How was this the first-ever passenger jet to use 'fly by wire' technology yet the crew weren't properly briefed beforehand? Do you think this air disaster was a result of multiple issues?
None of this would've happened if Asseline hadn't decided to be reckless. Though the flight computers did override him, what he did was illegal and he shouldn't have been in a position for the flight computers to do that in the first place to try and save everyone.
It never ceases to perplex me that folks would put so much faith in a piece of electronics. Computers can't really think, they give only programmed response. Computers certainly can't make judgements. I see the pilot as being correct in his assertions. This isn't the first time the French authorities have railroaded someone.
The fact that the lead investigator was also an active Air France Captain was a flagrant conflict of interest. His performance in this case may have been excellent but as a matter of policy that’s an awful idea. He’s literally an employee of one of the two entities that could be held liable in the case.
Precisely the definition of hero, as opposed to when we typically use it for a person who only did what it took to save themselves and others survived too because they happened to be in the same vehicle. This hero saved another while increasing risk to herself, which should be the litmus test for the term.
@@ED-es2qv You meant to say, instead, that "This hero tried to save another...." as her attempt ended in failure, both for herself and the 7 year old girl she tried to save.
@@lazurm what is wrong with you??? The person is trying to give credit where credit was do!.. It don't matter the outcome!.. What matters is that she was there for the child!.. Be it life or death. A selfless act is a selfless act. Question: would you do that?.. Would you give your life for another??? You didn't walk in her foot prints, did you..? No, or you wouldn't be so quick to judge.
@@earlpassino3626 You misinterpreted my comment which was only a remark on proper English. I agree with your reply. And, yes, I've risked my life to save another but, truly, that doesn't matter in this context here.
had she known that she would have died in her attempt, she might not have made that choice. running into a burning building or plane to save someone is a much different task than passing someone who you believe you can help and end up being perished. everyone cant be a hero
There's plenty of "schooling" in the astral plane, so they only rest in peace for a little while while they go and receive energy decontamination. Michael Newton describes it better in his books, but they don't rest for long. Then they are back in the reincarnation soul trap "school". There is no death, as our consciousness continues on. So the tears are apt, as we are caught in this trap. That is the saddest part.
@@lockergr Amazing, to believe something like what you wrote, Michael Newton or not. Have you ever been rendered unconscious? If so you'll note that, under that circumstance, there is NO awareness. No awareness of self, time, noise, space...anything. And, that's while actually alive. And, a billion years prior to your birth, there was no you, very similar to death. If scientists were able to create another being while you are fully alive and this other being would be identical, physically, to you in that every particle was identical, that other being would have the same memories and look and act like you would in every way. But, it would have another consciousness. As such, there is no plausible way in which your consciousness can survive death and continue as consciousness is totally dependent on a perspective grounded in the original physical self. There's a difference between wishful thinking and proven facts based on logic and facts and observed truths.
I am shocked that they would have a brand-new plane with passengers, including children, and trying to pull off stunts... it was a bad idea from the start
Its all about $$$$$ and publicity...in the Commercial airlines business😮💨they were all so worried about how airbus would be so embarrassed for the airbus...they didnt care about the lives lost....just if they would be asuccess with the airplane...
It hurts my heart how so many adults trampled over that poor little girl and left her. Prayers to the sweet lady that lost her life trying to save her and the other child left behind.
Yeah, doesn't matter what nationality. Too many people are absolute garbage. Dozens of Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians have died just from their own elders launching themselves over other attendees, not even in an emergency, just to avoid fines from Covid. People are awful
It's a tragedy, and people panic. I believed the captain, he won't allow his passenger to get hurt or die. People who made the plane could have missed some features of the plane. That's why every year, the engineers and scientist develop new ways that they never discover yet. God bless all the souls who died fro all the airplane crash
I agree with the pilots assessment, you should not fly a passenger jet that low in such a short runway scenario. The people who organized the stunt should also be held responsible.
@@rach8710 yes he was the only one to serve time. Unfortunately he was in command and made a poor decision. I believe that the planes computer was not programmed for this conflict of flight. I suppose it might of worked with the human computer, his brain. And still then, it is still a risky situation.
What a mess of a situation. I understand the frustration because Air France gave instructions to skilled pilots who just followed what their bosses were asking of them. For something showing off a new plane, it’s shocking so few preparations were set up. No briefing, no showing the forest on the map, no introduction to the air field previously… everything thrown together last minute.
So, let's see if I have this straight.... take a 2 day old plane with pilots who aren't experienced with the plane, load it with passengers, and perform a dangerous stunt at an unfamiliar airport as part of an air show.
EVERY corporate spokesperson says the same damned things after their company does something wrong. They NEVER accept responsibility. And they’re all liars. Look at Facebook execs. They’re all liars. It’s sad that people paid the most are the worst people in the country.
The ending reeks of something. It seemed very much like the French authorities/Air France wanted the case closed fast, and with two outside sources both agreeing and saying something is off, but being ignored, it raises some questions.
Too many channels of data to record to a system set up for a set number of channels. Only way around that is either upgrades to the flight data recorders to accept more data or adding a second one to record the rest.
