How Did NO ONE Notice That This Passenger Jet Was Being Torn Apart!? | Air Canada Flight 680
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ย. 2022
- Help Support The Channel!: / miniaci
Join My Discord: / discord
Image : Jon Proctor
This is the story of air canada flight 680, on the 17th of september 1979 an air canada dc9 was flying from boston to yarmouth in nova scotia canada. Flight 680 left logan international airport at 12:12 pm local time with just 45 people on board. The flight was kind of short so the plane didnt really have time to get up to the really high cruising altitudes, so their cruising altitude for the day was set at 25,000 feet. The takeoff and much of the climb had been normal they were expecting that to continue for the rest of the flight. As the flight was about to level off at its cruising atitude of 25000 feet the the DC9 was rocked by an explosive decompression, as the air was sucked out of the plane the pilots were trying to make sense of what had just happened to their plane. The pilots immediately donned their oxygen masks and did communication checks to make sure that they were able to talk to each other. The captain immediately took control of the plane and he then looked back and saw something that no pilot wanted to see, his cockpit door was gone, and he could see the blue sky through the back of the plane, now you dont have to be a airplane designer to know that you shouldnt be able to see the sky through the back of the plane. They knew that they needed to get the plane down to a more breathable altitude as fast as possible, the pilot then got on the radio with air traffic control and said “boston center air canada 680 is doing a rapid emergency descent. Clearance back to boston, were out of 23000 descending” Boston air traffic center cleared the plane down to 14 thousand feet and cleared them for a direct path back to boston. The plane was now more or controllable and the pilots wanted to make sure that everyone in the cabin was okay and thankfully they were. One cabin crew member had a slight bumb on her head but everyone was accounted for. Once the DC9 was on its way down the pilots were able to give the controllers more information on what had happened to the plane, they let the controller know that they had had an explosive decompression, the pilots also wanted to level the plane off at 9000 feet, but air traffic control could only give them 10000 feet probably for separation reasons. Then the pilots said this “roger we are just leveling off now and the back end of our tail is completely blown off”, no wonder why this plane had had an explosive decompression, something had given away at the back and that had caused some massive problems for them. But luckily the hydraulics had not been damaged and so the pilots were able to keep the plane under control without any issues whatsoever. Had the hydraulics been damaged then this would have been a lot more worse. But as expected the plane was not in pristine shape for example the right hand engine would not go past an EPR of 1.25 and the pneumatic crossfire valve was open and they could not close it no matter what they tried. The crew now wanted the nearest runway that they could get to get this plane on the ground, the runway closest to them was runwya 33L at logan international and thats what they were going for. At the airport they had all fire tucks and other emergency vehicles waiting at the runway for the arrival of flight 680, the pilots then cautiously took the plane down to 4000 feet, air traffic control was on their edge hoping that no control problems came up as the plane entered its final section of flight. Due to the kind of damaged right hand engine and the strucltral stability of the plane the pilots carefully lined the stricken jet up with the runway, they kept the plane a bit high on purpose just incase something went wrong since the plane was in such a precarious state the pilots used the flaps and the landing gear to reduce altitude and speed instead of messing with the throttles too much. Then at 12:50 pm the DC9 made a safe landing on runway 33l at logan international airport. Thankfully none of the people onboard were injured, these pilots had done the impossible and landed a badly damaged plane and saved the lives of everyone onboard. Now only one question remained how did the back of a passenger jet blow out? - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Thank You To My VIP Patreon Supporters!
Adam Quentin Colley
Alex Haug
Simon Outhwaite
Simon Outhwaite
Keep up with the good content! If possible can you do the 2022 Baltic Sea Cessna citation crash?
When the report is out absolutely
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation is there a incident/acedent that is so stupid that we would faceplam multiple times while reading the first para of the report? Like we would think h tf somthing could ever happen? If it's there then i would love to watch a vid on that made by you
A simile for everyone: *Engines in the tail? Designed to FAIL.*
I'll save some wasted arguments:
The tail surfaces are the most crucial on a plane.. Turbines fail a lot at bullet speeds with large heavy SOLID chunks of metal shaped like blades.. (the turbine blades lol, durr =b)
They cut the tail control surfaces instead of the wings.. so even differential thrust wont help you then
2:30 the DC-9 has very limited hydraulics and is a mostly cable-and-pulley system. in some circles it has the nickname of the "Douglas Cable Car." This lack of hydraulics likely saved the day.
