That wasn't my point.Read my comment again. I gave no opinion about that particular incident and what the pilot should or should not have done. I'm not an expert in that area. Accident investigators ARE. My point was that since pilot error is a factor in about 75 % of aircraft incidents/accidents, critiquing is valid. It often leads to recommendations about how pilots should handle specific situations. It can, and has, lead to changes in emergency check lists. And changes in pilot training.
This is a perfect example why flight attendants are trained to prepare for an unexpected emergency for EVERY take-off and EVERY landing. Why do passengers resent that? It boggles my mind!
With respect...no. Review video. Captain made the WRONG decision to descend back to runway when, in fact, they should have continued climbing to safe altitude while declaring mayday, requested vectors for an immediate return to airport. If flight crew had done so, aircraft could have been saved and passengers exposed to far less hazards. If this airfield was smaller, with buildings and/or trees/terrain/structures beyond runway, there would very likely have been significant injuries and or fatalities.
@@californiadreaming9216 Fly a plane or run ANYTHING with the responsibility of dozens or hundreds of people and then get back to me. And yes, I HAVE done so!
Actually not smart at all. If he had looked at his instruments he would have seen one of the engines was working just fine and he could have taken off and not risked the lives of everyone on board, so he was a bozo.
As long as no-one was hurt everything else is secondary. You have seconds to react. You don't have all the information you need. The pilot did what he had to work with and good job.
They had more than seconds to react. The rush to react was entirely created due to flawed action by the captain. He appeared to have access to good information in front of him yet chose to guess, unfortunately wrong. Be this by lack of training or situational awareness.
@@donaldpayne1376 Im just trying to brainwash myself into thinking the pilots do everything with integrity because I hate flying and have to tell myself that. Lol
@lorig7077 Sorry to hear of your experiences flying. I hope you gain some confidence that i study the theory of flying & search out incident reports. This so I learn to avoid making similar mistakes. I enjoy and look forward to flying and am thrilled by it. I participate whenever and however I can :)
@@donaldpayne1376 I watched a bunch of those plane crash documentaries. The scariest one I saw though was about making phony parts. Like fake designer hand bags. Planes have gone down because of fake designer bolts and whatnot. They changed laws so that parts had.to come with certified tags. So what do people do? Make fake tags for fake parts. They even found these on Air Force One. Everyone is looking for a bargain and make more money. Its.scary not knowing who's unknowingly buying fake parts that will fall apart. There.was one.that.was a tiny little fake metal piece in the rudder. Whole plane went down. Its.so scary that one little piece of metal can bring a whole plane down.
with so few seconds left to take the correct action... a voice alert stating "left turbine failing", or both or right one only, etc might come in handy instead of having to rely upon gathering all the information necessary when you are in a hurry in such a stressful situation ...
and / or the computer saying... statistical data recommends '... continue to take off', so as to take a bit of responsibility off from the pilots shoulders when you are too close to the ground and no time left almost... (if they have more time and or altitude they can decide to override the computer if they knew better...)
Working with what he believed he had (2 failed engines), I can't fault the captain's decision to put it back down. There was, however, a breakdown of SOPs. When the left engine failed, the captain was the pilot monitoring. Since they were past V1 (and V2) the PF should have maintained directional control and climbed out no slower than V2 and the captain (PM) should've assessed the problem and began to work it at a safe altitude. That didn't happen, however, and thankfully there was no fire and no fatalities. There are a lot of airports where that wouldn't have been the outcome. PS As an airline pilot, I had my one and only engine failure (a catastrophic failure) on take while departing KPHL. (RWY 27L)
What was the catch phrase back then? Fly the Friendly Skies of United? Very smart decision to drop the gear and land. I wish more pilots had done that to avoid crashes.
Excellent video as always. However the scheme in 1970 for United was blue and red, maybe the Friendship livery? The one used in video was introduced in the latter half of the 70’s.
0:10 I am absolutely amazed by the high quality of your videos, you are giving Flight Channel a run for it’s money, kudos. Just one thing, the Saul Bass livery on this 737 would not be introduced until 1974.