Each time the pilot objected to an assertion and insisted the investigation was out to get him, I wanted to yell, "oh come on, man, take some accountability!" but then his points would be outlined and I'd be like, "okay, that actually does sound pretty believable." I don't know what to believe in this situation, but at the very least I think Mayday did a good job presenting both sides to be equally compelling.
There were some small issues on the planes part but stuff that wouldn't have been a problem if he had not been showing off. He knew the plan hadn't been practice so he should've done a fly over first to look at the runway. Any pilot would esp with a tiny airport they've never been to that's not in the computer. All the lil stuff that went wrong here isn't stuff that would've been a problem in a regular flight or a fly over done properly. He uses these small issues to distract people from his actions. It works on some people. Others see it for what it is.
@@lolasmom5816 He'd preformed this stunt 20x before .. just not at this airfield and it sounded like Airbus and France Air were in support to "show off" this new plane. Yes .. he bears responsibility.. pilots can be over confident BUT a new tech coming out and not having some unknown flaws?! Yeah .. I don't buy that .. I don't buy into conspiracy's but I do belive in healthy skepticism. Glad your so confident you can make a judgement that's based off info on a TV show even knowing NOT ALL evidence was fully presented here .. I still have questions and doubts... and that doesn't make it a distractio when you apply critical thinking skills. Especially when you understand Airbus has pattern of deny, delay, diminish and downplay.
Both share responsibility but he cannot make himself out to be a victim. In Europe there is a very strong "there are no accidents" and "accidents are crimes" mentality and laws so I don't blame him for being so obstinate.
Why is tampering with FDR impossible? It's the word "impossible" with no word as why that I'm questioning. If it is impossible, why do they get questioned as such in some other accidents? Also why didn't they get an investigator that wasn't working for the Airline (which could also be interested in shifting blame to the pilots and not itself)? And why do the black boxes look different? If it's not a cover up they sure did a lot to make it seem like one.
Airbus is a government-subsidized corporation. It does not operate independently like the American and British manufacturers as well as some other small manufacturers down in Brazil Etc. So they can pretty much do anything they want because well anybody who investigates from France or any European country invested in Airbus will have how do we say Sticky Fingers? We cannot say that all of the investigations in the United States or in Great Britain are clean however when it comes to the legitimacy of the boxes it is never questioned. That's why when they tried to persecute Captain Sullivan for landing in the Hudson they didn't go after him for causing any of the incidents as the plane was not flying the engines were gone it was just a giant glider. What they went after was he broke rules they said he was to go to the nearest Landing site that was cleared for his emergency landing. They almost had him until he remembered that they had tried to do the checklist and that had wasted valuable time when you added the time they took to make the decision to turn away from the checklist and land on the Hudson instead of go to the airport it save their lives and the lives of everyone on board that plane because no one was able to get the plane to the airport once they added those 8 seconds or minutes I'm not quite sure what it came down to I haven't seen the movie in years. But if he had followed orders or regulations everyone on that plane would be dead as well as people below the plane in its pathway as it tried to make it to the airport. Just because he was Gliding Over The Hudson doesn't mean he would not have taken out a few ships maybe a bridge who knows where he would have been when that plane would have gone down. But if you noticed the NTSB was trying to say the pilot was wrong for landing on the Hudson. They always want it to be pilot error and in the early days they could say so. But today there's just too much copying of what's going on to the flight recorders. Now record up to two hours of the cockpit voice. And even if a plane goes down in the ocean they pretty much know what was going on because they can now feed up to satellites as a constant report is being sent back to the home office the other black box. So they at least have playing function recording and I believe at some point they will be able to say Hey you have no privacy you're flying the plane, responsible for lives we will be recording you 24/7 the planes on satellite feed. We will know what you're doing. It also will employ people to monitor flights in a different way to make sure that something can't happen like what happened to the plane that has never been found. That's why they don't want people in the cockpit they want the computer to fly the plane but what happens when there is a major incident on a plane and the computer no longer works but it can still fly? Well when you don't have a pilot that really knows their stuff like some of these Pilots have nursed broken planes into safe Landings I guess you just have a bunch of dead passengers don't you!
I worked for the manufacturer of the FDR. You cannot alter their data. But that's not what happened here. These boxes were totally replaced with different units. You could make a flight and swap boxes and no one would know.
Air France having passengers aboard an air show flight that is planning a high risk maneuver? Including an unaccompanied minor? Were they out of their corporate minds ?!
memmener: What I wondered was when they arrived confused and had to deviate, why didn't they just GO AROUND, so at least they could do the risky demo according to plan? Also, they would have seen the crowd and hopefully the forest and rethought things. And of course, Air France having them flying at 100 feet, 80% below the MINIMUM per the safety rules at the airshow was completely unacceptable.
You can fly by yourself as a minor, though the crew will be made aware and they handle it differently than they would regular passengers. I've been on flights where children were on their own.
It really irks me when stories don't have clear conclusions! I would say, though, that in the tradition of air crashes being the result of a chain of mistakes, whether or not the pilot is responsible is only the last link in a chain of piss poor decision making. Rushed planning, no practice, the pilot apparently never having even been to the airport... It seems like the situation was set up for failure, and the pilot was unable to get out of it rather than everything being his fault in an otherwise well-planned manoeuvre.