Without knowing more relevant facts, one might guess that a pressure bulkhead failure could take out cable systems too.
I’m ignorant can you explain why? What does hydraulics mean that the lack of it is good in this situation?
@@M_SC If a hydraulic line gets pierced, the fluid will "bleed" out and thus the control surfaces will no longer work. An example is what happened to UA 232 as it is what mandated hydraulic fuses be installed to prevent the bleed out of all hydraulic fluid. Cables have no fluid and can take more damage without becoming completely unusable. Instead of a small cut being able to damage the line, a cable would need to be severed to the point tensile of failure.
@@racecar_spelled_backwards868
Thus, u are correct.
@@racecar_spelled_backwards868 Seems to me that there should be a backup cable system which can be used if the hydraulics fail. I’ve heard about too many air crashes/incidents due to issues with hydraulics.
The biggest tragedy here was the loss of the drink cart. I'm guessing everyone needed a drink after this near disaster.
Meanwhile some lobster fishermen have a hell of a story about the day the drinks were on them.
Sadly, the pilots, who wanted to say "Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop drinking...", had to wait until all the debriefings - but the Lloyd Bridges smoking lamp was lit in the conference room upon landing...
The biggest tragedy is the fact that we let MD build planes for so long.
They made the worst. By far.
Instead of focusing on model by model, focus on brand vs brand.
If you do, you'll likely NEVER want to fly on any DC aircraft EVER again.
They scare me, and I actually LIKE risking my life for fun.
I reckon toilet paper would have been more in need than a liquid.
@@jonslg240 Both McDonnell and Douglas seemed to be venerable companies, and I have flown in DC3's, 4's and 6's in Alaska, decades after their manufacture. Amid economic highs and lows, both companies were forced to find ways of reducing costs to remain competitive which may have sacrificed quality and reliability, and their merger seemed to be a last-ditch effort to save both companies. I liken the demise of MD to the demise of American Motors after the merger of Nash and Hudson.
The X-ray technology at the time may have been more difficult to read, but the spotting of these cracks could be down to insufficient training in maintenance crews. This reminds me of the Aloha Airlines B-737, where the top of the fuselage skin got torn off because of a crack at the edge of the passenger door in the front, which was actually spotted by a passenger, who noticed it, but had no idea just how serious it was.
As a radiologist I'd say it's unlikely that X-ray scans were harder to read, besides lowering worker exposure that technology didn't evolve much, moving from film to digital tech decreased the overall workload but had little effect on the actual sensitivity. So I think technician training was the real issue or maybe some idiot modified the procedure without consulting an expert.
They said the crack was easily visible on the original scans done prior to the incident. Some asshole either did not check the scans or was totally incompetent, its that simple.
For similar cracks who have been missed in that many different airframes, it doesn't make sense to put this down too one or two lazy techs.
To me, it suggests a pervasive flaw in the inspection procedure training, something along the lines of inspections focusing too much on other specific areas, or possibly inspection equipment being set up in a hard-to-use manner.
@@AnimeSunglasses or same engineer was doing them all and didnt know wtf he was doing, or who ever was meant to check the data wasnt doing their job. Something definitely went badly wrong in the system.
@@AnimeSunglasses ...they didnt want to do that repair....it would have been cheaper to just park the plane in the desert....keep it making REV miles
From '69 to '76 I flew Eastern's DC9 shuttle from D.C to NYC. Went through some serious turbulence at times with the only mishap being a luggage bay door opening. I've always cherished the DC9.
1979 in Canada was a wild year for disasters
Name them off.
And the north sea 🌊
And everywhere else...
The Mississauga train disaster. A Train derailed in downtown Mississauga. All Freight cars were loaded with caustic or toxic substances. Major explosion ensued and the city of 275,000 people was evacuated.
@@grandsoleil56 And Chicago.