I’m a pilot, I don’t fault these pilots. In fact their reaction was so fast they got her back down. In my opinion If captain Sully reacted this fast they probably would have not had to land that Airbus in the Hudson. This is stick and rudder old school flying not waiting many seconds later to figure out oh crap we’re in trouble. Yes we are supposed to rely on instruments as a general rule BUT remember the air florida that went in the Potomac? The first officer felt something was wrong, and the instruments were lying because of ice build up…If he would’ve went with his feeling they would NOT have taken off. I think this crew of the united did everything correctly, considering what they felt..
It was a "Sully" moment - on takeoff, one engine fails, decided to abort. NTSB investigators - you had to be there. Easy to second guess at a later date. Captain made the right call, good flying!! Great video !!
The people survived that's good enough for me. He used his judgment determine that both engines have failed even though it was only one he could have climbed encircled but all in all everyone lived
Excellent video. Thank you MPC. The consensus within comments section appears to be that this flight crew's actions were appropriate and as such, lives were saved. Simply not true. Following are some FACTS surrounding this occurrence and airline procedures. Multi-engine airliners are SPECIFICALLY designed to be able, with correct inputs from flight crew, to continue climbing to minimum safe altitude with the loss of one engine. The possibility of losing BOTH OR ALL engines, especially during takeoff, while not impossible (US Airways 1549), is far more rare. If flight crew had scanned instruments, they would have quickly perceived that it was a single-engine loss, then procedurally continued to climb to min safe altitude, declared a PAN/MAYDAY, requested vectors for an immediate return to airport and landed safely with the remaining engine. Had they done so, this $100 000 000 aircraft could have been repaired and put back into service, likely within days. This correct procedure was demonstrated by the flight crew of Air Canada 837 - Madrid to Toronto. With the understanding that often, depending on altitude and/or aircraft's ability to dump fuel, local pattern flight must often be continued in order to burn off excess fuel, specifically because aircraft can often take off heavier than they can safely land (Maximum Takeoff Weight VS Maximum Landing Weight). It must be emphasized that the decision to return to the runway, now greatly diminished in length, was the WRONG decision. This flight crew unnecessarily exposed passengers to extreme hazards and destroyed an aircraft. If this airport (Philadelphia) was surrounded by much structure/trees/terrain/open water, the outcome would surely have been different with injuries and/or significant fatalities. To be fair, jet airliner travel was still relatively young in 1970. Many safety and system-related procedures and methodologies, especially CRM, for example, had not yet been developed (hence the brief concern here whereof who had controls during this emergency). Bottom line is that aircraft must NOT be flown by emotion or sensations, but rather with instruments and procedures, especially those recommended by aircraft manufacturers, airlines and safety agencies. Any and all who feel psychologically compelled to refute my observations in this matter - go right ahead. Facts are facts.
Agreed, but it must be a very strong human instinct to want to return to the safety of the ground. (I know, that's why they''re trained to use the instruments, not their impressions.)
If I was on that flight I would consider that crew hero's, there was not time to figure out the entire situation, so give them a break ffs.......everyone lived everyone went home!!! Sometimes thinking out of the box and using instincts is the better way!
It is possible that the aircraft in the reconstruction did not have the livery used by the accident aircraft, they used the “Saul Bass” livery instead as a replacement for the “Stars and Bars” livery
As United Airlines did not yet have the tulip logo in 1970, this video must have been shot at least 4 or more years later. United's 1970 logo was the red, White & blue 4 star friendship logo.
He saved the passengers. He did what he needed to do. Checking the eng parameter instruments in a case where it would not be likely to maintain flight at this critical moment however would have indeed been disastrous and to me seems a risk the apparent investigation board suggests they rather have him take
I didn't think anybody else had seen that movie. The pier was supposed to be taken away, but the contractors went on a hunting trip. Thus the pier caused a fatal air crash. Decent film.
@@jkryanspark No, the spilled coffee shorting out the engine fire alarms, and the radios caused the crash. Captain Savage thought he lost both engines. So, he shut down a good engine. Good movie, loved the music.
@@itjustlookslikethis That was the cause of the crash, but if the pier had been removed, the jet would have had a clear path to ditch. The pier caused the fatalities.