@Chuck Yeager Ha. I had a friend who transitioned into A320s. He said that they made poor pilots mediocre pilots and that they made good pilots mediocre pilots. Ironically he was probably relying on the computer to keep him from stalling while he was flying the max alpha maneuver. If he'd have been in a 737 he probably would have given himself some airspeed margin because there would be no computer to protect him. The computer did keep him from stalling but he didn't have any energy left. At that point the best thing that could have happened, was what did happen. Had the elevators actually moved more nose up he'd have stalled the airplane and it may have been a lot worse.
I guess he has nothing to really "lose" at this point. Just give his story for people who are willing to listen and that's about all he can do. Rejecting would probably make people hate him or blame him more.
I feel bad for the women who tried her best to save the young girl. But despite her efforts, both of them and 1 young boy died. I think it was the toxic smoke. I feel bad to be honest. This is a sad thing for both the 3 fatalities.
14 mins in and I can already predict the issue. The plane's computer determined that the full throttle was a "dangerous maneuver" and refused to obey the command. The fatal flaw with giving the computer the ability to override the pilot is that the computer does not understand an emergency nor does it have the same intuition a human being does. I will reply to my comment if I am wrong
@Owennn the computer shouldn’t have done what it did. Period. The whole thing could have been avoided if the pilots had been allowed to actually fly the plane. Yes, the airline was also at fault for the lack of preparation, but it all comes back to the computer program overriding the pilots actions.
@Owennn 1) You're piloting a plane - never assume, 2) Computers should not overrule pilots, 3) Flight was poorly planned by all involved, 4) Pilot too low regardless of whether they 'thought' it was a forest or bushes. This was a giant cluster**** waiting to happen.
After finishing the video, I was right and wrong at the same time. The computer DID override the pilot's input, however it was to prevent a stall. Unless set to autopilot, a plane should NEVER override the inputs of a pilot. As for the "lost" four seconds, it's odd. Because you would think that if it is real, the court would immediately realize that such a discrepancy is wholly unacceptable and grounds for dismissal of the case and an investigation into the investigators. Maybe France has different rules that govern the justice system itself than in the US.
This episode, which aired in 2010, leaves out a CRUCIAL detail. In 1992, on appeal, Captain Asseline WAS exonerated. That the program, produced _18 years later,_ failed to give the Captain his rightful status is something I find reprehensible.
This is by no means the only time the BEA has been accused of a non-impartial investigation. See the controversy surrounding their investigation of Air France 4590, in which they completely disregarded multiple inconvenient facts that would have put Air France at fault. The BEA seems to have a particularly sketchy record when it comes to investigating its own state airline and/or heavily state-subsidized aircraft manufacturer.
So the capt was a sacrificial lamb. How nice. Meanwhile Airbus prevails and prospers. Pilots fight for their planes and their passengers in adverse situations. Some die trying. I dont believe you can identify all scenarios (therefore all parameters) and have code waiting to execute. Just cant be done in these sophisticated planes. Way too many that have yet to be identified.
I'm surprised they didn't. The stunt was so poorly conceived and planned that I wouldn't be surprised to hear them say a forest jumped out in front of the plane! Who could have seen that coming?!
Survivor's Guilt might hit but Garret has an honest and very raw truth: the only kids people care about are their own or those close to them. Should the people not have done that? Yes. Was the woman staying behind to help doing a good act? Yes. Ultimately it comes down to what you value more: being alive and able to walk away or be remembered for something that you died doing.
@@TheJer1963 Right, but one child was impaled by a piece of wreckage and the other was basically crushed as her seat back was shoved forward. The adult died as she tried to return to help the little girl. So one child's death is partially to blame on the mad scramble to escape.
Just saying that this would have been one situation in which it would have been handy to have a knife on the plane to cut that little girl's seat belt. I'm appalled that the crew didn't even know if everyone got off the plane yet claimed everyone was off, and they left 2 children to die. It's such a contrast to some of the outstanding crew members like that one woman who crawled up and down the aisle making sure the passengers were in the correct crash landing position while a large section of the plane's roof was missing, protected her injured co-worker, and then checked on all the passengers after the pilot's incredible landing.
@@lila2028 What I meant is a pocket or pen knife, like my dad always carried in his pants pocket b/c it was handy. You could find it b/c it was in your pocket.
At the end of the day you had no business whatsoever flying an airliner below 400 feet. As a veteran captain, you should have known that. But he still decided to do it cuz you know “what could go wrong”
Air accidents are almost without exception the result of a string of seemingly unconnected occurrences which end, as a whole, in tragedy. No single factor can be solely blamed.
I remember when I was a teen, my father won a pair of ticket for a plane ride above my city in a Cessna (the small 5-6 places planes). When we went to the plane, there were several parked in a row and the one next to ours had a pilot with two guys in suits, then we left, did our ride and landed back without trouble, it was really nice. The day after, we're watching the news and they start talking of a Cessna plane that crashed in an empty spot in my city, then they show the wreck and we both recognize the plane that was parked beside ours, we're not too sure at first, but then they say it had onboard a pilot with two business men that were in there to potentially buy that plane,. We managed to recall part of the serial on teh side and it matched, and the time the accident happened matched ours. It was a weird feeling to know that me, my father, our pilot and his daughter were the last people to have seen these three men alive. Since then me and my father went on a ship that then sank later that day and went on a foraging platform that then sank as well.. Guess we should avoid flying or floating vehicles in general.