Ah, one of those convertible planes. For some reason that concept never really took off.
Jokes aside, really pristine job by the pilots plus they were really fortunate in their misfortune
Licensed aircraft engineer here. what a lot of people dont realise is how far we have come with NDT technology, 1979 the technology was still in its infancy and while the craks may be present on the raw data I have seen data from that era(not that type of aircraft) and it is really hard to see, nowadays with better technology the cracks really are much easier to spot. one of the big dangers nowadays are repetition, if you do the same task a lot and you never spot something your brain does not expect something to be there and will trick you in to thinking that there is nothing if you dont focus enough.
"one of the big dangers nowadays are repetition"
Human Factors.
Could a lazy technician just sign off on the paperwork & not actually do the inspection in 1979? There were cracks in the same spot on other dc9s.
Sicut I am not familiar with the xray procedure they are talking about. At that time we were doing ultra sonic inspections. The procedure came with a calibrated test piece. Also included were prints of the expected return images of the test area. I have also seen wing xray images taken with the "Bomb". The bomb being an xray source in a container. The container was below the wing with film on top of the wing. The container was opened and closed manually by the xray service. Those images are difficult to read as you are seeing the pattern of the top and bottom skins. I do not know how it is done now that xray plates are made for computer viewing. 92644TW/AA retired
The rear pressure bulkhead fail normally would rip the tail off so this was a miracle flight imo
I was thinking of JAL 123 instantly. They were really lucky no controls were affected.
@@Operngeist1 that’s for sure
Well the DC-9 has an unusual rear end design with a detachable tail cone for emergency egress with a slide. So it doesn't have a normal pressure bulkhead like other aircraft. It has a pressure door in the back. And that particular model, the DC-9-31, also has an "airstair" in the back. So when the pressure "bulkhead" and door failed, the air rushed in with the force of Japan flight 123, but unlike the 747, the air found its weakness in the tailcone and the airstair. When you look at the damage done you see that blow out was straight back and downward. Away from the T- tail assembly. The unusual design of the tail did, in a strange way, save the tail structure the control cables.
The 747 has none of that and all the rushing air was directed upwards and through the interior of the tail. That blew off the vertical tail and all associated hidrolics and controls.
Douglas built a STOUT plane....this made them less economical to fly which is why the 737 became the most produced passenger plane....but the 737 was NOT built as stout.
As he said, this plane reached only 25,000 ft, because that was a short flight. Possibly if it reached 30,000+ ft the higher pressure difference would have produced a more violent decompression and ripped the tail off.
Great Video! One correction is that 23 people actually died in the fire aboard Air Canada Flight 797, not 16.
This sounds a lot like Japan Airlines flight 123. That accident was due to improper repair on the rear pressure bulkhead where the bulkhead broke apart from overstressed rivets, a situation that had been slowly developing and going undetected for 7 years. When the bulkhead finally snapped, it took a large section of the tail with it, as well as all hydraulics, making the plane uncontrollable. It crashed into a mountain but amazingly 4 people survived (there should've been more survivors, but the rescue response was shamefully inadequate).
& the pilots wrestled it mid-air without a tail for 5 minutes, had it almost level; unfortunately they lost lift & it fell bottom-down then turned laterally (yawed) when it hit. Yes, the Army not advancing on the mountain at nite cause they were scared of the dark is shameful. Tens of victims died in the nite.
The faulty repair was done by Boeing. It used one row of rivets instead of two to fix the bulkhead. The JAL engineer who recommended Boeing do the repair committed harakiri (suicide). The Boeing staff in charge of the repair should have done the same thing.
@@franciscody9622 they didn't. and probably still kept their jobs
Nice wordplay sarcasm but I think luck played a small part in this incident. All credit is due to the pilots for their skill and crisis management. Newer and more sophisticated airplanes have been lost due to far less catastrophic failures because the pilots failed to act appropriately. Thanks for another great video!
I read about this one in Admiral Cloudberg’s writeup on Air Canada 797. It’s crazy to think that this wasn’t even the worst accident to happen to it!
I hope the pilots were rewarded for their superlative skills and airmanship.
