It will eventually be found that the Fly By Wire system downed the 3 aircraft on 9/11 as well. Flight MH370 and China Flight 5735 are Both Caused by Fly By Wire failures.
As a private pilot student, we learn on day 1 about positive transfer of controls. I say my controls he says your controls and I repeat my controls. But apparently these pilots each wanted to assert their ability to save the plane by both taking control of a fly by wire system at the same time. I really dislike airbus' fly by wire / stick system. Just put a yoke, with a stick it's more difficult imo to position the plane properly. It's not a game
I'm not sure why the autopilot wasn't designed to simply clamp the result of the added inputs to the maximum safe limit, rather than ignoring it completely.
So... As I said in my comment earlier, this wasn't autopilot-related. What we're talking about here is the EFCS (Electronic Flight Control System), which is a completely different kettle of fish. In the simplest terms, EFCS (or fly-by-wire) describes the computer-driven electronic control systems of the aircraft, whereas FMS/FMC/autopilot describes the computer systems which determine and automate the flightpath of the aircraft. The most important thing to understand is that - contrary to significant misunderstandings as to how the EFCS systems work - the systems are designed to comply with anything the flight crew request to the best of their ability, whilst at the same time checking those inputs against the safe flight envelope. It's inaccurate to state that the EFCS ignores pilot inputs, rather it tries to comply within the limits it knows to be safe. These limits are not static values, they're constantly computed on the basis of the data coming in from the aircraft's sensors. What happened in this case is that the EFCS software was designed to protect against a change in AoA which would cause the aircraft to stall. Furthermore, the system was designed such that dual inputs from both sidesticks would be "summed". This is why the breakdown in CRM over which of the flight crew was supposed to be in control was an issue. The reason the EFCS initially failed to command nose-up was because the summed inputs would have almost instantly risked a stall condition. This was then exacerbated by the tailwind further compromising the "safe AoA" calculation, which caused the nose-down input. In engineering terms, this is what we would consider an extreme "edge case" - namely an existing issue caused by intentional operation outside of what would be expected made worse by an external factor. It's understandable that if one considers the "safe" margins to be fixed, what you're suggesting would work for this one particular scenario - however the margins are very much dynamic. This is how Airbus took the scenario as presented in this case and applied it to their existing design, hopefully preventing a recurrence.
@@turricanedtc3764 this answer was long and detailed, so thank you. But it's not quite satisfactory in terms of answering the original question. Whether the critical AoA is fixed or dynamically calculated is irrelevant. At the end of the day, the EFCS had that information, since it had determined that the pilot's inputs would have have put the plane beyond that. Once it calculated that critical angle, why not just set the pilots input to that max allowed value, alpha max I believe. The question is, if the supplied inputs from the pilots puts the plane beyond the safe flight envelope calculated by the ECFS, why not set it to the limit, or near it? Why simply "ignore" it all together? And I know you were talking about the semantics of that word, but it's rather apt here as the plane literally did not do what the pilots commanded. In fact, it did the opposite, it pitched down. Ergo, it ignored their commands.
@@turricanedtc3764 Yeah, I meant the fly-by-wire system, not the autopilot. (It doesn't help that the title of the video puts the word "autopilot" in everyone's head...) In any case, thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm still not sure why the summing of both inputs would be an important factor, as that implies that the fly-by-wire system would have deemed a _single_ nose-up input to still be safe under these conditions. Given the nose-down that happened immediately after, it sounds like the safe limit for nose-up was already close to zero anyway.
@@user-yt198 That much is obvious :P. My point was that the system was designed to deal with unsafe input, which raises the question why they chose to handle it by disregarding the summed input altogether instead of limiting it to the maximum safe value.
This was the one game I could zone out on and play alone as a kid. Learning how to fly commercial jets with my joystick and mapping out flights through Las Vegas or NYC was magical and worth my first upgraded graphics card. One of these days I’m gonna do a computer build that can handle this version. Looks a bit more interesting than MSFS 98 ha.
@@jeffrey.a.hanson it’s MSFS 2020, a completely new version. I would totally recommend getting into it all! Hit me up if you need any help as moving to this sim was great for me
@@Capecodham you removed your reply to me, which you said “try to make it sound like you made it out of 4th grade”. First off, the country which I live in doesn’t use the American grade system, second off I never made the original comment. please be more respectful. This is TH-cam not English class so you “gotta” cope.
@@alfi_csgo6011 Wow, really?! This isn’t from 1998?! Man, had me. I never would have guessed this was a new game and not the one from 1998! Next you’ll tell me I don’t need my Commodore 64 to play Sid Meier’s Pirates.
A350 FO here, great video! Slight correction about dual pilot input, the fly by wire systems average the side stick positions, so if both pilots were to pull back, the aircraft would behave as if only one pilot was doing so. All protections are still active in normal law and this includes the limited attitude g-loading. I’ve done flight training in the simulator without these protections and the aircraft is a lot more.. well, not responsive but the movements can be more extreme if you’re not paying attention. Full elevator and aileron deflection as soon as you command it with no smoothing “When one sidestick is operated it sends an electrical signal to the Fly By Wire computers. When both sticks are moved simultaneously, the system adds the signals of both pilots algebraically. The total is limited to the signal that would result from the maximum deflection of a single sidestick.” - Airbus (Dual Side Stick Inputs)
This is what I was taught also (and have seen in flight sims.) Additionally, the 'takeover' button he refers to is simply the autopilot disconnect. Press once to disconnect AP and twice (or subsequent) to silence the AP disconnect warning. It doesn't matter which side presses it, both sticks are active.