@@Theranchhouse1 We were very lucky. It weirded us out for 2-3 days after learning of this crash, it gives a strange mix of great memories with my father but I keep in mind that things went wrong for a few persons with these events.
A lot of these tragedies in this series could have been averted if companies weren’t so cheap. Most of them can be traced back to financial decisions including blaming this pilot when it was clearly not his fault.
You know any pilot that is flying in an airshow is going to push the limits to try and impress the crowd ..For that reason you shouldnt' be aloud to bring passengers along with you ...
brad fiser: Allowed, not "aloud". But the point you made about not being allowed to put passengers on a demonstration flight was made in the video in which it was stated that it is now a mandatory rule.
Criminally charging the captain is the worst move. The co-pilot should have been monitoring the instruments and helping the captain keep inside the flight envelope.
Honestly, the delay of the engines isn't as big of an issue when you take into account that the crew put this plane 70% lower than it was supposed to be, which was already 4x lower than international law required. If they hadn't been that low, the stall protection, delay in engine spooling up, etc. would be moot. I am reticent to blame pilots automatically, as piloting is intensely complicated, but these pilots really fucked up.
Yeah. Sounds like sour grapes from the captain. You have to anticipate that something might go wrong, and protect the passengers by aborting the mission.
The root issue is that after the pilot "fucked up" as you say, the plane compounded the mistake by failing to deliver as advertised. Did the engines spool up correctly? Was the anti-stall nose drop that parked the aircraft in the woods actually necessary? Idk. But I know that blaming only the pilot was very helpful to Airbus, Air France and France.
The first time that I saw this accident on TH-cam in a show about crashes, the narrator said that Nobody had died because It was a test by remote control and that the airplane was empty. Wow, just crazy.
NO! That sweet little girl was not forgotten, how could the man even date to say that?!!! She WAS remembered! She was remembered by a remarkable woman, she was remembered by somebody who gave their life trying to save hers. That little girl was not alone, she was not left! She was with a true hero!
The accident happened because of the negligence and unprofessional handling of the aircraft. On advanced commercial aircraft like A 320 height call below 100 feet is from radia altimeret which is not effected by the reading of baro- altimeter even if QNH is set wrongly. It's surprising that such an experienced pilot was relying on bar-altimeter at low altitude instead of Radio-altitude which gives the absolute height above the terrain and more accurate as compare to Baro-altimeter. For landing all audio calls comes from Radio Altimeter below 100 feet to keep the pilot aware of the actual height above the ground on which he acts to reduce the power at around 30 feet and give final check to cushion the touch down impact. It strange that Pilot did not hear the audio height calls. One of the contributing factor in this accident is high angle of attack due to which the line of sight of pilot eyes from cockpit must be above 15 degrees and tree tops become visible when A 320 came too close to the trees. Jet engines take time to spool up from flight idle to take off power and it could be under 5 seconds. For discussion perposes if it is assumed that A 320 was flying at 110 knots then it's covering horizontal distance of 183 feet in one seconf and by the time Pilot initiated the Go Around procedure and engines took 5 seconds to spool up from flight Idle to Gi Around power even then the aircraft was only 917 feet away from the trees tops and below the height of trees and accident was imminent.
“…And fly by wire technology would be safely adopted by a new generation of aircraft”. Yeah, sure, like the Boeing 737 Max. I don’t doubt for a minute they tempered with the tape we all saw the way Boeing worked to blame the pilots when their own death traps hit the ground. The clear lesson of these incidents is that you cannot trust computers to intervene in flying airplanes. it is simply the old Computer axiom “garbage in garbage out” or to put it another way; “Open the pod bay doors, please HAL.” “I’m sorry, Dave I can’t do that.”
Throughout the entire video, I can only see people pointing finger at one another while not trying to really look at whats wrong and make improvement to avoid that being happened again in the future. A fruitless investigation No one ever want to take the responsibility at all
The lead investigator was also an employee of the airlines investigating a crash on a 2 day old airplane that was a huge embarrassment to Airbus. You bet this was a cover up
There are types of crashes that are survivable but passengers die from smoke inhalation since the burning plastic gives off deadly fumes, despite the fact that the FAA recommended changes in materials years ago to no affect. As such, when flying, I carry a certified smoke hood (the iEvac) that takes about 30 seconds to don; one can hold one's breath while donning it. I also wear Kevlar clothing to reduce the possibility of burns.
In fairness, the clip they showed of that altimeter had the numbers cycling extremely fast. I’d imagine a pilot would want to be able to read it at a glance when dealing with all the controls in the cockpit.
And the moral is …. Avoid flying Air France. Here, their top pilot flies into the trees. Elsewhere poor training causes a dive into the Atlantic. Elsewhere again, they nearly dump a plane into central Paris after a transatlantic flight. Luckily, we have other Air France-employed investigators to determine that no-one was at fault.
I agree that the pilot should have some accountability as he should not have been flying so low. But he is not the only one that should be left accountable! He was given a poor plan, with hardly any time to prepare. He didn’t even have coordinates for the landing strip. Had no opportunity for a fly over, and yes was flying a brand new plane with technology that he did not fully understand. As they said, the pilot tells the computer what to do, and the computer flies the plane. Well he told the computer what to do and the computer failed to fly the plane.
