What about Boeingn LOGIC though?
Well, they do not like to be criticized by even expert test pilots. See this video... Airbus Test Pilot:“We have built an aircraft that Pilots cannot crash!”
![Air Tahiti ATR 72 beautiful landing in Bora Bora [BOB]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iKYDQijPlqo/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the fact there is no "pathetic" music after the crash while presenting the findings.
DITTO!!!!
My opinion is that mornings are the best time for tests, the brain and body are fresh and not tired, that's what happened to the captain , he had a long day ,mentally he was tired😢 thanks Mauricio for your videos in English
5:10 “32 degrees nose up” Nearing retirement after a life of airline flying I have never seen a pitch angle this high outside of the simulator.
I don't get why you would turn control of the aircraft over to autopilot after losing an engine. That's the last thing I would want to do.
@@austindarrenor Actually getting the automatics engaged is quite high on the list of the priorities in an engine out situation, it frees up a bit of brain space.
@@mitseraffej5812Yeah, I could see that. I guess the big mistake wasn't choosing the autopilot but the altitude that made the plane pitch up and fall sideways. Ouch.
It sounds like you've been flying for many, many years. The first time I flew somewhere I was four yrs old. It was on an SAS DC-7 from LAX to CPH. 1960. I still have vivid memories of the flt 😃
32 degrees nose up is INSANE ! Even more so with one engine at idle
I flew on a 330 from Rome to Boston. Great plane.
It's not Captain Wagner but Warner. I also would like to mention the name of the first officer, Michel Caïs, who was not initially rostered on this flight. There was no internet in 1994 and I discovered his name on a paper that we all had on our desk, the following morning after the accident, to announce us the loss of our colleagues. 😢 RIP Michel.
It says "Warner" NOT Wagner!!
@sotm6078 you are right. Dont remember why I wrote this
A) why so many people on the second ever flight with critical maneuvers on the schedule?
B) Height is your friend - even a test pilot's best friend .....
C) how was the auto pilot performing in the very same test in simulators? Did they even run this test first in a simulator?
D) Yes, be fresh when you are going to request 100% of your own performance!
There was a lot to learn out of the loss of by far too many lives!
You are right; as test flights must have essential flight crew only onboard.
El sabio aerenautico internacional excelente reconstrucción bendiciones saludos cordiales desde tacoma💯🇺🇲✈️
So in essence, a fatal flaw was uncovered in this test flight. Most failures don't occur at desired altitudes to permit the required time to recover. The test pilots were not at fault for this, rather they were victims of a flawed system. My condolences to their families
If the test pilots could not control this and they knew it was going to happen...what chance would a crew have if it happened out of the blue?....The crew died in the name of improving airline safety as many before them did
@@briancarno8837The greatest risk to average Joe airline pilot is dying from boredom.😂
@@bayouflier6641 According to the video Airbus made changes to the A330 systems as a result of this accident, so I guess there must have been something wrong with the original.
@@bayouflier6641 everyone knows altitude is life. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been selected as test pilots if they were incompetent, but yes, after watching the video again, they made poor choices. My comment was based on the auto pilot flaw, so yes, there was definitely a problem with the aircraft, reinforced by the fact changes were made to the system. Call me ignorant if you want
The pilots were too bold, and there are no old, bold pilots. 2,000 feet altitude, man, what egos !
How about simply aborting the test at the first sign of abnormality?
You mean by, like, throttling up the left engine? That's too obvious.
The narration did indicate that pilot overconfidence and fatigue may have been factors.
*Airbus Salesman to Alitalia “That’ll buff out.”
Sometimes I wonder if some pilots think that laws of physics or aerodynamics do not apply to them. Several instances of wing stall because of low speed and/or nose too high in B52, C17, C130, ATR accidents where it was essentially pilot overconfidence or error at really low height.
can only guess that Alitalia opted for Boeing after that one...
Indeed, they got the 767
@@MPCFlightsyep, they most definitely learned their lesson, if the plane that you are soon to buy crashes, do not buy it. your airline would probably go defunct, or something along the lines of that
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Rip alitalia they retired
Them its a flag game 4 Boeing millioneres un std os Airbus millionares.People suporting rich people busssiness with a flag behind 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Great video, thank you !!! 🙏
Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. Forgot to keep air under the wings.