@@noway9880 That’s not entirely true, yes it’s an A/P disconnect button but it is also a Priority Takeover button. When the AP is engaged you can press it to of course disengage the A/P, as there are locks to prevent a light bump from disconnecting the autopilot. However when Autopilot is not engaged, it is a priority takeover button, you can hold it, and for the duration that it’s pressed the opposite side stick will become inactive, if you hold it down for 40 seconds or longer it’ll become latched, meaning the other sidestick becomes inactive in perpetuity, until either pilots press the priority takeover button again.
17:49 "and angle of attack protection aren't triggered as easily" An A330 of Air France flying through Atlantic, 1st June 2009 : " wish they kept that update"
I was on a 757 ( United) back around 1991. The plane all of a sudden jerked up and then down. The pilot got on the overhead and apologized. He told us that the Autopilot decided to play a little game. He said he was shutting it down and would be hand flying the plane until we got to San Jose, California.
it's unbelievable that an airport famed for its dangerous and unpredictable weather didn't have any weather reporting system to aid for pilots. Aviation authority's need to up their game with regard weather and ground radar minimum standards.
I came across this channel last night and I have been bing watching these! Love it! I had my own experience flying from Arizona to Connecticut with terrible Turbulence! The planes lights went out and we literally jump out of seats! I also had a different experience when a Captain had said that we would have to delay and exit the plane do to something breaking in the cockpit ! 😅 watching some of these videos I want to thank the captain for his decision! Thanks for posting these!
Your channel does a better job at depicting the circumstances that lead to an accident. I watch your videos & in comparison to like Mayday Air Disasters and etc, you give a lot more detail that helps even us RL pilots understand the severity of an accident. Like a video on the Aero Peru accident with obstructed pitot tubes. You addressed the fact that they flew off of their RA at one point, then ignored the RA the second time, which lead to the crash. I always wondered “did they see the RA come alive on the PFD?” Mayday Air Disasters didn’t even address that once but you did. Love the channel man; keep it up! I came from V1👍🏻
You could also cover Iberia Flight 610, another accident involving Bilbao airport, although it's a much more tragic accident resulting in the loss of all 148 souls on board, I wasn't even born when it happened but I'd like to think most of us living in Bilbao still know about it, we're all very much aware of how terrible the wind is in the area, and those of us who know at least a bit about aviation know that you'll see as many "crabs" at the Bilbao airport runways as you will at the beach!
Yes, but the problems are not so different if it’s a pilot at the controls, interpreting the very same sensors. And certainly humans have some “bugs” of their own, too.
The software is technically free of bugs. Even in this incident, it wasn't any bug that happened, the software did exactly what it was programmed to do. The critical software on planes is mathematically verified for correctness, giving 100% confidence that it doesn't contain any bugs.
And while there is no computer that could misinterpret inputs or behave different from the pilots expect, there is also nothing that helps them make safe inputs.
Hello, I am new to this channel, but I would just want to stop by and thank you for your hard work. It's amazing how much effort you do put in every episode and your animations are flawless. Watching videos on this channel is like watching movies, you never let your viewers down. :) Congratulations!! PS. You asked for topic recommendations and I think I got one. It's rather not a wide-spread disaster as it happened to be discussed mostly regionally, but I live in the area of Babia Góra, Poland, where there was a catastrophe in 1969. A passanger plane of PLL LOT Polish Airlines Antonov An-24 was flying from Warsaw to Cracow, however from unknown reasons it lost its track and crashed into the mountains. None survived. It would be interesting to see this case covered on your channel. Nonetheless, I wish you all the best and 1M of subs. :) Greetings!
A great lesson. The fact the airplane survived the crash and all the passengers even those who were injured were truly amazing... So the only thing is to learn at the expense of the hull lost of an airplane...
This was before Sondika got its new buildings and improvements (as well as a change of name.) I’ve flown (as a passenger) into Bilbao several times - twice as a privilege on the flight deck. It’s terrifying, especially as you overfly the apartment blocks in Derio, on a hill separated from the threshold by the cemetery.
Dude bro your channel is the shit . I love it . I was starting too have have green dot Aviation withdrawals because I didn't watch any of your videos yesterday. Thank you so very much
I can't stop watching your channel 🙈Thank you for putting so much effort on your videos! 💖 Hopefully you'll cover some of these in the future: Aeroflot 593 Gol 1907 (mid-air collision) LaMia 2933 Japan Airlines 123 Uberlingen mid-air collision Air France 447 Can't wait!!!
Great explanation of the fly by wire system as it relates to the side sticks. Immediately it has me thinking about AF 447 and how come neither pilot pressed the red button to know there was a dual input during the stall..🤔
@@GreenDotAviation I feel if the sidesticks were mechanically interconnected (to provide a level of fedback) but operated the FBW system it would be so much better. I think airbus missed a trick.
@@allancopland1768 - I've read many folks expressing similar opinions over the years, however a thorough dive into the historical aspects indicate that interconnected controls have caused as many problems as non-interconnected - a famous one being EgyptAir 990, where one pilot's nose down input combined with the other's nose-up inputs caused a split-elevator condition exacerbating the loss of control. In the case of AF447, the override button *was* pressed - unfortunately, because the failure in CRM meant that the pilot in the right-hand seat wasn't being monitored, he simply pushed his override button shortly afterwards. No amount of technology can reliably overcome an uncoordinated crew.
The details included within this video are second-to-none, a lot of channels would just say “autopilot had an issue” rather than going into depth about what that issue actually was… the “dual-input” information was great too, top job my friend👍🏼😊
Above all the air crash investigation documentary creators & channels green dot a brilliant, a nice balance of educational, informative and entertaining. So glad I stumbled on this channel, Fantastic work 👏🏼👏🏼
"It was clear - poorly thought out software had caused this aircraft to crash." @ 12:26 rings true regarding Boeing's MCAS software and the MAX accidents. Why was necessary to have a brand new airline/jet pilot be flying under those conditions in their initial operating experience? Glad to hear Iberia reconsidered that decision.