Unbelievable! Flying a passenger airline, with passengers onboard in an air show at an illegal altitude with a show off pilot, flying that huge plane like it was a stunt plane. "Capitan Asinine" should still be behind bars, along with some others.
Why in the world would you EVER do a flyover THAT LOW?! Why would you lower the landing gear for a flyover? If it was a flyover, why would you even need a runway? Why would you do a stunt with a plane full of passengers? None of this makes any sense! Other people's stupidity killed those 3 passengers. The first casualty was common sense.
I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't "get the book thrown at him" because there was shady stuff going on. As in, lets give him some time (so he takes the blame technically) but not too long where he is going to go snooping around and trying to get revenge his whole life. Pilot should be glad he got out alive and a 10 month white collar prison sentence isn't the end of the world.
@@reginafontenot600 if they tampered with evidence that shows the plane itself played a role in the crash then yes the Government Is to blame. They were in a position to lose millions if this plane went belly up. The pilot isn't blame free by anymeans. Just kinda suspicious that the lead investor was a pilot for the same airline.
Everytime I hear about fly-by-wire, I think about actual wires, like bicycle brakes. I don't understand why they didn't name it for what it is: digital, electronic or computer controlled.
I always thought they called it "fly by wire" because there are actual electric wires connecting the controls to the computer inputs and more electric wires connecting the computer outputs to the control surfaces.
There’s a lot of things we don’t know about this crash, but we know it flew too low and they flew on a runway that was too short with improper knowledge, that sums up the crash
Yeah, I agree with Mr. Marrero, it was a stunt, why risk life of others. The other issue is, why was there no rehearsal of the flight plan, the captain didn’t even know where the airfield was, it is the captain responsibility to go and check out beforehand.
Considering this accident, I'm sure there were improvements made such as: MODE indication and recording for landing in connection with STALL, LANDING GEAR, PITCH, POWER and ALTIMETER readings to allow the computer to prevent something like this. If so, the captain will find that in his favor.
While I do not have all the evidence, it was a flagrant conflict of interest with the investigator being a member of the Air France company as a pilot. It is not impossible to change the flight data recorder. Discrepancies between the two transcripts is a four second delay that in and of itself should have raised a bunch of eyebrows. Especially since both the tower and the plane are supposed to be synchronized on their clocks. My conclusion from the evidence I've seen, is that the pilot is telling the truth. It would not be the first time that a major corporation has covered up an accident.
I believe both the pilot and the investigator. The plane had a delayed acceleration, was reading an altitude slightly high, and pitched nose down. However, the data was tampered with, so the investigator could only conclude it was the pilot. After all, the nose down was only proved by physically testing another plane.
Who's the genius passenger that decided to take his young daughter on a demonstation flight of an, as yet, unproven airplane? Also, it appears her dad left her in her seat while he scrambled out of the plane. I believe a father of the year award is in order. I also found it comical that the dramatization twice showed the pilot drinking hard liquor at his home. I'm sure he appreciated that.
1:39 "There are even children like seven year old Mariama Barry unaccompanied by their parents." On wikipedia it says her brother was on the plane as well and tried to free her but the rush of people pulled him away from her and out the plane. Another little boy who was disable and also unaccompanied was also forgotten.
In the 80s, I flew from the US to Dominican Republic during the summers and I would go by myself. My parents couldn’t afford to fly with me. It was a risk, but it allowed me to get to know my grandmother so I’m grateful. However, I now realize all the things that could have gone wrong. Still, I can’t fault them for doing so. We don’t know what transpired to induce parents to let their children fly alone on this flight, but my heart goes out to them. I can’t imagine the heartache and guilt they have lived with all these years
This is such a wild ride of an episode. The whole replacement theory makes sense, there was technology to check for tampering used in the case of the korea airlines flight that was shot down during the cold war
They for sure covered this up since France was one of the main sponsors of this aircraft. That's like asking a company if it's product sucks. No conflict of interest at all!
How could you take a risk with passengers in the plane.? Geez... computer verse man riding the plane. . OMG. The PILOT! You don't let the machine drive the plane.
explain the 4 second discrepancy in the black box data with the final report's conclusions, was power applied to the engines 5 seconds or 9 seconds from impact? how could this discrepancy reported in this video come about by any means apart from someone tampering with/manipulating data? it seems to me that the pilot really is innocent
Instruments or not, this is on the pilot. It's a brand new plane with passengers and he attempted a risky maneuver at a low altitude that the plane was never designed for. If it were up to me he would have been charged with negligence at the least
every passenger who pushed past that stranded DISABLED (look it up) child to save themselves should close their eyes for the last time to wake to an unquenchable flame
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
How was this the first-ever passenger jet to use 'fly by wire' technology yet the crew weren't properly briefed beforehand? Do you think this air disaster was a result of multiple issues?
The functionality of the plane did not contribute to the crash in any way. It saved lives.
None of this would've happened if Asseline hadn't decided to be reckless. Though the flight computers did override him, what he did was illegal and he shouldn't have been in a position for the flight computers to do that in the first place to try and save everyone.
@@nerysghemor5781 I completely agree. I don’t understand why your comment doesn’t have more likes.