I didn't see any effort to use the rudder to offset the loss of thrust from the left engine. In the USAF pilot training, the crews were always reminded to "step on the good engine' when dealing with differential thrust. When dealing with the loss of an engine, some crashes occurred because the pilot stepped on the wrong rudder pedal increasing the yaw and losing control of the aircraft.
I know its easy to arm chair quarterback but jeeze it blows my mind that they let the planes get so far out of whack before trying to do something. as soon as it did that crazy amount of pitch up I would have either added the power back to the idled one or pushed the nose over. Like what did you expect to happen running on one engine AND pulling the power back on the one creating thrust. MMMMaaannn. Rip
With all due respect to the comments below, I believe NO test flight of any kind to be conducted at such low altitude ,in that case 2000', that's deadly.
In the Beginning of Aviation it was Aircraft 'Limitations'...then it was Human Body 'Limitations'...Now it is On-Board Computer 'Limitations' to Flight....
The pilots sure didn't know their aircraft
What is this fora game please 😊😊😊😊😊😊
how many a330 items have crashed in total?
I think the air france crash from rio was a 330...but that was pilot error.. Delta have been using the 330 for years
Total 4
I flew a330 kl to Perth the other day.
This must have been embarrassing!
Not for long!😵
My reaction would be that after the wing dropped full TOGA and manual recovery with down stick and right rudder.
Agree. The plane was pitched up aggressively, nearing a stall, and the pilots reduced power?? Disengage auto pilot, nose down, and full power immediately.
Game name pls 🙏
This took place on my bday but about 16 years before I was born.
So, how was Airbust changed forever???
Sounds like something better tested in the simulator
I thought the A330's first crash was Air France 447
It was the most fatal but both were by pilot error
This accident was little heard of. And probably AF447 was announced as the first airline/ passenger crash of an A330
I guess Alitalia decided to go with the 767?
Geeze, not even at 2000’ in a huge, heavy aircraft and they tried this stupid test?
There was another crash with a smaller Airbus trying to finish off tests at 5000’ and still stuffed it into the drink!
I wouldn’t try that in a Cessna at 2000’!
Why on earth did it pitch up so much with one engine out ?
Narration said autopilot was aiming for an altitude previously set by the pilots.
@@oneworldawakening That makes no sense though. Modern Airbus aircraft have flight protections. I can only imagine that being a prototype the software was 'buggy'. Having said that, reducing the power on the remaining engine providing thrust was rather foolish.
Why test at such a low altitude ?
I always what happened with this particular accident, especially as far as the aircraft’s attitude (roll,pitch,yaw). Another case of too low and too slow. R.I.P. to the victims and families affected.
Nice video game, like real.
This video misses the smoking gun!! Did Airbus edit the text? Airbus stall and attitude protections in this model “disappear “ momentarily during autoflight altitude capture mode. The autopilot was set to capture 2000 ft. Momentarily all protections were lost. I believe Airbus changed this. Funny this video just blames the pilots
The first accident ever of the type.. by it's own manufacturer...
I felt kind of cheated by this video.
- No voice commentary
- Clickbait claim "changed avaiation for ever", but that tends to be the same for all crashes. It's called "implementing lessons learned".
You aren't gonna get a voiceover every video bud. :/
That looks like a 'Boeing' maneuver. Why would would you not go to 15 thousand and do the engine out for a first go round? Then if it was successful and no problems, major or minor were noted the process could be repeated at lower altitudes progressively. Most especially as this was not a test of the test pilots but one of the airplane. What was important here was how the plane functioned, something that could have been tested at altitude just as well as right off the ground. Seems a loss of cockpit resource management big time. The pilot may or may not have been tired even if he was the others should have called him on it. I am assuming this was a planned maneuver reviewed in the flight plan and discussion before take off. It would be very irresponsible to have pulled it unannounced in a new and unproven plane!! As a test bed there should have been a myriad of instrumentation not least of which would be a cockpit voice recorder. It would have been interesting to hear and see the inputs. It just sounds like a cowboy stunt that needlessly killed the occupants.
Very dangerous to do such tests in real flights!
Test pilots not monitoring speed...
The fault was that the pilot made the test to near to the ground
next time use the simulator...
The thrust reversers are only activated if the first condition is true. There is no way for the pilots to override the software decision and activate either system manually.