A pizza was delivered to the crew lounge, lol.
I inspected and repaired quite a few DC-9 APBs before and after this incident. There are areas that are extremely difficult to access for visual or radiographic inspections. It's possible it may have developed in one of those locations. After the AC incident the frequency and intensity of the APB, naturally, received more intense and more frequent inspections.
Did you work for a particular airline when you did this work? Just curious.
@@CH67guy1 Yes.
Stated the raw data showed the cracks. Inexcusable.
How was the data checked at the time? As a inspector what kind of process is this and what could have caused the slip even with the raw data? Malfunction in the presenting equipment, while data storing worked fine?
Also you guys probably have high salaries due how high level the work is, but how do you cope with the feeling that just one mistake like this could down whole plane and what are the consequences of such fuck up for the inspector?
@@Hellsong89 Apparently you have some issues with people doing very responsible work and drawing "high salaries" in that performance. The fact is that area on a DC-9 or MD-80 is a very difficult area to inspect due to the design of the A/C and the multitude of items in the same area. Some of this can not be removed which hampers visual inspection. The APB is made of aluminum and has 2 or more layers. The cracks generally begin in the inner layers which is why the need to X-ray. It's an area that undergoes detailed visual inspection and also radiographic inspections (X-rays). The process uses 2 film speeds for maximum definition of any cracks. It also (at my airline at least) requires a minimum of 2 qualified Inspectors to "read" the film. Any suspect areas are immediately reinspected. At least 2 sets of these films are retained and compared to future films. Even with this fairly intense system mistakes happen and apparently the crack on this A/C was not noticed. These cracks are extremely fine in the beginning as small as a human hair. They eventually grow longer and wider. I have no idea what they saw on the films when they went back to look.
Contrary to your obvious low opinion of aviation workers and inspectors we all take this job extremely serious. We fully understand the consequences of mistakes and take great pride in our jobs and safety records. Every job performed by an FAA Certified A&P Mechanic or Inspector is done to the standards set forth by the A/C manufacturer, component mfgr and the FAA. We follow those procedures and requirements to the letter and are constantly aware of what we are doing and the horrible consequences of making errors. As you said we make high salaries because of the licensing, training, experience and responsibilities of the job. It's never done in any way that would jeopardize safety of the passengers or A/C. We all fly on these planes as well as our families and that thought never leaves your mind. The thought of a long prison sentence and/or loss of our FAA License should we make a fatal error weighs heavy on our work. Even with all that said errors do and will be made in the industry just like doctors, nuclear workers, civil engineers and many other fields that may cause extreme disasters. It's a very serious and responsible job and also a high stress job because of what may happen.
Wow, this is like a happier version of FLIGHT 232's DC-10 story from 1989 where the defect in the Engine 2 fan fractured and all four hydraulic lines were cut. Only due to the creativity, strength, and teamwork of the crew (Hayes, Fitch, et al) were any lives saved that day in an Iowa cornfield. 🙏
DC10 has only 3 hydraulic systems, B747 and L1011 has 4 systems.
No one checked the bulkhead and/or they ignored the x-ray results - maybe spent their time on known issues.
I was a safety inspector in a different industry and would faithfully check for known issues but never limited my inspections to them. Bad things can crop up where you least expect it.
Haste makes waste...
Management prolly signed off that it was checked and never checked it because the higher ups get mad when a plane is down for maintenance and not flying. I’m not in the aviation industry but I’ve been a professional auto technician for 20 years I am in the top 10% as far as skill/knowledge goes and I am a shop owner so I have a lot of mechanical knowledge and for that to be cracked so bad and nobody seen it even with the x-Ray testing I would put money on it that nobody checked it! With planes when work is done it’s always checked by someone else and signed off on so stuff like this doesn’t happen that’s one reason why it’s so safe to fly but stuff like this happens and it happens in every industry.
Time pressure from management to return the aircraft to service was likely a contributing factor. The X-Rays where probably never looked at and just filed with the return to service paper work pencil whipped by an intimated tech or by a management rep. I have seen it and even been the unfortunate victim of this myself when I landed at a hub maintenance station and had techs swarm my aircraft to rectify the previously pencil whipped issue that some conscientious tech caught!!
