ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- Why is loss of control in flight still the most frequent case of fatal accidents. Let’s do a deep dive.
See my notes on the accident report by joining the 3 Greens Patreon or TH-cam Membership below.
🟢🟢🟢 Patreon - patreon.com/3greens
🟢🟢🟢 TH-cam Membership - / @3greens
View the Accident Report here - www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/file...
CREDITS
Voice Actors
Captain - Michael Neeb
First Officer - Jason Rosette
Air Traffic Control - Rebecca Claire Murphy
Music
Music - purple-planet.com
Sim Footage
Prepar3D
Camera System - ChasePlane
Ground Services - GSX
Aerosoft A320
0:00 Intro
0:39 Background
2:52 Context
3:29 Sim Recreation
7:44 Flashback
8:18 Accident Sequence
11:04 Aftermath
12:23 LOC-I Analysis
14:48 Upset Recovery Training
#aircrashinvestigation #Mayday #3Greens
![ทัศนศึกษาโรงงานผลิตโค้ก [THAI/ENG SUB]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M9y-TJBNem0/mqdefault.jpg)
“pull down” is the most confusing thing I’ve ever heard from a captain, they were doomed from that moment
He should have tried "I have control" when his first garbage statement didn't work.
A review of side sticks might be in order. Air France 447 happened because the flight crew were holding the side sticks in opposite directions, nullifying the desired attitude correction. The conventional, more intuitive control yoke used in Boeing aircraft would never allow this error.
They were doomed the moment the co-pilot refused to look at the flight display when he couldn't see out of the windscreen.
pull up or push down. nose down.
@@markuswx1322 my uncle was a long time captain and instructor for swissair and then swiss. he flew both airplane airbus and boeing and said he personally likes airbus more since he has more leg space. but in the accident in this video or in airfrance one i would have told the FO to remove the hand from the stick. not just my control
Too many people overlook the obvious, attributing the "U.S. flying culture" as being more "hands on" with training. What most overlook is the sheer number of military background pilots due to the enormous military flying opportunity. With a massive Air Force, Naval and Marine opportunity as well as ANG there is a huge number of available military pilots. Most other countries barely have a handful of military pilots each year. So therein lies the difference. It's not necessarily that the U.S. flying culture is intentionally more industrious about hand flying, rather, the culture starts out with an abundance of available aviators who were already trained to hand fly.
but also in general the western world has massive better piloting. and in europe we dont have that much fighter pilots. so i dont think its just because of that
It seems that Southeast Asian carriers need to reinforce the concept of "Aviate first!"
Maybe airline pilots should be required to spend a couple of hours flying a Cessna each month....
I just hope this crash has slapped every pilot in Indonesia and show them the big highlighted word on the blackboard: AVIATE. Nothing is more important than the ability to hand fly when needed. This and Adam Air failed to do so with huge consequences.
I watched a TH-cam video that said; "727 pilot makes a manual landing" !!!!! That was such a big deal they made a video to prove it could actually be done.
I did it thousands of times over a 30 year UAL career on the 727. The A/P was usually used in cruise, all takeoffs, climbs, maneuvering to land under about 10,000 feet, and the landings were flown by hand 98% of the time.
These days if the A/P kicks off for some reason it is an emergency.
There also was no such thing as the "startle factor". We were paying attention and made no assumption that the machine knew more than we did.
UAL Capt. 19,000 hours, 15K in the 727.
Don't fly again, seems like you'd be one of those pilots who'd be a liability in the cockpit with to poor crm
@@cosmicaleclipse how many hours do you have as captain of an airliner?
It's because they really don't know how to fly. My son in law flies the 787 for Air Canada. He learned stalls,spins, etc in a Cessna 150 and still flies aerobatics to this day. He knows how to fly and how to recognize and recover from unusal events.
Man I want to fly Air Canada 787 when I grow up.
Exactly. I'd say that is a parenting success.
Cutting the power to the flight computers on a fly-by-wire system. Great idea, bud!