In the case of the Warsaw accident, neither condition was fulfilled, so the most effective braking system was not activated. Because the plane landed inclined (to counteract the anticipated crosswind), the required pressure of 12 combined tons on both landing gears necessary to trigger the sensor was not reached. The plane's wheels did not reach the minimum rotation speed because of a hydroplaning effect on the wet runway.
Only when the left landing gear touched the runway did the automatic aircraft systems allow the ground spoilers and engine thrust reversers to operate. Because of the braking distances in the heavy rain, the aircraft could not stop before the end of the runway. The computer did not actually recognize that the aircraft had landed until it was already 125 meters beyond the halfway point of Runway 11.
Airbus LOGIC knew better.😪
I do not think the A330 had winglets back then…
The aircraft should be in Thai livery
Scarebus. There's a reason. RIP
I bet Alitalia stayed with Boeing!
How stupid.
Absence of attitude protection in the autopilot's altitude capture mode;
Uncertainty in allocation of tasks between the captain and co-pilot; the co-pilot rotated the aircraft "firmly and very fast" to a takeoff attitude of more than 25°, compared with the usual 14.5° used for the first, successful takeoff;
The captain carried out test procedures immediately after takeoff: autopilot engage, throttling back the left engine, and tripping the hydraulic circuit breaker; this took him temporarily "out of the piloting loop."
Lack of visual indication of autopilot mode, obscured by the extreme pitch attitude;
Crew overconfidence in expected aircraft response. YIKES, AB "LOGIC" strikes again!
I'll take a Douglas DC-7C, if you don't mine.
The best 3 engine aircraft they made
the A330-300 ain't a clean sheet design . . . it's heavily based on the A300-600 wide body jet . . .
Even the a330-200 and all a340s
Other than the fuselage being the same diameter, it is a clean sheet design. New wing, taller gear, bigger engines, better electronics, etc. And let’s not forget: all 727 models, all 737 models, all 757 models: same fuselage diameter.
@@gordonbryan8381 the B727 & B737 may share an identical fuselage, but not the B757 . . . the B757 might have the same fuselage diameter but not the same fuselage (airframe) . . . the B757 is a 40% clean sheet design, but not entirely . . .
@@chandrachurniyogi8394 Thanks for the response. My comment was based solely on the fuselage being the same standard Boeing tube. Thanks for your info.
So how many Boeing 767s did they buy? Did Airbus bother to pay for the funerals out of the development budget?
It wasn't their fault it was the pilot's
CVR last recorded words... "oh F-WWKH !!!"
I noticed that hilarious registration number too.
Airbus got it wrong with the A321 aswell, took time to fix it
Comparable to Boeing: They messed up.
Of course no video, only simulations
Even there is no video of that crash, there was a flight recorders.
Airbus is making a killing
Fundamental cause - it's an Airbus. Designed to confuse the heck out of trained and experienced pilots. I won't get in one.
Statistics says otherwise.
Boeings are falling out of the skies with design flaws, but the FBW airbuses hasn’t really had 1 accident in almost 40 years were the core cause was a design problem.
…. We you a Boeing fanboy? Because I wouldn’t speak too loud at the moment…
And Boeing is better????
If it's Boeing I ain't going😂
Wait until he realises that alone the 737 has more crashes than Airbus ever had
You flat out just dont do stall recover at insane low altitudes one of the most basic laws of gravity principles and taught in flight school.
Remember, Airbus' computer "logic" knows better than any pilot, EVER. There have been several horrendous crashes R/T their LOGIC.
You didn't read the cause of the accident.
Name one. (You can’t)
Air Inter Flight 148 Lufthansa Flight 2904 Airbus Industrie Flight 129 Air France 447 have ALL joined the chat to show how logical, Airbus LOGIC is.
AF447 was pilot error. Reminding about the rudder misfunctions of the 737
Air France 447: Pilot Error
Deutsche Lufthansa Flight 2904: Pilot Error
Air Inter Flight 148: Pilot Error
Airbus Industrie Flight: Pilot Error
What about Boeingn LOGIC though?
French never where very smart
Well, they do not like to be criticized by even expert test pilots. See this video...
Airbus Test Pilot:“We have built an aircraft that Pilots cannot crash!”
were
WERE
And the Americans???
comme ta mère...
Biden school of flying.