@@mj6962 I only just posted it but thanks!
It never ceases to perplex me that folks would put so much faith in a piece of electronics. Computers can't really think, they give only programmed response. Computers certainly can't make judgements. I see the pilot as being correct in his assertions. This isn't the first time the French authorities have railroaded someone.
The fact that the lead investigator was also an active Air France Captain was a flagrant conflict of interest. His performance in this case may have been excellent but as a matter of policy that’s an awful idea. He’s literally an employee of one of the two entities that could be held liable in the case.
I agree. This was an obvious setup. Maybe he was working for people covering this whole mess up.
I find that very disturbing!
This would be the kicker in the US, UK, or Canada. That would be a massive legal argument on civil and criminal sides.
It was in everybody's (monetary) interest to blame this on pilot error and not Airbus.
TB12 doubtful. we have far worse connflicts of interest and no one bats an eyelash
If it was a “risky maneuver”, why on earth would you put passengers on board for what was essentially a stunt?
It’s a French thing, you wouldn’t understand
Very True my friend
@@umberct clearly
It used to be done all the time. Like pretty much every aircraft that could carry passengers at every Airshow
Arrogance and irresponsibility
The lady who was about to exit and went back to help the girl is a hero.
Precisely the definition of hero, as opposed to when we typically use it for a person who only did what it took to save themselves and others survived too because they happened to be in the same vehicle.
This hero saved another while increasing risk to herself, which should be the litmus test for the term.
@@ED-es2qv You meant to say, instead, that "This hero tried to save another...." as her attempt ended in failure, both for herself and the 7 year old girl she tried to save.
@@lazurm what is wrong with you??? The person is trying to give credit where credit was do!.. It don't matter the outcome!.. What matters is that she was there for the child!.. Be it life or death. A selfless act is a selfless act. Question: would you do that?.. Would you give your life for another??? You didn't walk in her foot prints, did you..? No, or you wouldn't be so quick to judge.
@@earlpassino3626 You misinterpreted my comment which was only a remark on proper English. I agree with your reply. And, yes, I've risked my life to save another but, truly, that doesn't matter in this context here.
Yes, she WAS a hero. She died doing it. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all those other people left 2 children on the plane?
That woman could have saved herself. She is a true hero.
Being a hero is anti-semitic.
had she known that she would have died in her attempt, she might not have made that choice. running into a burning building or plane to save someone is a much different task than passing someone who you believe you can help and end up being perished. everyone cant be a hero
Yes it is
A shout out for the woman who ran back in to try to save the trapped child.
May she and the two trapped kids RIP.😭
I fully agree. R.I.P.
There's plenty of "schooling" in the astral plane, so they only rest in peace for a little while while they go and receive energy decontamination. Michael Newton describes it better in his books, but they don't rest for long. Then they are back in the reincarnation soul trap "school". There is no death, as our consciousness continues on. So the tears are apt, as we are caught in this trap. That is the saddest part.
@@lockergr Amazing, to believe something like what you wrote, Michael Newton or not.
Have you ever been rendered unconscious? If so you'll note that, under that circumstance, there is NO awareness. No awareness of self, time, noise, space...anything. And, that's while actually alive. And, a billion years prior to your birth, there was no you, very similar to death.
If scientists were able to create another being while you are fully alive and this other being would be identical, physically, to you in that every particle was identical, that other being would have the same memories and look and act like you would in every way. But, it would have another consciousness. As such, there is no plausible way in which your consciousness can survive death and continue as consciousness is totally dependent on a perspective grounded in the original physical self.
There's a difference between wishful thinking and proven facts based on logic and facts and observed truths.
I am shocked that they would have a brand-new plane with passengers, including children, and trying to pull off stunts... it was a bad idea from the start
Its all about $$$$$ and publicity...in the Commercial airlines business😮💨they were all so worried about how airbus would be so embarrassed for the airbus...they didnt care about the lives lost....just if they would be asuccess with the airplane...
It hurts my heart how so many adults trampled over that poor little girl and left her. Prayers to the sweet lady that lost her life trying to save her and the other child left behind.
What about the little boy?
@@TheJer1963 she also said the other other child left behind. Re read the whole comment.
Take your prayers and shove them were the sun don't shine..... You insulting buffoon.
Yeah, doesn't matter what nationality. Too many people are absolute garbage. Dozens of Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians have died just from their own elders launching themselves over other attendees, not even in an emergency, just to avoid fines from Covid. People are awful
It's a tragedy, and people panic. I believed the captain, he won't allow his passenger to get hurt or die. People who made the plane could have missed some features of the plane. That's why every year, the engineers and scientist develop new ways that they never discover yet. God bless all the souls who died fro all the airplane crash
I agree with the pilots assessment, you should not fly a passenger jet that low in such a short runway scenario. The people who organized the stunt should also be held responsible.
And yet the only person to serve prison time was the pilot
@@rach8710 yes he was the only one to serve time. Unfortunately he was in command and made a poor decision. I believe that the planes computer was not programmed for this conflict of flight. I suppose it might of worked with the human computer, his brain. And still then, it is still a risky situation.
The pilot should not have served time. The fault was the computer's.
@@annep.1905 Perhaps you meant to state that the fault was with those who programed the computer?