Another sensational explanation from GDA. I am surprised that the AOA sensor didn't just give them the 15 degree pitch up (or whatever the critical angle is). Instead it just zeroed it out. And there was no warning from the computer that this was happening. There needs to be an override, but I guess it is during the landing phase that this becomes a bigger issue.
the computer ignoring the input outright, rather than just clamping it is one thing. but both pilots flying the airplane at the same time is surely a huge mistake too, right? sad this wasn't talked about.. I love your documentaries by the way, have been binging them the past few days. 💞
after the number of incidents caused by dual inputs, I can't think of why airbus doesn't put a cheap servo in the sidesticks that lets the pilots feel the other input especially since they know pilots can miss the audible warning
It seems to me that how the Airbus handles duel-input scenario is a big problem, as one pilot can't be aware of what the other pilot is doing unless they tell them. This isn't the only Airbus accident where one pilot didn't know what the other pilot was doing with the side-stick. Maybe Airbus should consider some kind of force-feedback system, where one pilot pulling back on the side-stick will cause the other side-stick to move in the same way (or at least apply pressure to the pilot's hand), like what happens in aircraft with more conventional controls. They might also want to re-think how control input summing is done.
Some fly by wire aircraft do have “active” side sticks which move based on inputs from the other pilot (or even the autopilot), I can only guess they decided the cheaper option was “good enough”
Seems silly for conflicting inputs on the sticks to be averaged out but two of the same input to be doubled in movement. Seems more logical for two of the same movement to be registered as both pilots reacting the same and so seen as one regular movement 🤷♂️
"When your aircraft's autopilot tries to commit mass murder." FBW has its advantages, I will concede that, but it still scares the holy you-know-what out of me. Love your channel. Keep up the great work!!
First and I’ve never seen this, very well done with all the information! Can’t wait for more Videos! ( by the way I love TH-camrs like you because you put the sponsor in a chapter so people can skip it )
Your commentary was Rey good and a very easy to follow regarding stalls & the critical angle of attack. I remember this from very early in My training on this subject was initiated, I think on the second lesson inn in the pre-lesson briefing the instructor went through the same details as you di, using a model ¿(of C172. Most of the practical aspect followed in the aeroplane. The C172 is a particularly docile aircraft and I had to practice at several engine off (Rickover), differing engine power levels and during a rate one turns & differing flap setting.I was terrified initially but soon became almost second nature. It is interesting, as you pointed out, that there are many different airspeed and wing angles which affect the critical angle of attack. Wing drop followed by spin recovery camp next. It strikes me that that a pilot would find it impossible to effect a practice stall & recovery in an Airbus 32o, the computer wouldn’t in normal circumstances let you do that
Before people freak out about automation on aircraft please keep in mind that there is disproportionate news about the times it fails versus when it saves lives. It's like child seats in cars. Only when they fail does it make the news but not the countless times they saved lives. Of course we need to continue to perfect the safety features each time time something tragic happens but most people are ignorant of 95%+ of the safety features on an airplane because they just work so well most people didn't know those features even existed.
Blaming a person is much more comforting than shouting at a computer . That's what I chalk it up to. That way, we can all feel like, "Hm, I wouldn't have made the mistakes that pilot made." That's human nature.
Cathartic is the word I was looking for. A computer system causing a crash is like... being cheated out of life. It's not supposed to happen. We like human accountability and the ability that we have to adapt in ways that computers can't (yet).
Yeah it's something that's taught during the very first flight with a CFI. There's a pilot flying (PF) and pilot monitoring (PM) and airlines have very detailed SOPs regarding this. It doesn't excuse the poor software algorithm but the dual inputs shouldn't have happened. Especially if there was a line trainer on jump seat.
hey man! It would be awesome you cover crashes that happened on Portuguese land. We have 2 main crashes I think are worth you cover. The madeira one, and the faro one. Keep up with the best aviation channel!
A pilot in training trying to tackle a landing in conditions that experienced pilots don't want to mess with. Reminds me of my first test for a driver's license. I was expecting the typical spin around a parking lot with 2 stop signs and being asked to parallel park on a curb with no other vehicles to squeeze between. Instead, the guy from the Dept of Transportation instructs me to leave the test area and down the ramp to a major freeway during rush hour. He says 'Ok, just merge here and take the second exit off the highway.' It was bumper to bumper cars and trucks doing 75-80 mph and I don't know how I managed to survive that horrifying experience without killing both of us. The jerk still didn't pass me after putting me through that hell.. probably because he would have exceeded the quota of how many people he was allowed to pass each day and I didn't get there until almost 4pm. The next time I took the test it was exactly what I was expecting. It required 5 minutes of performing the sort of driving skills that could have been achieved effortlessly by a blindfolded chimpanzee using only one hand. Evidently, I passed by arriving an hour before the testing place opened that morning and by being the first one in line.
After watching and putting a lot of my time on ntsb accident reports analizing ultimately the jet age accidents ,I woukd say you did an Excellent job on investigation reporting for this iberia Accident.thank you
Ouch! But I still like the A320. One day I even got to travel in the right seat at the pointy end. The F/O was having his meal and asked to swap places with me. I got some nice photos that day.
"Screeching Journey Down The Runway!" Absolutely accurate description. Airbus 'Starship Enterprise'. Computer. Commence landing procedure. Computer replies ... 'No Way'!