The warning was annoying but the plane was flying perfectly well. It's a bit like the kids asking "are we there yet" from the back seat during the road trip. You don't go suffocating the kids with a pillow, you just have to put up with it until you reach your destination.
The other good option would be to call the company flight engineers from the cockpit and put some informed grey matter to the issue.
If the captain was in his chair, he could have taken control of the aircraft when he saw his co-pilot struggling. But, was he in his chair? Was he able to reach the breakers while seated?
Poor grasp of English Language was also an issue. However, in a life-and-death crisis situation, I'm not sure that even I, a native English speaker, would speak coherently. You never know until it happens.
I honestly don't know what I would do in the situation. Aircraft should be equipped with backup manual control if the electronics fail, or allow a technician to remotely access the aircraft system software (however, bad actors could hack into the plane's computer and crash). Or finally, like you said, I would call the company's engineering department to fix the issue via troubleshooting. Maybe AI could help determine if a computer is faulty, and use error correcting code (self-diagnostics) to fix a sensor issue, but if the hypothetical AI system fails, then the pilots are out of luck. Kinda curious what aviation would look like in 2040. Would automation work for ATTOL (Autonomous Taxi, Take-Off and Landing), or bring yet another plane down? RIP to the passengers and crew who had to deal with electronics issues on planes...
Unrelated, but 3 Greens - Aviation Safety has gotten much higher production quality now. I love the animations for when the captain, FO, and ATC speak, and the aircraft info in the green boxes. 12.0/10.0 high quality. ツ
@@thatguyalex2835 They did have control. It just disconnected autopilot, they didn't notice quickly, then stalled the plane.
@@ashkebora7262 Yep, issues with technology. :( Hopefully newer autopilots have better notifications of when they shut down.
Presumably this is also another time where the Airbus sidestick is just inferior to the Boeing shared yoke. The captain was trying to tell the FO how to recover the plane, but if there had been a physically connected shared yoke he could easily have realised the incorrect inputs and grabbed it himself and recovered the plane.
Wait. So you are saying that it's NOT okay to suffocate kids with a pillow, if they keep asking "are we there yet"?
Boy, I wish I had come across this comment when you originally posted it.
I'm seeing some comments referring to electronic flight systems being a problem in and of themselves, but the simple fact of the matter is that if we're talking about instrument calibration, even the most basic vacuum-driven gyro instruments of the kind one would find on a Cessna require calibration and warm-up on the ground in order to function effectively. One simply should never ever attempt to reset gyro-driven instruments in flight because the gyros will not have a guaranteed stable environment in which to calibrate themselves.
Always delighted to see a notification from this channel!
These cases of pilot negligence makes me so mad...
Just to correct you, the airline I flew for brought in recovery from usual attitudes as a regular simulator exercise in 2002.
Disorientated? The instruments are right there in front of them.
Very well done all aspects. Fly by wire and tech advances are great but ultimately pilots have to apply basic aviation skills.
My new favourite channel thanks for the upload! Keep it up
I have been waiting for this video, Thank you so much !!
Too much automation with computers doing the pilot's job ... pilots are forgetting how to fly. They'd be lost if you put them in a stick and rudder J3
C* algorithm is very close to natural (g load and pitch rate added into negative feedback loop). Also its very helpful to stabilize the aircraft - especially on "challenging" approaches, which increases safety of flight. Also A320 (if I remember correctly) have a "direct law" which put deflection from sidesticks directly into same deflection of control surfaces.
Exactly. The same with computers and software. Everything is getting so easier that in one click you get everything done for you. That's why im getting back to old ways just not to lose the touch, but its getting every day harder when new implantations of software is getting more stricted for customization and openness.
@@Oravankarva same thing with Linux based systems. 15 years old many things was hard to do or fix (but it was great fun). Now its way too easy - literally. But I cant tell same thing with Windows - in there, there are many problems (highly time consuming) and in many cases, there is a big fat wall, because You cant fix bug in closed-source software by Yourself - only "manufacturer" can do it, because only them have source code.