Amen. You likely hit the nail squarely on the head, Greg.
Yes. Standard compliance fraud.
Great job. Great video. Well done. Also kudos to the pilots and all involved back in 1979. To think this plane was involved in 2 separate accidents just boggles the mind. These companies really work their planes very hard indeed.
Thank-you for what you do.
Another excellent video...keep 'em coming
Great video. The rivet and crack puns were clever
Great research mate
Another excellent video!
The real cause is that giant metal eating spider.
A replicator got lose on this flight? 😉
(Wonders to self how many SG1 fans watch the channel).
@@commerce-usa SG1 & Atlantis. Best Sci-fi series ever.
Laughed out loud for real at this one.
@@sonjastarr1364 Nice!
Those pilots were some heroes. Still weird how no others picked up on the metal fatigue through the x-rays... and yeah.
Nice! Thank you!
Excellent video!😸
Glad this situation did not end in disaster!! Rest in peace to those who perished in the fire after it was put back in service!!
You’ve covered expectation bias before. It happens with everyone, include A&P mechanics who don’t expect to see a fatigue fracture.
Exactly, they probably "knew" that this wasn't an area they needed to be concerned about cracks forming so they just didn't see it when there was one.
i appreciate ur straight face (speech?) delivery of puns
Check out my latest video "Turning Point | Boeing 747 Emergency Landing Without Any Injuries Northwest Airlines Flight 85 (4K)"
Watch Now: th-cam.com/video/os-k6I4J_hw/w-d-xo.html
You give good documentary, MACI ☺
It was sheer luck that it didn't turn into a total loss. Props to the pilots getting it down quicksmart!
Friendly feedback. More worse ? The more in this case is redundant. Worse on its own is enough. "The situation got worse" if more bad things happen then "Worser still" or The situation was bad and then worsened" Your script and speech is so good that these things stand out.
I was about to comment the same thing
There are a lot of these language errors in the videos of this channel.
Too bad, as otherwise the content is very good.
I guess not everyone has the same language skills, but when making videos for an audience that likely has a certain level of education or understanding, this aspect could do with some more care and attention.
Oh, and 'worser' is not a word. Yes, Shakespeare used it, but he also made it up, as he did with many words, and it hasn't been used since. At least, not in a context where it's correct.
@@PJay-wy5fx “‘Curiouser and curiouser!'” cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English); “now I’m opening out like the largest telescope that ever was! Good-bye, feet!”
This accident and AC797 happening to the same plane likely weren’t coincidental. It’s thought that electrical arcing in the wiring around the area of the repair caused the fire, although that wasn’t ever determined conclusively.
this is so fascinating!!!
that plane had a final Destination
full props to the pilots, honestly
landing (most) of the plane without major injuries, good job (even if a lot of luck is involved)
I think the reason this cracked was missed was possibly from pressure from the top of management. 33 years in aviation…just my opinion.
This particular DC-9 seemed to be very determined about crashing itself. Absolutely crazy that it's the same plane from flight 797.
Maybe a correlation. I believe the cause of the fire was supposed to be an electrical fault in or around the rear lavatory motor. This is exactly the area repaired after the bulkhead blow out.
A suggestion put forward by adm. Cloudberg in his writeup on Air Canada 797 is that the substandard quality of electrical work done when the tail section was rebuilt on this airframe likely caused the fire. Between the Boston incident and the flight 797, this particular DC-9 had been known to have extremely unreliable electrical system and small faults and failures were extremely common
Amazing! What a miracle❤
Amazing!
Quite astonishing that aircraft that suffer such damage are deemed repairable.
Sometimes as in the case of the Qantas B747 runway excursion in Bangkok, the extreme damage and cost was considered a good trade off against a hull loss record on their future insurances.
The T-tail saved the day!
If the pilots wanted 9000 then they take 9000 after telling ATC. It's up to ATC to clear other traffic in an emergency. Great skills and CRM by the crew to bring that plane and passengers down safely. Amazing that the bulkhead didn't damage vital components.