@@gavinsingh4450 The non commercial planes and turbo prop commercial planes are smaller, have a shorter stopping distance, they use the shorter runways at KPHL that are 180 degrees to the longer runways so they come in from a different direction.
@@mickeymch876 Everything you said is incorrect... Two shorter runways, one 10° and the other 80° off from the longer runways. Also, you're referring to large aircraft as commercial and smaller as not, which is a common misconception. Plus, size does not always factor into stopping distance.
The particular United "Tulip" livery design on this aircraft in this video is incorrect for the time period of 1970. In 1970, United was still using their iconic "Friendship" livery, not this one.
The pilot saved a whole lot of lives by bringing the aircraft down and the NTSB wanted to blame him for not continuing the flight. I don't care how he got the aircraft to the ground but he did without losing one soul.
The fact is it was impossible to assess the state of the failed engine. Secondly though the plane was lost he got it down without any loss of life. In these circumstances the time is not available to assess and decide a course of action.
In 1970 we didn't have cameras on our cars either. On older aircraft which engine would be called out by the engineer but that position was cut to save cost 😢
@@skjoe1115 I recently started watching aviation channels. A couple of them featured pilots trying to save their planes…finally asking the 3rd pilot to go look out the windows to see what happened. A blown off door or engine detached from wing….info perhaps could save flight…I’ll stand by my recommendation
@@deepthinker999 Not true Sparky, all airlines that bought the Max were told about the MCAS system. Is it any wonder that no American based airline had trouble with MCAS?. It was only third world airlines "lion air" "Ethiopian", with dubious pilot training and equally dubious Maintenace that had problems. In addition, lion Air knew there were problems with the plane that crashed but kept it in service anyway.
@@itjustlookslikethis Sorry but I cannot agree with you. It is true that the domestic carriers were told about the MCAS system but that information was not communicated to the pilots. As a way of saving money no additional training was provided to the pilots. After the (2) MCAS crashes our domestic pilots went into revolt about never being told about the features and interactions of MCAS. I generally agree with you regarding the actions of third world airlines. If the third world pilots had been trained on MCAS would the crashes and loss of life have occurred?
Ah sim, sempre fácil apontar o erro do piloto depois, mas com fogo saindo de uma das turbinas , a decisão de retornar e pousar me parece bem mais coerente do que arriscar continuar o voo e despencar pouco depois.. Assim como o avião que pousou no Hudson, ato heroico do capitão Sullenberger. Se tivesse seguido a orientação da torre teria causado um acidente que só Deus sabe o tamanho dos estragos
United has advertised they wish to hire black female pilots,not the best pilots they can find regardless of race creed color ect. I will not fly on united!!!
You should not believe everything you see or hear. But is was likely a "reasonable" replay of what happened using a computerized flight simulator. In the 1970s nobody had cell phones with cameras in them. Thus real videos of such dramatic events are usually not available.
Let's see, 737 most popular twin-engine jet ever. 40,000 airframes built and delivered. So, LuLu, why, after 50+ years is Boeing having all these problems with its best-selling model???
@@annsheridan12 I guess I'm not seeing what role you're thinking DEI played in this crash. That's what's confusing me. Sorry if I'm not picking up on your meaning.
I just can’t believe how amazing and authentic your graphics, liveries and videos are. Bravo 👏
Everyone lived. Lives are more important than machinery. What might have happened 'if' is only conjecture.
Pilots only have seconds to make such decisions. It’s always easy in retrospect to critique. Blessings.
Critiquing is the whole point of accident investigations if there's any pilot error. Which there is about 75 % of the time.
@@davidquinn6161 so you agree the pilot should have continued to climb and try a return landing?
That wasn't my point.Read my comment again. I gave no opinion about that particular incident and what the pilot should or should not have done. I'm not an expert in that area. Accident investigators ARE. My point was that since pilot error is a factor in about 75 % of aircraft incidents/accidents, critiquing is valid. It often leads to recommendations about how pilots should handle specific situations. It can, and has, lead to changes in emergency check lists. And changes in pilot training.
It seems the pilot decision was correct. If both engines didn't fail one does.