Well done video on a FINE AIRLINE! I worked my way up through different jobs in the airlines, including 10 years at Iberia as an Aircraft Dispatcher at JFK. Iberia was and is a very classy, well-organized, professional organization. I could never fly for Iberia, since I am a US citizen, but I do fly a 737NG/MAX at Southwest. Both the Airbus and Boeing have their strengths, but in the end, in the Boeing, the pilot has the last word, good or otherwise. A Boeing can be flown like a Cessna 172. In this incident, the Check Captain should have said "MY CONTROLS", or something similar, and initiated a go-around. The fault lies not with the pilots, but with a software glitch that caught them by surprise only a few feet above the ground. I am happy to see that Airbus modified the software to give more authority to the PIC, to whom it belongs. Very good presentation!
Bilbao had one of the worst approaches and redirects that I have ever experienced. Even on a nice day, the wind is extremely strong. My husband was terrified.
The preference of input from control sticks should be prioritized to the captain, auto cancels copilot input, unless there is no input from the captain, with a feel sensor on top and sides of the stick to ensure who is inputting controls.
There is an old computer adage: Garbage In: Garbage Out. If the autopilot computer programmers failed to conceive of every possible contingency, the computer cannot possibly solve every problem.
Shouldn't Dual Input by default ignore the FO, rejecting them for the Captain's controls? Presumably if the Captain is handling the plane, their inputs should supersede the FO's
Not all passenger aircraft have three (or more) AOA vanes...most of the 737 fleet have two. To improve this situation, Boeing has decided to install on the MAX aircraft, not a third AOA , but a "virtual AOA", simulating a system that has three. 9:37.
Glad you enjoyed it! I run it on pretty high settings, and for the ‘showcase’ views I turn the camera exposure up so that more of the scene is visible in darkness. Might that be what you noticed, or is there something else that stuck out?
@@GreenDotAviation mostly the lighting so the exposure makes sense, much appreciated. The way you explain the events and go through the errors is second to none, by far the best Air Crash re-enactments I’ve seen… and I watch a lot of these ;)
It is a very pertinent snippet of of interes, that the Airbus is a very sturdy airframe - from a frequent flyer’s point of view, min, until t retired, then I always found the Airbus a much more comfortable aeroplane than its competitor as well.
Tbf, fly by wire has been proven to be at least 10 times safer than classic flying. So much so, even Boeing adopted it for its 777s, 787s and 737 Maxs.
Get the exclusive NordVPN deal here at nordvpn.com/GreenDot. It’s risk-free with NordVPN’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
TOO SASSY!!
are u saying the airbus 320 is sturdier than the boeing 737? i don’t buy it 😮
It will eventually be found that the Fly By Wire system downed the 3 aircraft on 9/11 as well.
Flight MH370 and China Flight 5735 are Both Caused by Fly By Wire failures.
As a private pilot student, we learn on day 1 about positive transfer of controls. I say my controls he says your controls and I repeat my controls. But apparently these pilots each wanted to assert their ability to save the plane by both taking control of a fly by wire system at the same time. I really dislike airbus' fly by wire / stick system. Just put a yoke, with a stick it's more difficult imo to position the plane properly. It's not a game
no ty
I'm not sure why the autopilot wasn't designed to simply clamp the result of the added inputs to the maximum safe limit, rather than ignoring it completely.
So... As I said in my comment earlier, this wasn't autopilot-related. What we're talking about here is the EFCS (Electronic Flight Control System), which is a completely different kettle of fish. In the simplest terms, EFCS (or fly-by-wire) describes the computer-driven electronic control systems of the aircraft, whereas FMS/FMC/autopilot describes the computer systems which determine and automate the flightpath of the aircraft.
The most important thing to understand is that - contrary to significant misunderstandings as to how the EFCS systems work - the systems are designed to comply with anything the flight crew request to the best of their ability, whilst at the same time checking those inputs against the safe flight envelope. It's inaccurate to state that the EFCS ignores pilot inputs, rather it tries to comply within the limits it knows to be safe. These limits are not static values, they're constantly computed on the basis of the data coming in from the aircraft's sensors. What happened in this case is that the EFCS software was designed to protect against a change in AoA which would cause the aircraft to stall. Furthermore, the system was designed such that dual inputs from both sidesticks would be "summed". This is why the breakdown in CRM over which of the flight crew was supposed to be in control was an issue. The reason the EFCS initially failed to command nose-up was because the summed inputs would have almost instantly risked a stall condition. This was then exacerbated by the tailwind further compromising the "safe AoA" calculation, which caused the nose-down input.
In engineering terms, this is what we would consider an extreme "edge case" - namely an existing issue caused by intentional operation outside of what would be expected made worse by an external factor. It's understandable that if one considers the "safe" margins to be fixed, what you're suggesting would work for this one particular scenario - however the margins are very much dynamic. This is how Airbus took the scenario as presented in this case and applied it to their existing design, hopefully preventing a recurrence.
@@turricanedtc3764 this answer was long and detailed, so thank you. But it's not quite satisfactory in terms of answering the original question.
Whether the critical AoA is fixed or dynamically calculated is irrelevant. At the end of the day, the EFCS had that information, since it had determined that the pilot's inputs would have have put the plane beyond that. Once it calculated that critical angle, why not just set the pilots input to that max allowed value, alpha max I believe.
The question is, if the supplied inputs from the pilots puts the plane beyond the safe flight envelope calculated by the ECFS, why not set it to the limit, or near it? Why simply "ignore" it all together? And I know you were talking about the semantics of that word, but it's rather apt here as the plane literally did not do what the pilots commanded. In fact, it did the opposite, it pitched down. Ergo, it ignored their commands.
@@turricanedtc3764 Yeah, I meant the fly-by-wire system, not the autopilot. (It doesn't help that the title of the video puts the word "autopilot" in everyone's head...)