This same plane burned up at CVG about 4 years later and 23 people died
I remember that there was speculation that something that happened during the aft bulkhead repair event might have even been the root cause of the fire. The fire seems to have started with electrical arcing between wires in the aft lavatory. Investigators found the wiring to have had their insulation stripped, but could not determine if that happened before or after the fire.
As was mentioned in the video.
@@festerbestertester1658 i wrote this comment before he mentioned it
Thanks! You really do a great accurate document
series. I once asked your first name but I could never find the threads. Whatever you’re called yours is one of the best air series and something I regularly review. Yours Bill
When you showed us a photo of what the rear bulkhead looked like, was that a large spider at the far end? Something black with 8 legs (?).
Every DC9 is equipped with a giant spider to eat trespassers.
Also yeah, it made me jump when that picture came up with what looked like a giant spider in it
Makes me wonder if the repair to the rear lavatory caused the fire on 797 :(
I wonder the same thing and I would be willing to bet that there is a connection. I think it was established that the origin of the lavatory fire was electrical and rebuilding the tail of this aircraft after the APB failure would have involved a lot of electrical work. I have noted in my experience that many mechanics who are completely comfortable and competent at doing mechanical work are not as comfortable (or competent) in doing electrical work.
That there is some awesome piloting!
Could be whoever was inspecting the x-rays was tired or not attentive when scanning the picture. A moments inattention can let a lot get by.
Whoever was reviewing those Air Canada X-ray images did not know what a crack looked like.
There seemed to be a casualness in both maintenance practices at the time and the culture of safety at Douglas.
Yes, I’ve read and heard that before. It makes the most sense if you ask me
I remember this… was about 10yo and grew up in East Boston, right next to Logan. I remember the news showed a picture of the plane with the tail cone totally gone.
Another great video. Is there ever a chance that you'll do SAA 295?
The spider had me dying lol
Hard to believe ATC denied an emergency aircraft's request for FL900. Everything should be accommodated to land this plane safely.
Yeah, other planes should have just be directed into each other. 10000 ft is perfectly breathable. The pax sure couldn’t tell the difference. And it doesn‘t make a big difference in handling of the A/C.
Also, get your FL and altitudes straight before judging the decisions of trained professionals. FL900 translates into 90000 feet. And since it is the US, there is no FL090.
great work pilots!!!
5:24 that looks like a spider the black thing on the bulkhead.
So what was the fix for the other DC9s.... Great vid... Insightful!
5:08 'it was a miracle that this plane landed in one piece' 😄😉
Did it, though....?
THE ONE PIECE
Miracle.
2:51. That should be a pneumatic crossfeed valve, not crossfire. (Aircraft engineer speaking).
"Studying the crack was riveting" 😄😄
Hang on, was that a giant spider on the pressure bulkhead at 5:23?
I suspect that image was borrowed from Quantas Airlines.
It looks more like a giant tick to me.
Decompressions happen around 24000 feet because that is where the highest cabin differential occurs. Above that altitude the pressurization controller allows the cabin altitude to rise to about 8000 feet depending on cruse altitude. After the Aloha incident 737 crews were supposed to set the cruse altitude selection higher than 24000 feet. The controller then would let the cabin altitude reach 8000 feet early. That way the high cabin differential would not happen when flying at 24000 feet.
The crack was probably easy to see if you knew what to look for. If the x-ray technique was a relatively new procedure during maintenance, staff might not have been experienced enough to spot it.
The flaw could only have gone undetected at every DC9 operator if the manufacturer maintenance procedures were inadequate.
this is so fascinating. it was involved in two accidents!!!
Air Canada pilots are the best.
ATC should have diverted all nearby traffic as soon as the emergency was declared. You can deny an emergency aircraft clearance to decend all you want, but it might not be possible.
ATC really dropped the ball here.
Once again, I hate myself for watching these vids. My poor husband has to deal with my flightphobia as a result.
Dude air travel is proven to be safer then cars as thease pilots spend 67 years of their life to become a well trained pilot and most of thease crashes happned in the early-late 90's so flying is safer then taking a car ride plus is more efficient and good for the environment
If it helps, you can notice how old the worst ones are, and how minor the new ones are.