This is a perfect example why flight attendants are trained to prepare for an unexpected emergency for EVERY take-off and EVERY landing. Why do passengers resent that? It boggles my mind!
Joseph Lubozynski passed away on New Year’s Eve in 2010. He retired from United Airlines in 1983.
R.I.P.
Great pilot!
What a smart Captain. Thank God for him. 😊
With respect...no. Review video. Captain made the WRONG decision to descend back to runway when, in fact, they should have continued climbing to safe altitude while declaring mayday, requested vectors for an immediate return to airport. If flight crew had done so, aircraft could have been saved and passengers exposed to far less hazards. If this airfield was smaller, with buildings and/or trees/terrain/structures beyond runway, there would very likely have been significant injuries and or fatalities.
@@californiadreaming9216 Correct. The captain messed up.
@@californiadreaming9216 Fly a plane or run ANYTHING with the responsibility of dozens or hundreds of people and then get back to me. And yes, I HAVE done so!
@@BodhranBrianWhat they did was against the law and SOP'S.
Actually not smart at all. If he had looked at his instruments he would have seen one of the engines was working just fine and he could have taken off and not risked the lives of everyone on board, so he was a bozo.
A nice detail is the radio antennae line. You don't see that other places.
As long as no-one was hurt everything else is secondary. You have seconds to react. You don't have all the information you need. The pilot did what he had to work with and good job.
They had more than seconds to react.
The rush to react was entirely created due to flawed action by the captain. He appeared to have access to good information in front of him yet chose to guess, unfortunately wrong.
Be this by lack of training or situational awareness.
@@donaldpayne1376 Im just trying to brainwash myself into thinking the pilots do everything with integrity because I hate flying and have to tell myself that. Lol
@lorig7077
Sorry to hear of your experiences flying.
I hope you gain some confidence that i study the theory of flying & search out incident reports.
This so I learn to avoid making similar mistakes.
I enjoy and look forward to flying and am thrilled by it.
I participate whenever and however I can :)
@@donaldpayne1376 I watched a bunch of those plane crash documentaries. The scariest one I saw though was about making phony parts. Like fake designer hand bags. Planes have gone down because of fake designer bolts and whatnot. They changed laws so that parts had.to come with certified tags. So what do people do? Make fake tags for fake parts. They even found these on Air Force One. Everyone is looking for a bargain and make more money. Its.scary not knowing who's unknowingly buying fake parts that will fall apart. There.was one.that.was a tiny little fake metal piece in the rudder. Whole plane went down. Its.so scary that one little piece of metal can bring a whole plane down.
The pilot went against SOP'S. SOP'S federal law. You are not a pilot.
Thanks for actually showing simulations of the incidents. Most other channels don’t.
with so few seconds left to take the correct action... a voice alert stating "left turbine failing", or both or right one only, etc might come in handy instead of having to rely upon gathering all the information necessary when you are in a hurry in such a stressful situation ...
and / or the computer saying... statistical data recommends '... continue to take off', so as to take a bit of responsibility off from the pilots shoulders when you are too close to the ground and no time left almost... (if they have more time and or altitude they can decide to override the computer if they knew better...)
Guys….. 1970. No audible warnings on commercial jet aircraft. Certainly no computer systems
@@SinergiaAlUnisono Your fantasies are so exciting to read!!!
Working with what he believed he had (2 failed engines), I can't fault the captain's decision to put it back down. There was, however, a breakdown of SOPs. When the left engine failed, the captain was the pilot monitoring. Since they were past V1 (and V2) the PF should have maintained directional control and climbed out no slower than V2 and the captain (PM) should've assessed the problem and began to work it at a safe altitude. That didn't happen, however, and thankfully there was no fire and no fatalities. There are a lot of airports where that wouldn't have been the outcome.
PS As an airline pilot, I had my one and only engine failure (a catastrophic failure) on take while departing KPHL. (RWY 27L)
What was the catch phrase back then? Fly the Friendly Skies of United? Very smart decision to drop the gear and land. I wish more pilots had done that to avoid crashes.
You are not a pilot.
Excellent video as always. However the scheme in 1970 for United was blue and red, maybe the Friendship livery? The one used in video was introduced in the latter half of the 70’s.