In any case, thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm still not sure why the summing of both inputs would be an important factor, as that implies that the fly-by-wire system would have deemed a _single_ nose-up input to still be safe under these conditions. Given the nose-down that happened immediately after, it sounds like the safe limit for nose-up was already close to zero anyway.
Because... engineers didn't foresee such a case to happen, in other words it was a software design flaw.
@@user-yt198 That much is obvious :P. My point was that the system was designed to deal with unsafe input, which raises the question why they chose to handle it by disregarding the summed input altogether instead of limiting it to the maximum safe value.
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
That was in strong contention for the title of this video haha
@@GreenDotAviation I see what you did there. Nice touch.
"This is highly irregular"
HAL, pretty please, may I....
That's krass; but,
perfectly on spot accurate .
This is the best channel I’ve come across analyzing accidents in aviation. Keep up the great work!
Truly. The Best!
No it's not
I'm binge watching for three days now 😂
I love how you made the autopilot feel like a character of its own, like HAL in 2001 :)
I was thinking the same thing lol.
I can’t let you do that, Dave.
It was the fly-by-wire syst.
"Never buy software updates from the gas station"
I gotta say, that Fenix A320 looks soo damn good. Also, nice airport scenery. MSFS is really hitting its stride right now.
This was the one game I could zone out on and play alone as a kid. Learning how to fly commercial jets with my joystick and mapping out flights through Las Vegas or NYC was magical and worth my first upgraded graphics card.
One of these days I’m gonna do a computer build that can handle this version. Looks a bit more interesting than MSFS 98 ha.
@@jeffrey.a.hanson it’s MSFS 2020, a completely new version. I would totally recommend getting into it all! Hit me up if you need any help as moving to this sim was great for me
@@Capecodham yeah what’s wrong?
@@Capecodham you removed your reply to me, which you said “try to make it sound like you made it out of 4th grade”. First off, the country which I live in doesn’t use the American grade system, second off I never made the original comment. please be more respectful. This is TH-cam not English class so you “gotta” cope.
@@alfi_csgo6011 Wow, really?! This isn’t from 1998?! Man, had me. I never would have guessed this was a new game and not the one from 1998! Next you’ll tell me I don’t need my Commodore 64 to play Sid Meier’s Pirates.
A350 FO here, great video! Slight correction about dual pilot input, the fly by wire systems average the side stick positions, so if both pilots were to pull back, the aircraft would behave as if only one pilot was doing so. All protections are still active in normal law and this includes the limited attitude g-loading.
I’ve done flight training in the simulator without these protections and the aircraft is a lot more.. well, not responsive but the movements can be more extreme if you’re not paying attention. Full elevator and aileron deflection as soon as you command it with no smoothing
“When one sidestick is operated it sends an electrical signal to the Fly By Wire computers. When both sticks are moved simultaneously, the system adds the signals of both pilots algebraically.
The total is limited to the signal that would result from the maximum deflection of a single sidestick.” - Airbus (Dual Side Stick Inputs)
I thought it was called"normal law".
@@bobgillis1137 You're right, It's normal law. I made a typo, thanks for letting me know!
@@huskkyy
No worries; fascinating topic (and very alarming!). Good on you for following your dreams. I could never be an airliner pilot.
This is what I was taught also (and have seen in flight sims.) Additionally, the 'takeover' button he refers to is simply the autopilot disconnect. Press once to disconnect AP and twice (or subsequent) to silence the AP disconnect warning. It doesn't matter which side presses it, both sticks are active.
@@noway9880 That’s not entirely true, yes it’s an A/P disconnect button but it is also a Priority Takeover button. When the AP is engaged you can press it to of course disengage the A/P, as there are locks to prevent a light bump from disconnecting the autopilot. However when Autopilot is not engaged, it is a priority takeover button, you can hold it, and for the duration that it’s pressed the opposite side stick will become inactive, if you hold it down for 40 seconds or longer it’ll become latched, meaning the other sidestick becomes inactive in perpetuity, until either pilots press the priority takeover button again.
17:49 "and angle of attack protection aren't triggered as easily"
An A330 of Air France flying through Atlantic, 1st June 2009 :
" wish they kept that update"
@@chakraborty1989 I'm thinking that You might be referring to Air France flight #447... Correct?
@@michaelmartinez1345Yes.
I was on a 757 ( United) back around 1991. The plane all of a sudden jerked up and then down. The pilot got on the overhead and apologized. He told us that the Autopilot decided to play a little game. He said he was shutting it down and would be hand flying the plane until we got to San Jose, California.
a year late to this comment but i would be put off flying until they announced it as a fixed issue
it's unbelievable that an airport famed for its dangerous and unpredictable weather didn't have any weather reporting system to aid for pilots.
Aviation authority's need to up their game with regard weather and ground radar minimum standards.
spanish airports seem to be horrible
@@AlAl-en9ce Actually they are not. Most are fine and according to international standards.
@@FranciscoCaminoDon’t put national pride above safety.
@@The_ZeroLine I am not.
@@AlAl-en9ce
Ciudad Real International Airport is excellent and only cost €1.1 billion,shame it was never used. 😂
I came across this channel last night and I have been bing watching these! Love it! I had my own experience flying from Arizona to Connecticut with terrible Turbulence! The planes lights went out and we literally jump out of seats! I also had a different experience when a Captain had said that we would have to delay and exit the plane do to something breaking in the cockpit ! 😅 watching some of these videos I want to thank the captain for his decision! Thanks for posting these!