But if it doesn't help, don't hurt yourself like that. If you can't stay away from aviation content, there's all kinds of stuff that has very little to do with air accidents and incidents. Most aviation YTers cover air accidents at least occasionally, because the algorithm loves it, but there's plenty more like vlogs, current-events editorials, and media criticism on channels like 74Gear and Mentour Pilot/Mentour Now.
Please more photos of the damage area.
As already mentioned in earlier comments - strong reminder of Aloha 243.
"More worse", lolz. Good one.
Sounds to me that someone wasn't trained in how to read the x-rays. The cracks may have been obvious but only to someone properly trained in what to look for.
The same thing can happen with medical x-rays. That's why radiographers need training.
Post incident studies seem to indicate that a Farrah Fawcett poster was strategically placed next to the inspection area. Blonde bangs strike again.
This is a crackin’ video !
I think having a hole on your aircraft and decompression would require a mayday call.
Most definitely and ATC should have diverted all traffic and given the crew clearance to land at their discretion.
That was an awesome job well done to the flight crew ! Planes have crashed with a lot less problems.
5:06
narrator: It's a miracle that this plane made it back in one piece.
me: Well, I wouldn't necessarily say it was in one piece, exactly.
The picture at 5:25 is a Boeing 747 rear pressure bulkhead.
Every one of us has missed something obvious. The solution is to eliminate single point failures - have two techs looking at fatigue data to see if one catches the other.
Canucks pilots are the best. Especially those french from Quebec 😉
Wow
boost your volume PLEASE
5:23 is that a spider🤨
Stan Rogers was killed on Flight 797. I had no idea the hull was already involved in a major incident.
Given that information, I'll never sail on a _Mary_ _Ellen_ _Carter_ .
I couldn't believe my ears when I heard this was the same plane that killed Canada's beloved Stan Rogers.
@@jenniferlenfestey5335 I was stunned!
Narrator says, "that this crash helped save, passengers in the future, on similar planes." But, this plane DIDN'T crash 🤔⁉️
How did you even discover this accident??!! It is almost invisible on Google search. In comparison, the explosive decompression of Aloha Airlines Flight 243 is very widely known, perhaps because the photos of it after landing are so dramatic, and there was one fatality of a flight attendant being blown out of the aircraft. (Note that I said "blown", not "sucked". There's no such thing in nature as the latter.). Good job in any case.
Metal fatigue crack in the Aloha 243 B737, subjected to incredible number of take off and landing (pressurization) cycles due to the short inter-island hops for many years.
The JAL 123 B747 disaster the result of an improper repair to bulkhead after a severe tail strike, years before.
It is always a blessing when flughts like this return successfully outside of India.
What no "Thisssss..."!
Amen 🙏.
You should to a video on Eastern Provincial Airways Flight 102.
Apparently the radiographs of the fatigue crack on a previous inspection was saved and found during the investigation. It would then be irrelevant how difficult it was to it is to take the X-rays or inspect the area of the fatigue fracture. Why it was not mentioned in the reports of the this aircraft and other similar planes is what is most troubling.
Were technicians reading the radiographs 1) not qualified to read the radiographs either due to poor training, inexperience or incompetence, 2) were the X-rays NOT read but just filed away because of lack of personnel to read them or a technician being to lazy to actually do his or her job. 3) were all of the radiograph inspections performed by the same maintenance and inspection facility/service? If so, that service should be immediately decertified to perform such work. It is hard for me to believe multiple technicians would overlook or be so lazy to not even read the radiographs, but I suppose there are a lot of lazy, incompetent people out there in the world and working in airline maintenance and inspection services.
I think that the inspectors spent most of their time on "critical" systems and probably rushed through the "minor" areas. And every check missed it. Just speculating. 🤔
I wonder if Bangor ME would have been closer? The runway there is certainly adequate.
@ 2.39 THE NARRATOR SAYS: “Had the plane’s hydraulics been affected this would have been A LOT MORE WORSE…” Fortunately it was a little less worse and a bit more gooder 😅
And, not long after this incident, the same aircraft was burned to a crisp but operating as flight 797