You all do an awesome job at recreating and the visuals are top notch !!
This has become one of my top favorite channels ✨️✨️👍👍
0:10 I am absolutely amazed by the high quality of your videos, you are giving Flight Channel a run for it’s money, kudos. Just one thing, the Saul Bass livery on this 737 would not be introduced until 1974.
I’m a pilot, I don’t fault these pilots. In fact their reaction was so fast they got her back down. In my opinion If captain Sully reacted this fast they probably would have not had to land that Airbus in the Hudson. This is stick and rudder old school flying not waiting many seconds later to figure out oh crap we’re in trouble. Yes we are supposed to rely on instruments as a general rule BUT remember the air florida that went in the Potomac? The first officer felt something was wrong, and the instruments were lying because of ice build up…If he would’ve went with his feeling they would NOT have taken off. I think this crew of the united did everything correctly, considering what they felt..
I just love the Monday Morning,non flying quarterbacks here!!
Arm chair emergency advice experts
It was a "Sully" moment - on takeoff, one engine fails, decided to abort. NTSB investigators - you had to be there. Easy to second guess at a later date. Captain made the right call, good flying!! Great video !!
The people survived that's good enough for me. He used his judgment determine that both engines have failed even though it was only one he could have climbed encircled but all in all everyone lived
Excellent video. Thank you MPC.
The consensus within comments section appears to be that this flight crew's actions were appropriate and as such, lives were saved.
Simply not true.
Following are some FACTS surrounding this occurrence and airline procedures.
Multi-engine airliners are SPECIFICALLY designed to be able, with correct inputs from flight crew, to continue climbing to minimum safe altitude with the loss of one engine. The possibility of losing BOTH OR ALL engines, especially during takeoff, while not impossible (US Airways 1549), is far more rare. If flight crew had scanned instruments, they would have quickly perceived that it was a single-engine loss, then procedurally continued to climb to min safe altitude, declared a PAN/MAYDAY, requested vectors for an immediate return to airport and landed safely with the remaining engine. Had they done so, this $100 000 000 aircraft could have been repaired and put back into service, likely within days. This correct procedure was demonstrated by the flight crew of Air Canada 837 - Madrid to Toronto. With the understanding that often, depending on altitude and/or aircraft's ability to dump fuel, local pattern flight must often be continued in order to burn off excess fuel, specifically because aircraft can often take off heavier than they can safely land (Maximum Takeoff Weight VS Maximum Landing Weight). It must be emphasized that the decision to return to the runway, now greatly diminished in length, was the WRONG decision. This flight crew unnecessarily exposed passengers to extreme hazards and destroyed an aircraft. If this airport (Philadelphia) was surrounded by much structure/trees/terrain/open water, the outcome would surely have been different with injuries and/or significant fatalities.
To be fair, jet airliner travel was still relatively young in 1970. Many safety and system-related procedures and methodologies, especially CRM, for example, had not yet been developed (hence the brief concern here whereof who had controls during this emergency).
Bottom line is that aircraft must NOT be flown by emotion or sensations, but rather with instruments and procedures, especially those recommended by aircraft manufacturers, airlines and safety agencies.
Any and all who feel psychologically compelled to refute my observations in this matter - go right ahead.
Facts are facts.
Agreed, but it must be a very strong human instinct to want to return to the safety of the ground. (I know, that's why they''re trained to use the instruments, not their impressions.)
MPC your up there with TFC!! Love your presentation and cgi too nice!!
@@davedave5787 Sadly TFC is a rippoff of Allec Ibay and my work.
Look at that Ford Maverick!
Take off is the most terrifying part of flying.
@Bob31415
It's my favorite equal with landing.
I find the in between sometimes boring.
Its my favourite too, and never get bored while flying. 😊😊😊😊@donaldpayne1376
If I was on that flight I would consider that crew hero's, there was not time to figure out the entire situation, so give them a break ffs.......everyone lived everyone went home!!! Sometimes thinking out of the box and using instincts is the better way!
I'm very happy you're alive to tell the story
@@BigMikeD63 He said *if* he was on that flight. Lol
Luck instead of skill.
you make great videos.