@@norbert.kiszka I think this is a mixed bag and I'm not sure if I would trade in much of the automation available today for more direct control. Especially if I would need to decide on a feature by feature basis I find a use for most any automation available today and even valid arguments why it might make a substantial improvement and add safety in the day by day operation of high-tech products.
But - and there's always a but - higher degrees of automation allows people with lesser understanding of the inner workings of a complex system to handle these. And that may turn into a huge problem once your system moves outside the envelope of parameters which have been considered to be "realistic" by the system designers.
I could write a lot more but as I'm not a pilot it would be inappropriate on this channel.
(In fact I'm a software developer technically already beyond the border of retirement and as most of my professional career was somehow related to the UNIX operating system I could very well comment about the development of Linux and its pros and cons comparing the early to the current situation. Again, this doesn't belong here but if anybody likes to discuss this maybe meet me on other channels where that topic is more appropriate.)
This comment is made by someone who has never been into aviation and how are the pilots trained. The accident pilots are expection but vast majority of pilots are trained to handle all kinds of bad situations.
Very good video. Must be one of the best and my favorite videos of this topic, and believe me, i watched alot, and not just your content. This was very well putted and it was indeed captivating. And at the same time very alarming how quickly things can go wrong. Great video 👍
I’d like to let you know that the Callsign was Wagon air 8501 at the time of this accident.
The flag, and the intro is also wrong. The writer must be thinking that it's Malaysian "Airasia". But it's "Indonesian AirAsia", which if for Indonesia
Great video. Look forward to your postings.
Excellent video - very worthwhile for us to share in our work on African aviation safety
So one of the links in the chain was cracked solder. I would bet almost anything that that was lead free solder. There's a reason why NASA still uses 60-40 solder...
What is it?
Another (unrelated) issue that has been discovered with solder is the strange "whiskers" that can grow enough to take out a circuit. If I'm remembering correctly, it happens in the vacuum of space and can take out a satellite.
With so much automation gizmos and elaborate diagnostic procedures pilots are effectively trained to play guessing games with the aircraft control systems. The result is they don't know how the plane flies, if they ever did. Loss of situational awareness is a combination of confusion and panic causing the pilot to lose connection with the basic reality he needs to maintain control, aircraft attitude and speed factors. Fly, navigate, and then communicate is the formula for success. Read, press buttons, and cuss doesn't work very well.
i completly disagree. But for it to function you need CAPABLE personal
@@patson420How can you disagree with a perfectly sensible statement?
Yaay finally relieved from boredom
One of the top killers in all aviation is flying VFR into IMC. [This is basically where you can see and then you can't requiring a transition from visual to instruments.]
Why do instrument rated pilots refuse to transition to instruments when confronted with instrument required conditions?
All that co-pilot had to do is look at his flight display to know how to move the stick and save their lives.
Very worthwhile information, though the accident sequence was disturbing.
The biggest problem seems to be giving minimum training to people who enter pilot training then just having them monitor systems. The moment that the Artificial Horizon is anywhere other than it should be, there should be 100% monitoring and being ready to take over as soon as is required. "Pull Down is absolutely non sencicle. Nose down, nose up. Pull the controls, push the controls are the only commands.
These poorly trained pilots are a symptom of our "profits first" ideology. I see incompetence in lots of places because proper training is expensive. This takes money out of the executive's pockets.This goes on 24 X 7.
I'd like to find out what "pull down" means.........
The 2nd thing I'd ne asking, as an investigator, would be "if the pilots saw the engineers pull the circuit breakers, why didn't they call maintenance before they did it during a flight?"
I did alot of stall training at night, with the hood on. Gives a whole different perspective.