Your channel does a better job at depicting the circumstances that lead to an accident. I watch your videos & in comparison to like Mayday Air Disasters and etc, you give a lot more detail that helps even us RL pilots understand the severity of an accident. Like a video on the Aero Peru accident with obstructed pitot tubes. You addressed the fact that they flew off of their RA at one point, then ignored the RA the second time, which lead to the crash. I always wondered “did they see the RA come alive on the PFD?” Mayday Air Disasters didn’t even address that once but you did. Love the channel man; keep it up! I came from V1👍🏻
I was on the edge of my seat the whole time! It's great to hear there were no fatalities 😮💨
You could also cover Iberia Flight 610, another accident involving Bilbao airport, although it's a much more tragic accident resulting in the loss of all 148 souls on board, I wasn't even born when it happened but I'd like to think most of us living in Bilbao still know about it, we're all very much aware of how terrible the wind is in the area, and those of us who know at least a bit about aviation know that you'll see as many "crabs" at the Bilbao airport runways as you will at the beach!
Thanks I’ll look into this one!
The Fenix A320 really adds so much immersion to this video. Loooove flying that plane.
Fr.. As much as I love the PMDG 737, this one has a much more detailed interior..
@@cancelanime1507 So far the PMDG DC-6 is still my favorite. But the Fenix A320 is right up there and, yeah, beats the 737-700 hands down IMO.
That was interesting!! Great detail and great explanation. Beautiful graphics! Thankfully, everyone survived!! Thanks for sharing this!! 👍✈✈👍
Glad you enjoyed it, more on the way ✈️
Fly by wire is a great idea as long as the computer and sensors are all working properly, and the software is completely free of bugs (which is never)
Yes, but the problems are not so different if it’s a pilot at the controls, interpreting the very same sensors. And certainly humans have some “bugs” of their own, too.
The software is technically free of bugs. Even in this incident, it wasn't any bug that happened, the software did exactly what it was programmed to do. The critical software on planes is mathematically verified for correctness, giving 100% confidence that it doesn't contain any bugs.
@ronicelyvsaid binhoodwinker8621
elon musk saw the “Fly by wire is a great idea” part and ignored the rest when making the cybertruck
And while there is no computer that could misinterpret inputs or behave different from the pilots expect, there is also nothing that helps them make safe inputs.
Hello, I am new to this channel, but I would just want to stop by and thank you for your hard work. It's amazing how much effort you do put in every episode and your animations are flawless. Watching videos on this channel is like watching movies, you never let your viewers down. :) Congratulations!!
PS. You asked for topic recommendations and I think I got one. It's rather not a wide-spread disaster as it happened to be discussed mostly regionally, but I live in the area of Babia Góra, Poland, where there was a catastrophe in 1969. A passanger plane of PLL LOT Polish Airlines Antonov An-24 was flying from Warsaw to Cracow, however from unknown reasons it lost its track and crashed into the mountains. None survived. It would be interesting to see this case covered on your channel. Nonetheless, I wish you all the best and 1M of subs. :) Greetings!
Thank you for the kind words and for the video suggestion, I’ll have a look into this one :)
Nice use of the manual gear extention handle knob as HAL. Another great video. keep up the good work!
It was too good of an opportunity to pass up! Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for signing up on Patreon :)
@@GreenDotAviation Id love to get a close look in the avionics bay where the AI overlords actually live!
A great lesson. The fact the airplane survived the crash and all the passengers even those who were injured were truly amazing... So the only thing is to learn at the expense of the hull lost of an airplane...
Two crash investigation videos about Bilbao, about different flights? Maybe I'll skip flying there.
This was before Sondika got its new buildings and improvements (as well as a change of name.) I’ve flown (as a passenger) into Bilbao several times - twice as a privilege on the flight deck. It’s terrifying, especially as you overfly the apartment blocks in Derio, on a hill separated from the threshold by the cemetery.
I am so glad when I was in Spain that I flew into Madrid and took the train to Bilbao.
Dude bro your channel is the shit . I love it . I was starting too have have green dot Aviation withdrawals because I didn't watch any of your videos yesterday. Thank you so very much
Been in a wind shear during approach on my very first flight. Same era, same area. Fascinating.
If anyone has knowledge on this…late summer in 1996, approach to Palma de Mallorca airport. If someone ever heard something, I’d love details.
7:07 - Logitech force feedback stick cost about 50€ (2×=100€) Airbus: herpderp
7:07 Airbus: Me money!
I can't stop watching your channel 🙈Thank you for putting so much effort on your videos! 💖
Hopefully you'll cover some of these in the future:
Aeroflot 593
Gol 1907 (mid-air collision)
LaMia 2933
Japan Airlines 123
Uberlingen mid-air collision
Air France 447
Can't wait!!!
Great explanation of the fly by wire system as it relates to the side sticks. Immediately it has me thinking about AF 447 and how come neither pilot pressed the red button to know there was a dual input during the stall..🤔
Yep, this isn’t the first time the independent sidesticks have caused issues.
@@GreenDotAviation I feel if the sidesticks were mechanically interconnected (to provide a level of fedback) but operated the FBW system it would be so much better. I think airbus missed a trick.
@@allancopland1768 - I've read many folks expressing similar opinions over the years, however a thorough dive into the historical aspects indicate that interconnected controls have caused as many problems as non-interconnected - a famous one being EgyptAir 990, where one pilot's nose down input combined with the other's nose-up inputs caused a split-elevator condition exacerbating the loss of control.
In the case of AF447, the override button *was* pressed - unfortunately, because the failure in CRM meant that the pilot in the right-hand seat wasn't being monitored, he simply pushed his override button shortly afterwards. No amount of technology can reliably overcome an uncoordinated crew.
Thanks!
Thank you!
The details included within this video are second-to-none, a lot of channels would just say “autopilot had an issue” rather than going into depth about what that issue actually was… the “dual-input” information was great too, top job my friend👍🏼😊
Thanks! I'm glad you appreciate the details :)
Thanks
Thank you!