That would have meant that Airbus was at fault as well.. and that is a lot of money on the line, especially when rolling out a new airplane.
What a mess of a situation. I understand the frustration because Air France gave instructions to skilled pilots who just followed what their bosses were asking of them. For something showing off a new plane, it’s shocking so few preparations were set up. No briefing, no showing the forest on the map, no introduction to the air field previously… everything thrown together last minute.
Dude Air France and Airbus absolutely covered stuff up
Corporations tend to hire college inexperienced privileged kids as managers!
They never talked about why the altimeter was not working though
It was ALL rushed planning.
@CiderDivider
It's the French, darling. Have you seen Macron's highflying stunts?
So, let's see if I have this straight.... take a 2 day old plane with pilots who aren't experienced with the plane, load it with passengers, and perform a dangerous stunt at an unfamiliar airport as part of an air show.
Yeah, I thought it was a bad idea from the start.
on a short runway they werent expecting.
Exactly. ,😭
Just business as usual for a profit-driven corporation.
Makes perfect sense... 😒
"We investigated ourselves and found we did no wrong." -Every corporation and government agency ever
EVERY corporate spokesperson says the same damned things after their company does something wrong. They NEVER accept responsibility. And they’re all liars. Look at Facebook execs. They’re all liars. It’s sad that people paid the most are the worst people in the country.
Don't forget every police station too.....
Church
OML you just preached a word!
@@MovieMakingMan most of the time in the eyes of the law they didn't do any wrong however that doesn't mean they didn't do something morally right
The ending reeks of something. It seemed very much like the French authorities/Air France wanted the case closed fast, and with two outside sources both agreeing and saying something is off, but being ignored, it raises some questions.
21:36 pilot error.....
french government protecting it self
Nice robotic reply. Don't question anything, big companies are your friend.
@@DeathknightDragon They broke the law being at less then 100'. If they were at the 500' min limit this tragic accident would not have happened.
@@MrMustangMan watched it!! Got it!!
"The A 320 systems are so advanced that the recorder can't track all of the plane's functions" - What?!!!?
Too many channels of data to record to a system set up for a set number of channels. Only way around that is either upgrades to the flight data recorders to accept more data or adding a second one to record the rest.
Also the ability to turn the computer’s safety functions.
Each time the pilot objected to an assertion and insisted the investigation was out to get him, I wanted to yell, "oh come on, man, take some accountability!" but then his points would be outlined and I'd be like, "okay, that actually does sound pretty believable."
I don't know what to believe in this situation, but at the very least I think Mayday did a good job presenting both sides to be equally compelling.
There were some small issues on the planes part but stuff that wouldn't have been a problem if he had not been showing off. He knew the plan hadn't been practice so he should've done a fly over first to look at the runway. Any pilot would esp with a tiny airport they've never been to that's not in the computer. All the lil stuff that went wrong here isn't stuff that would've been a problem in a regular flight or a fly over done properly. He uses these small issues to distract people from his actions. It works on some people. Others see it for what it is.
@@lolasmom5816 He'd preformed this stunt 20x before .. just not at this airfield and it sounded like Airbus and France Air were in support to "show off" this new plane.
Yes .. he bears responsibility.. pilots can be over confident BUT a new tech coming out and not having some unknown flaws?! Yeah .. I don't buy that .. I don't buy into conspiracy's but I do belive in healthy skepticism.
Glad your so confident you can make a judgement that's based off info on a TV show even knowing NOT ALL evidence was fully presented here .. I still have questions and doubts... and that doesn't make it a distractio when you apply critical thinking skills. Especially when you understand Airbus has pattern of deny, delay, diminish and downplay.
@@notme2day But he only flew this plane one time before.
Both share responsibility but he cannot make himself out to be a victim. In Europe there is a very strong "there are no accidents" and "accidents are crimes" mentality and laws so I don't blame him for being so obstinate.
Why is tampering with FDR impossible? It's the word "impossible" with no word as why that I'm questioning. If it is impossible, why do they get questioned as such in some other accidents? Also why didn't they get an investigator that wasn't working for the Airline (which could also be interested in shifting blame to the pilots and not itself)? And why do the black boxes look different? If it's not a cover up they sure did a lot to make it seem like one.
Airbus is a government-subsidized corporation. It does not operate independently like the American and British manufacturers as well as some other small manufacturers down in Brazil Etc. So they can pretty much do anything they want because well anybody who investigates from France or any European country invested in Airbus will have how do we say Sticky Fingers? We cannot say that all of the investigations in the United States or in Great Britain are clean however when it comes to the legitimacy of the boxes it is never questioned. That's why when they tried to persecute Captain Sullivan for landing in the Hudson they didn't go after him for causing any of the incidents as the plane was not flying the engines were gone it was just a giant glider. What they went after was he broke rules they said he was to go to the nearest Landing site that was cleared for his emergency landing. They almost had him until he remembered that they had tried to do the checklist and that had wasted valuable time when you added the time they took to make the decision to turn away from the checklist and land on the Hudson instead of go to the airport it save their lives and the lives of everyone on board that plane because no one was able to get the plane to the airport once they added those 8 seconds or minutes I'm not quite sure what it came down to I haven't seen the movie in years. But if he had followed orders or regulations everyone on that plane would be dead as well as people below the plane in its pathway as it tried to make it to the airport. Just because he was Gliding Over The Hudson doesn't mean he would not have taken out a few ships maybe a bridge who knows where he would have been when that plane would have gone down.