I am a pilot that flies single engine planes. When I say that I have 2000+ flight hours, I am saying that I've actually flown the pale for 2000+ hours. When an airline pilot says that they have 10,000 hours, all that means that they have been sitting in the pilot's seat for 10,000 hours but did NOT actually fly the plane for that time. Thay is really annoying that they claim all of those hours when they probably actually flew for, perhaps, 300 hundred hours. (I am probably giving them the benefit of the doubt.) Letting the auto pilot fly the plane is not actually fling the plane, but rather makes them observers, not pilots. BTW, a stall is not necessarily when the plane fly's at too high an angle. A stall is simply when there is not enough air flow over wing to provide sufficient lift, i.e., flying too slowly. In my humble opinion, the overuse of the autopilot makes many pilots too complacent. It makes for a far superior piolet. When I drive my car, I scan the instruments on the dashboard every few seconds out of habit.
The general aviation community in the US is _really_ good....its one of the most cohesive and respectable subcultures I know of, and unless you go military, you have to get knee-deep in that culture for years to be a commercial pilot.
What I find interesting about GA in the US. though is the FAA gives some pretty strict outer-bounds, the community here seems to work very hard to manage itself well within those bounds The cohesiveness of the aviation culture creates a real mood of cooperation, and it allows the whole system to regulate itself unusually well--like expertly. It's a unique thing.
This may be true all over, I have no idea, but its unique compared to any other "industry" I know of here. The skill and personal financial commitment it takes to fly, I imagine attracts a uniquely apt and measured group of people.
I like it and ¿ what app is it ?
Another 3 Greens video watched - this is about my 5th today 😂. One thing I don’t understand here, is why the Captain didn’t take control of the plane (and why Airbus didn’t put the side sticks on the right, where other pilots could see what they were doing). I understood the most senior pilot should take control in the event of an upset or emergency, not yell at his FO who may not understand what’s meant.
This accident had frightening similarities to AF447. Where the Co pilot panicked and pitched the plane up beyond its flight envelope for that altitude..
AF447 was ultimately down to poor CRM. Not only did the Captain not seem to pick up on FO Bonin's concerns regarding his confidence in handling the weather, but he did not provide a thorough briefing to FOs Robert and Bonin in terms of command gradient - in other words, he designated FO Bonin as the (temporary) PIC without giving FO Robert clear instructions as to the circumstances under which he could take overall control from Bonin if necessary.
FO Robert correctly diagnosed the status of the aircraft both before and during the accident sequence, but because the Captain did not explicitly give him latitude to emphatically take control, he focused largely on trying to get the Captain back to the flight deck in order to confirm that his assessment was correct and he should take control.
@@turricanedtc3764 i didn't watch the video fully but long time ago I watched a video saying air France 447 wasn't fly by wire.
that's why the captain couldn't feel his side stick being pulled back by the first officer is this true ?
@@Levi-in8eq I think the author of the video you saw might have got things a bit confused. "Fly-By-Wire" means that the connection between the flight controls and the flight surfaces is entirely electronic, as opposed to mechanical or electro-mechanical-hydraulic. That is an entirely separate matter from whether the controls on one side are connected to the controls on another. The Airbus Fly-By-Wire types (A320, 330, 340 and 380) do not interconnect both sides or provide force-feedback, whereas the Boeing Fly-By-Wire types (B777, 787) provide interconnection mechanically and force-feedback via software. The debate over the difference between the two approaches has been fierce since the late 1980s.
Flight crew on the Airbus FBW types are trained to determine the other pilot's inputs based on what the aircraft is doing - in airliner operations there is only ever supposed to be one member of the flight crew making control inputs anyway. Critics of Airbus's approach tried to make the case that if the pilot in the left seat had felt that the pilot in the right seat had been pulling back, then the outcome would have been different - however this ignores two important facts - firstly, as I said, only one of the flight crew are ever supposed to be on the controls at any one time, and this is true of all multi-crew airliner operations regardless of whether Airbus, Boeing or any other type. The second important fact is that there have been several accident involving airliners with connected controls where the pilot in control pulled the aircraft into a stall and the other pilot did not notice, despite their control yoke indicating it was happening.