@@GreenDotAviation you’re welcome
Above all the air crash investigation documentary creators & channels green dot a brilliant, a nice balance of educational, informative and entertaining. So glad I stumbled on this channel, Fantastic work 👏🏼👏🏼
"It was clear - poorly thought out software had caused this aircraft to crash." @ 12:26 rings true regarding Boeing's MCAS software and the MAX accidents. Why was necessary to have a brand new airline/jet pilot be flying under those conditions in their initial operating experience? Glad to hear Iberia reconsidered that decision.
I have been binging all your videos for the past week mate I love your narration, rip all the dead🙏
Nice video my friend!✈️
Thank you! 🙏🏼🙏🏼
Phew! So nice to hear all survived.
Excellent presentation of all factors the factors involved in this accident. I absolutely love your style and content.
Glad you’re enjoying it! Much more to come 😎
Another sensational explanation from GDA.
I am surprised that the AOA sensor didn't just give them the 15 degree pitch up (or whatever the critical angle is). Instead it just zeroed it out. And there was no warning from the computer that this was happening.
There needs to be an override, but I guess it is during the landing phase that this becomes a bigger issue.
I am not a pilot but I have subscribed because of the clear and interesting analysis of the accidents. 👍
Fantastic channel,keep up the excellent work.
Glad you like it! :)
Excellent video production! Love the 'cinematography'. And great pace, as ever. 👏👍
the computer ignoring the input outright, rather than just clamping it is one thing. but both pilots flying the airplane at the same time is surely a huge mistake too, right? sad this wasn't talked about.. I love your documentaries by the way, have been binging them the past few days. 💞
after the number of incidents caused by dual inputs, I can't think of why airbus doesn't put a cheap servo in the sidesticks that lets the pilots feel the other input
especially since they know pilots can miss the audible warning
The best aviation channel. The visuals, narration and level of detail are simply outstanding.
Wow, awesome video bro. Nice graphics 😎 Much love from Bangkok, Thailand 🙏❤️🇹🇭
I enjoy the way you say "Columns"... Its majestic
Finally! I've been counting seconds since the last Green Dot upload
I watched everyone of your videos. Great channel! Very detailed
Thanks! Glad you’re enjoying them, more on the way 😎
These are so well put together and narrated..
Your videos sound came on very well ,great vid well done ,very informative and interesting 👍
Omg THAT SEGUE LOL! Glad you’re getting sponsors tho. I enjoy yr vids. I love how you cover lesser-known incidents. I like your sim footage also.
The plane was hijacked by itself
2:40 imma be honest, that's the smoothest segue into a sponsor shoutout I've ever seen.
That transition into that NordVPN advertisement was great. Bravo
It seems to me that how the Airbus handles duel-input scenario is a big problem, as one pilot can't be aware of what the other pilot is doing unless they tell them. This isn't the only Airbus accident where one pilot didn't know what the other pilot was doing with the side-stick.
Maybe Airbus should consider some kind of force-feedback system, where one pilot pulling back on the side-stick will cause the other side-stick to move in the same way (or at least apply pressure to the pilot's hand), like what happens in aircraft with more conventional controls.
They might also want to re-think how control input summing is done.
Some fly by wire aircraft do have “active” side sticks which move based on inputs from the other pilot (or even the autopilot), I can only guess they decided the cheaper option was “good enough”
Interesting case. Great video as always. Thanks!
Thanks!
Excellently explained! Well done! Let’s hope the pilots will not be replaced by computers completely in future!
Seems silly for conflicting inputs on the sticks to be averaged out but two of the same input to be doubled in movement. Seems more logical for two of the same movement to be registered as both pilots reacting the same and so seen as one regular movement 🤷♂️
"When your aircraft's autopilot tries to commit mass murder." FBW has its advantages, I will concede that, but it still scares the holy you-know-what out of me. Love your channel. Keep up the great work!!
First and I’ve never seen this, very well done with all the information! Can’t wait for more Videos! ( by the way I love TH-camrs like you because you put the sponsor in a chapter so people can skip it )
Your commentary was Rey good and a very easy to follow regarding stalls & the critical angle of attack. I remember this from very early in My training on this subject was initiated, I think on the second lesson inn in the pre-lesson briefing the instructor went through the same details as you di, using a model ¿(of C172. Most of the practical aspect followed in the aeroplane. The C172 is a particularly docile aircraft and I had to practice at several engine off (Rickover), differing engine power levels and during a rate one turns & differing flap setting.I was terrified initially but soon became almost second nature. It is interesting, as you pointed out, that there are many different airspeed and wing angles which affect the critical angle of attack. Wing drop followed by spin recovery camp next. It strikes me that that a pilot would find it impossible to effect a practice stall & recovery in an Airbus 32o, the computer wouldn’t in normal circumstances let you do that
Thanks for the video Emmett, very informative.
That transition to ad is worth the like alone. Not even including the amazing content. 😂😂
Before people freak out about automation on aircraft please keep in mind that there is disproportionate news about the times it fails versus when it saves lives.
It's like child seats in cars. Only when they fail does it make the news but not the countless times they saved lives.
Of course we need to continue to perfect the safety features each time time something tragic happens but most people are ignorant of 95%+ of the safety features on an airplane because they just work so well most people didn't know those features even existed.
Blaming a person is much more comforting than shouting at a computer . That's what I chalk it up to. That way, we can all feel like, "Hm, I wouldn't have made the mistakes that pilot made." That's human nature.
Cathartic is the word I was looking for. A computer system causing a crash is like... being cheated out of life. It's not supposed to happen. We like human accountability and the ability that we have to adapt in ways that computers can't (yet).
Great explanation of a very interesting incident. Thanks!