Excellent video! Nice work!
One minute detail is in error. The video indicates the year is 1970 but, UAL didn’t adopt the Saul Bass livery until 1974. It’s okay though.
I was just about ready to make a comment on that when I read your statement. I think Saul Bass was starting to be applied in 1974
It is possible that the aircraft in the reconstruction did not have the livery used by the accident aircraft, they used the “Saul Bass” livery instead as a replacement for the “Stars and Bars” livery
@@JustARandomBlueE2
You’re probably right
Great low bypass JT8D sound!
why are there planes taking off at 2:35 and 2:55 going the other way..coming at them????
As United Airlines did not yet have the tulip logo in 1970, this video must have been shot at least 4 or more years later. United's 1970 logo was the red, White & blue 4 star friendship logo.
This video was a computer simulation and often many of the details will not match reality.
Very nicely done! … 👌
Why are the engine nacelles so thin and long on older jets? Is it the actual engine itself, or just tubing?
He saved the passengers. He did what he needed to do. Checking the eng parameter instruments in a case where it would not be likely to maintain flight at this critical moment however would have indeed been disastrous and to me seems a risk the apparent investigation board suggests they rather have him take
This gives a striking resemblance to U.S airways flight that basically crashed the same way in Philadelphia In March 13 2014
This Reminded Me Of The Move, 'Fate Is The Hunter' From 1964. Thank You. (Like #92)
I didn't think anybody else had seen that movie. The pier was supposed to be taken away, but the contractors went on a hunting trip. Thus the pier caused a fatal air crash. Decent film.
Fate is the Hunter was good. I read somewhere that Ernest Gann wouldn't write the screenplay. He didn't like the finished product either.
@@jkryanspark No, the spilled coffee shorting out the engine fire alarms, and the radios caused the crash. Captain Savage thought he lost both engines. So, he shut down a good engine. Good movie, loved the music.
@@itjustlookslikethis That was the cause of the crash, but if the pier had been removed, the jet would have had a clear path to ditch. The pier caused the fatalities.
I live in an area where commercial planes usually turn to do their final legl into KPHL (depends on wind direction).
The non commercial ones avoid flying over your hood?
@@gavinsingh4450 The non commercial planes and turbo prop commercial planes are smaller, have a shorter stopping distance, they use the shorter runways at KPHL that are 180 degrees to the longer runways so they come in from a different direction.
@@mickeymch876 Everything you said is incorrect...
Two shorter runways, one 10° and the other 80° off from the longer runways.
Also, you're referring to large aircraft as commercial and smaller as not, which is a common misconception.
Plus, size does not always factor into stopping distance.
Why does it say there were three pilots when only two are profiled?
The particular United "Tulip" livery design on this aircraft in this video is incorrect for the time period of 1970. In 1970, United was still using their iconic "Friendship" livery, not this one.
What are those cables that connect from the fuselage and tailfin on those old 737s?
HF radio antenna
@@rnich56 cool, makes sense now, thanks, 👍
The pilot saved a whole lot of lives by bringing the aircraft down and the NTSB wanted to blame him for not continuing the flight. I don't care how he got the aircraft to the ground but he did without losing one soul.
I thought the same thing. I'm surprised they didn't try to blame him for the engine failure too.
From your friendly Flight Attendant, the color scheme of this recreation was not used by United in 1970.
Both engines have failed!! What's that loud noise that sounds like an engine running?
What simulator are you using?
The fact is it was impossible to assess the state of the failed engine. Secondly though the plane was lost he got it down without any loss of life. In these circumstances the time is not available to assess and decide a course of action.
No aviation experience, but it might be time to install cameras so pilots can see the engines and wings.
In 1970 we didn't have cameras on our cars either.
On older aircraft which engine would be called out by the engineer but that position was cut to save cost 😢
We have reliable instruments for determining failures.
@@skjoe1115 I recently started watching aviation channels. A couple of them featured pilots trying to save their planes…finally asking the 3rd pilot to go look out the windows to see what happened. A blown off door or engine detached from wing….info perhaps could save flight…I’ll stand by my recommendation
This aircraft is 63 years old so if the video was uploaded one day ago ?? Where did you get the video from
My understanding is the Captain was fired but eventually regained his job in arbitration.