@@turricanedtc3764 If airliners were designed solely to "supposed to be"s then my job would have been somewhat simpler. Instead, those persnickety people at the FAA want us to design for what can actually happen, and they tend to be especially intransigent about emergency scenarios. Likewise, we don't get a pass just because for some incidents it wouldn't have mattered.
The guy at AIrbus behind their controls philosophy was a pilot's pilot, and set out to eliminate as many of the causes behind airliner crashes as possible. Ultimately (IMO) he overthought it, creating so many "conditionals" as to the state of the aircraft that, especially with reduced visual/tactile cues, one crew after another has come to a bad end. Things which tested well with simulator crews in a development environment didn't always hold up in the real world.
But anyone (including me : ) can poke holes in an engineering philosophy/implementation. I've cited what I consider weaknesses in the Airbus philosophy, but how do the accident statistics stack up between the major airframe makers? About the same over time, with accidents so rare that any fine-tooth conclusions from the raw numbers must be viewed with great caution*. So however many times the Airbus philosophy has led to a crash (which AIrbus tacitly acknowledges with crash-instigated revisions over time), it must have saved some airliners as well.
* It would be hard to argue that the accident numbers being three times worse for the A310 as they are for the A300 is because Airbus built a follow-on which was inherently three times more dangerous.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 - You say "The guy at AIrbus behind their controls philosophy was a pilot's pilot, and set out to eliminate as many of the causes behind airliner crashes as possible. Ultimately (IMO) he overthought it...". In fact that's not true. There was no one person who developed the Airbus FBW control strategy, it involved iterative studies over more than a decade (all the way back to Concorde), and despite the claims from some quarters, it had nothing to do with eliminating specific accident scenarios nor making pilot input (or systems feedback) subordinate to the technology.
What it was in fact designed to accomplish (particularly in Normal Law) was to provide flight crew the maximum possible control authority while keeping the aircraft within the flight envelope - for example, in the event of an incident where evasive actions were required, it allowed flight crews to command maximum pitch and roll on the sidestick, safe in the knowledge that the aircraft would not stall, enter a spiral dive or pull Gs that risked damaging the airframe. Other than that the aircraft would perform exactly as they were commanded. Some have claimed that Airbus's philosophy was intended to reduce training expense by being significantly more automation-centric than the competition, and that wasn't true either. The intended training savings came from developing a series of types from short-haul narrowbodies to long-haul widebodies which behaved in a manner so similar as to be unprecedented within the industry (in other words, they took Boeing's approach regarding B757/767 commonality to the next level). And over time, they got better at it - I've read several articles regarding the A380 which state that it handles more like the A320 than the A330/340 types do.
The vast majority of the earlier accidents involving FBW Airbus types seem to have stemmed from autoflight mode confusion rather than issues with the control philosophy, and autoflight mode confusion was very much an industry-wide problem at the time.
I'm interested though - when you say "one crew after another has come to a bad end", to which accidents are you referring?
Pilots fly but the more automation and thinking done for them just dulls the skills and needs them to be practically software engineers. Removing the redundancy from systems is just ridiculous, it's as if nothing was learnt from the last 70 years of commercial flight Boeing are toast reputation wise and the FAA allowing in house certification was a big mistake.
So imo it has little to do with the pilots and more about buck saving in manufacture and over complicating manual override.
Fly safe and arrive alive 🕊
I like this channel...go Aussie!
Flight systems are getting too complicated to troubleshoot.
I totally agree. However, in this computerized age we are stuck with them. When they work as designed (almost 100%), we take it for granted. What bothers me is the bizarre and confusing ways they can fail. It must be exasperating and terrifying to pilots when these systems decide to misbehave. Great video though!
What about having a old fashioned bobbling compass on the dash
When you try a flight simulator playing with mouse and keyboard, just more deadly x,x
11:53 looks like '80-'90 electronics.