As usual a very professionally produced video.
I've seen lots of cases no pilot says "I have control." How is that possible?
Yeah it's something that's taught during the very first flight with a CFI. There's a pilot flying (PF) and pilot monitoring (PM) and airlines have very detailed SOPs regarding this. It doesn't excuse the poor software algorithm but the dual inputs shouldn't have happened. Especially if there was a line trainer on jump seat.
hey man! It would be awesome you cover crashes that happened on Portuguese land. We have 2 main crashes I think are worth you cover. The madeira one, and the faro one. Keep up with the best aviation channel!
“Bilbao” is the sound planes make when they hit the runway runway there
Even in a video about an Airbus going down we still have the customary Airbus worship haha
A pilot in training trying to tackle a landing in conditions that experienced pilots don't want to mess with. Reminds me of my first test for a driver's license. I was expecting the typical spin around a parking lot with 2 stop signs and being asked to parallel park on a curb with no other vehicles to squeeze between. Instead, the guy from the Dept of Transportation instructs me to leave the test area and down the ramp to a major freeway during rush hour. He says 'Ok, just merge here and take the second exit off the highway.' It was bumper to bumper cars and trucks doing 75-80 mph and I don't know how I managed to survive that horrifying experience without killing both of us. The jerk still didn't pass me after putting me through that hell.. probably because he would have exceeded the quota of how many people he was allowed to pass each day and I didn't get there until almost 4pm. The next time I took the test it was exactly what I was expecting. It required 5 minutes of performing the sort of driving skills that could have been achieved effortlessly by a blindfolded chimpanzee using only one hand. Evidently, I passed by arriving an hour before the testing place opened that morning and by being the first one in line.
After watching and putting a lot of my time on ntsb accident reports analizing ultimately the jet age accidents ,I woukd say you did an Excellent job on investigation reporting for this iberia Accident.thank you
Great video mate. I take it you are a pilot with your in-depth of knowledge.
Ouch! But I still like the A320. One day I even got to travel in the right seat at the pointy end. The F/O was having his meal and asked to swap places with me. I got some nice photos that day.
I just can’t stop watching
"Screeching Journey Down The Runway!" Absolutely accurate description. Airbus 'Starship Enterprise'. Computer. Commence landing procedure. Computer replies ... 'No Way'!
Brooo, That is my home airport !
Well done video on a FINE AIRLINE! I worked my way up through different jobs in the airlines, including 10 years at Iberia as an Aircraft Dispatcher at JFK. Iberia was and is a very classy, well-organized, professional organization. I could never fly for Iberia, since I am a US citizen, but I do fly a 737NG/MAX at Southwest. Both the Airbus and Boeing have their strengths, but in the end, in the Boeing, the pilot has the last word, good or otherwise. A Boeing can be flown like a Cessna 172.
In this incident, the Check Captain should have said "MY CONTROLS", or something similar, and initiated a go-around. The fault lies not with the pilots, but with a software glitch that caught them by surprise only a few feet above the ground. I am happy to see that Airbus modified the software to give more authority to the PIC, to whom it belongs.
Very good presentation!
Bilbao had one of the worst approaches and redirects that I have ever experienced. Even on a nice day, the wind is extremely strong. My husband was terrified.
Both pilots make a frantic sudden input to the controls to avoid crashing. Computer: Nope.
Sidestick control input, reminiscent of AF 447...
This was fascinating.
The preference of input from control sticks should be prioritized to the captain, auto cancels copilot input, unless there is no input from the captain, with a feel sensor on top and sides of the stick to ensure who is inputting controls.
There is an old computer adage: Garbage In: Garbage Out. If the autopilot computer programmers failed to conceive of every possible contingency, the computer cannot possibly solve every problem.
that Nordvpn ad was smooth :P
Could you cover the Lufthansa 747 incident in Nairobi? That would be very interesting.
Fascinating stuff. Thanks
Brilliant video!! Thanks
That sponsor plugin was pretty good ngl lmao
Shouldn't Dual Input by default ignore the FO, rejecting them for the Captain's controls? Presumably if the Captain is handling the plane, their inputs should supersede the FO's
Not all passenger aircraft have three (or more) AOA vanes...most of the 737 fleet have two. To improve this situation, Boeing has decided to install on the MAX aircraft, not a third AOA , but a "virtual AOA", simulating a system that has three.
9:37.
@10:50” the audio track with bells how can I get hold of this audio ?
Loll yooo. I thought he was going say I can train on Netflix 😂
Hey man, your videos are awesome thank you!
Curious how you get FS2020 to look so nice, any chance sharing how you do it?
Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it! I run it on pretty high settings, and for the ‘showcase’ views I turn the camera exposure up so that more of the scene is visible in darkness. Might that be what you noticed, or is there something else that stuck out?
@@GreenDotAviation mostly the lighting so the exposure makes sense, much appreciated.
The way you explain the events and go through the errors is second to none, by far the best Air Crash re-enactments I’ve seen… and I watch a lot of these ;)
8
It is a very pertinent snippet of of interes, that the Airbus is a very sturdy airframe - from a frequent flyer’s point of view, min, until t retired, then I always found the Airbus a much more comfortable aeroplane than its competitor as well.
I love how he pitches his Nord VPN ad by talking about how annoying it is to be bombarded with ads lol
By the way I love your videos and I watch every single one. Incredibly insightful.
Tbf, fly by wire has been proven to be at least 10 times safer than classic flying. So much so, even Boeing adopted it for its 777s, 787s and 737 Maxs.
Thanks so much for sharing. 😉👌🏻
2001: A Space Odyssey all over again 😱 Hal- "What are you doing Dave!!?"😡
What a clever place to have a airport 👏