From what I've seen, he retired as a Captain in 1983. He was also a WW2 pilot in the China-India-Burma campaign (resupply missions).
@@charlesadams41 He was also at United as a result of the merger with Capital.
Good Information.
Great job of the polit and crew
Back when the 737 was just a cute little airplane and not the weirdly proportioned, stretched, goofy machine.
Always wise after the event and not sat in the "hot seat!!!"
You can hear the GPWS warning in your simulation, but this wasn't active until late 1974. They wouldn't have the whop whop pull-up notice. 🤔
The Boeing 737 Lawn Dart.
Reminder:
This is before the days of CRM.
So, if you were certified to fly this 737 you are certified to fly the current models without further training?
Boeing tried that with the 737 MAX with horrible results and much loss of life.
@@deepthinker999 Not true Sparky, all airlines that bought the Max were told about the MCAS system. Is it any wonder that no American based airline had trouble with MCAS?. It was only third world airlines "lion air" "Ethiopian", with dubious pilot training and equally dubious Maintenace that had problems. In addition, lion Air knew there were problems with the plane that crashed but kept it in service anyway.
@@itjustlookslikethis Sorry but I cannot agree with you. It is true that the domestic carriers were told about the MCAS system but that information was not communicated to the pilots. As a way of saving money no additional training was provided to the pilots. After the (2) MCAS crashes our domestic pilots went into revolt about never being told about the features and interactions of MCAS. I generally agree with you regarding the actions of third world airlines. If the third world pilots had been trained on MCAS would the crashes and loss of life have occurred?
A complete hull loss? Oh no!
Ah sim, sempre fácil apontar o erro do piloto depois, mas com fogo saindo de uma das turbinas , a decisão de retornar e pousar me parece bem mais coerente do que arriscar continuar o voo e despencar pouco depois..
Assim como o avião que pousou no Hudson, ato heroico do capitão Sullenberger. Se tivesse seguido a orientação da torre teria causado um acidente que só Deus sabe o tamanho dos estragos
United didn’t have the large titles in 1970.
I presume you meant 9L.
Wrong colors for that year of United airlines.
Go baby
United Airlines flight 611 crashes on takeoff at Philadelphia Airport. There, I corrected it for you.
128
This is either AI or ancient because United Airlines do not fly 737s anymore plus these are their old colors from over a decade ago.
It looked like it happened in the 70’s
@@ccwright24 1970
The opening captions CLEARLY state “1970”…
They don't? I wonder what that narrow body Boeing twin was that I rode on a month ago on UA...
This happened 54cyears ago and the title of the video makes it seem like NOW. Despicable click bait.
You sound like someone who hates flowers, fresh air and little children. And it's BAIT.
Yup, crashes from the 70s are sooo boring 💤
this very scare, my cat sad
Old engines.
Mentour Pilot will give way more reliable info and realistic graphics from a current training pilot, y’all!
United has advertised they wish to hire black female pilots,not the best pilots they can find regardless of race creed color ect. I will not fly on united!!!
Oh don't worry, you'll be fine. God has a strange sense of humor.
Fucking simulator
Fake video. Why should I believe anything
You should not believe everything you see or hear. But is was likely a "reasonable" replay of what happened using a computerized flight simulator. In the 1970s nobody had cell phones with cameras in them. Thus real videos of such dramatic events are usually not available.
Boeing blames everything on others!!!
Let's see, 737 most popular twin-engine jet ever. 40,000 airframes built and delivered. So, LuLu, why, after 50+ years is Boeing having all these problems with its best-selling model???
DEI ?
In what way? Was there DEI in 1970 when this accident occurred?
@@ssbohio obviously it’s a more recent failure.
@@annsheridan12 I guess I'm not seeing what role you're thinking DEI played in this crash. That's what's confusing me. Sorry if I'm not picking up on your meaning.
@@ssbohio I reacted before the date was announced, I was wrong. However it is a serious issue today.
Yeah, DEI made the engine fail. Panic likely made the pilot fail. Mistakes are often gender- neutral.
Wrong UAL livery for 1970
not blessings