What the hell is pull down? It's push down, and pull up.
"pull down" that alone is a very confusing phrase
Too many buttons and stuff. Too hard to fly.🤐
Advanced technology has turned pilots into passengers. Skills become blunted. Something goes amiss, buzzers and gongs sound, the operations manual comes out, and the pilot and first officer become further distracted. Situational awareness degrades. Is anybody actually flying the aircraft? You'd be safer in a DC-6B, or a Boeing 707, with pilots whose skills are sharp. When computers take over the job of flying, the risks increase, because the pilots
lose focus, and their skills erode. Passivity is the wrong state of mind for safe flight.
While there is a point to it, let's be realistic, no one would be safer in 707 or DC-6B, their fatal incident rate is absolutely horrid compared to modern aircrafts with high level of automation, like really abysmal by today's standards.
This was operated by Indonesia Airasia (QZ), not Malaysia Airasia (AK) therefore it should be AWQ 8501 not AXM 8501.
Flying death trap. Ultimately, I'd rather trust my life to three well trained men flying an aircraft with four engines and yokes rather than trusting to luck, side sticks and so much pilot reliance upon a bunch of integrated circuits. Bring back the 60 minute rule, the Flight Engineer and give full control of the aircraft back to the pilots.
Unfortunately, pilot error is the number one cause of accidents. The automation and it's redundancy make flying vastly safer than in the past. I'm not downplaying pilot training, but just consider the incredible safety record of modern airlines. As you go back in time the accident frequency was much higher.
This could be the case for the China Eastern Airlines crash last month. It's sudden loss in altitude with the inability to recover is certainly confusing given the model of plane.
Thank you. Because it's China propaganda wants a pilot suicide
That’s a suicide mission but the Chinese will never admit it. So we will never get the real story from that crash. Just like the Egypt Air 767. Suicide. To much face loss to admit it.
Another terrifying aspect of the China Eastern crash shows in the altitude changes that took place during the descent. The plane briefly leveled off before continuing on it's dive. I can imagine the other pilot fighting for control in those last desperate seconds. Just horrific.
Seems like you should have instant take over of controls for situations like this. Captain knows what is going on but can't take controls fast enough. Or not sure what kind of a specific system here. But panics and gives bad advice freezing the FO.
funny how i crashed my airasia malaysia a320neo yesterday...
and thats the intro plane
Surely pilots at some stage in life as kids play with toy gliders and see what a stall is and how to fix it with down trim (or nose weight). Any would be pilot without this 'play' learning should not be flying a real plane because they are not familiar at a most basic level.
Most Usa GA pilots find very difficult to push nose down when stalling under 2,000 agl. Glider style stall recovery. No power stall recovery. They rather be power dependent pilots by adding power more than let the wing fly first. CFI..
btw it isnt AK8501 its QZ8501
Yer it’s also Wagon air not red cap
@@tjlucky08 Wagon air was the ATC callsign
@@deadchannel6580 that was my point.
@@tjlucky08 oh ok
3:05 28 Dec 2014
Get all that computers out of the cockpit...
@John Smith Well, was it not Magellan who sailed around the world some five hundred years ago with his guidance coming from the sun, moon, and stars? Having said that, yes, I get your drift.
@John Smith No. That's not my opinion.
But in addition to or better instead of an automatic GA-configuration there MUST be the possibility to do it manually. That has nothing to do with navigation.
They must not be.
Computers don't get disoriented
Computers don't get confused
Computers don't get tired, nor do they need sleep
Computers don't go through divorces or get hangovers
Aaahh....Computers, when?
airbus is a sophisticated airplane… most of the airbus accidents are caused by human/pilot error
Maybe it's GIGO syndrome in today's highly sophisticated computer redundant aircraft regardless of who is the manufacturer. Some may have issues with this but look at the old WW II film of B-17's landing in Great Britain and the aircraft is full of bullet/flak holes, the entire vertical stabilizer missing, tail horizontal stabilizers missing, parts of the body and wings missing, yet young pilots landed those behemoths. Is there something missing in today's pilots that was once possessed by pilots from another era? Maybe. Maybe not.
Cables
Education.
The number of times a functioning plane crashes because of loss of spatial awareness, where pilots stop looking at the instruments, where they pitch the nose up when they should level it and cause a stall, or one pilot fights another, contradicts inputs, it stands out to me. Clearly human nature means our senses can deceive us, we can perceive falling when we are not doing so and so forth. But in all of these if the pilots had simply used the instruments, acted as they commanded, the accidents would be avoided. I am no expert and I fear I am making this sound far easier than it is and stating the obvious, but perhaps more focus on instrument flying is needed, forcing pilots to always refer to them even when their body is telling them something else? I am not a pilot so forgive me. "Pull down" seems horribly phrased however.
So...what happened to the China Eastern flight?
Impossible to know at this point - a thorough examination of the DFDR and CVR are an absolute must before any conclusions should be drawn.
Suicide
Blaming these failures on "Pilot Error" is a complete cop-out by airline manufacturers with AirBus leading that charge. When these highly automated fly-by-wire liners inundate pilots with a cacophony
of system error that they cannot possibly figure out THAT is not pilot error, that is a System Error.
That is happening, primarily because manufacturers like Boing and Airbus--while they may have a decent understanding of avionics their understanding of, and reliance on AI and understanding of computer limitations in general is woefully lacking. Redundancy is GREAT but if you have 5 autonomous systems ALL getting the same garbage in data from the same piece of external hardware, then your redundancy is worth nothing.
There IS, nonetheless a Pilot error issue to be addressed. Pilots today increasingly lack the experience or ability to FLY planes out of catastrophe when the auto systems fail. That is a failure of training by an industry far too reliant on Auto flying systems. It is, IMO, just another version of "System Failure".
-Resetting breakers without knowing what it’ll actually do while in flight.
-Took 7 seconds to respond to the clear AP-disconnect warning.
-Became spatially disoriented despite instrumentation being normal.
-One pilot pulls up with a stall warning going off, while the other gives orders while also giving inputs. Neither pushes the take-over button.
Frankly, I don’t see how this _isn’t_ pilot error. The cacophony of alarms isn’t good, obviously, but this accident originated entirely from the pilots’ improper decisions.
The problem of automation isn’t that it can go wrong - it’s that pilots aren’t prepared for when it does. I honestly think the delayed response to the cavalry alarm speaks the loudest - these pilots were not prepared to fly the aircraft themselves. But that’s a training issue, not an automation issue.
I’m so sorry but I’ve been laughing my ass off at “boing”
'Blaming these failures on "Pilot Error" is a complete cop-out by airline manufacturers with AirBus leading that charge.' - Where's your evidence to support that claim?
It's Indonesian AirAsia aircraft
To much free time due to technology.
Your facts are not anything I've ever heard before. Pilots practice and must pass proficiency test 1 or 2x a year or something, they train alot and are not the leading problem in major commercial flying this century. I think? Is it they are?
No the US is not doing more hand flying, why would that be good? CRM is what all airlines worldwide embrace and that was started in US I think. Pilots are pilots, auto pilot isn't replacing the pilot, it's freeing up time so that pilots can focus on more, it is a good thing. Probably pulling the breaker to... is not what pilots should be doing, this airline had alot of training deficiencies going on.....mmmm
Got any info on pilots passing out from participation in the plandemic experiment shots ?
Absolute nuts conspiracy nonsense. Never, ever happened. Take off the foil hat. Please.
Pathetic rudder design, MAKE IT STRONGER CHEAP SKATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Very poor engineered aircraft.
Little less talking will make this video better
That Java sea is an airplane graveyard. How many planes did crash there? And again, we have a french FO who is asking “what’s going on?” It looks like, Airbus, french pilot, side stick and stall is bad combination.