But if you noticed the NTSB was trying to say the pilot was wrong for landing on the Hudson. They always want it to be pilot error and in the early days they could say so. But today there's just too much copying of what's going on to the flight recorders. Now record up to two hours of the cockpit voice. And even if a plane goes down in the ocean they pretty much know what was going on because they can now feed up to satellites as a constant report is being sent back to the home office the other black box. So they at least have playing function recording and I believe at some point they will be able to say Hey you have no privacy you're flying the plane, responsible for lives we will be recording you 24/7 the planes on satellite feed. We will know what you're doing. It also will employ people to monitor flights in a different way to make sure that something can't happen like what happened to the plane that has never been found. That's why they don't want people in the cockpit they want the computer to fly the plane but what happens when there is a major incident on a plane and the computer no longer works but it can still fly? Well when you don't have a pilot that really knows their stuff like some of these Pilots have nursed broken planes into safe Landings I guess you just have a bunch of dead passengers don't you!
The French government owned Air France, and owned half of Airbus. The pilot was always going to be thrown under the Airbus.
"So it can never happen again"
@@valiantsfelinesmccarty6678 Boeing and the FAA are one of the same. I think this was validated by the 737 MAX.
I worked for the manufacturer of the FDR. You cannot alter their data. But that's not what happened here. These boxes were totally replaced with different units. You could make a flight and swap boxes and no one would know.
Air France having passengers aboard an air show flight that is planning a high risk maneuver? Including an unaccompanied minor? Were they out of their corporate minds ?!
Yes.
Lol she’s dead lol
@@JM-bu7nq what is wrong with you
Corporate minds😂. I like this
Idiotic
1. Couldn't they do a dry run without people on board? 2. Why was the 8 yr old flying by herself?
I used to fly by myself all the time from Arizona to Tennessee to visit grandparents but this was also pre 9/11.
@@arcamean785 9/11 doesn't have anything to do with flying alone lol. I have flown alone as a minor post 9/11.
There was another child who was also left behind.
memmener: What I wondered was when they arrived confused and had to deviate, why didn't they just GO AROUND, so at least they could do the risky demo according to plan? Also, they would have seen the crowd and hopefully the forest and rethought things.
And of course, Air France having them flying at 100 feet, 80% below the MINIMUM per the safety rules at the airshow was completely unacceptable.
You can fly by yourself as a minor, though the crew will be made aware and they handle it differently than they would regular passengers. I've been on flights where children were on their own.
They were lucky in the first place. But the fact that there were still two emergency exits available and not on fire was a total miracle.
I pray that there is a heaven for that woman and the two children that passed in the crash. It hurts my heart that they were abandoned.
You can be sure of heaven's existence. The adults that used her seat (and her) as a springboard _will_ answer to the Lord.
Hey maybe it’s not a great idea to test the limits of a brand new passenger jet’s capability when you have children onboard. Just sayin.
How about reading the manual to make sure you have control of the plane and not the computer
@@frankartale1026 Or don’t do a stunt in a brand new airliner
@@jackthedragonkiller5097 With civilian passengers on board.
@s gright? consecutive days gone without a child dying alone on one of our planes; 0
Why children lives matter more than adults? Why it's ok for a 18 years old to die but not 1 year old?
It really irks me when stories don't have clear conclusions! I would say, though, that in the tradition of air crashes being the result of a chain of mistakes, whether or not the pilot is responsible is only the last link in a chain of piss poor decision making. Rushed planning, no practice, the pilot apparently never having even been to the airport... It seems like the situation was set up for failure, and the pilot was unable to get out of it rather than everything being his fault in an otherwise well-planned manoeuvre.
Unfortunately real life has lots of stories that don't have clear conclusions. Things are seldom that cut-and-dried outside of fiction.
Hey! You just gave the clear conclusions beautifully!
Exactly The Same Thing As Leaving Afghanistan.
That's probably because the powers at be wanted it that way.
Much respect to Captain Asseline for coming to the interview despite all the scrutiny to his name regarding this incident.
No respect at all for a pilot that would fly a 2 day old airplane, 30 feet down an unfamiliar runway as slow as it would go with passengers on board.
@Chuck Yeager Ha. I had a friend who transitioned into A320s. He said that they made poor pilots mediocre pilots and that they made good pilots mediocre pilots. Ironically he was probably relying on the computer to keep him from stalling while he was flying the max alpha maneuver. If he'd have been in a 737 he probably would have given himself some airspeed margin because there would be no computer to protect him. The computer did keep him from stalling but he didn't have any energy left. At that point the best thing that could have happened, was what did happen. Had the elevators actually moved more nose up he'd have stalled the airplane and it may have been a lot worse.
I guess he has nothing to really "lose" at this point. Just give his story for people who are willing to listen and that's about all he can do.
Rejecting would probably make people hate him or blame him more.
...
They must have paid him well. What an idiot.
I feel bad for the women who tried her best to save the young girl. But despite her efforts, both of them and 1 young boy died. I think it was the toxic smoke. I feel bad to be honest. This is a sad thing for both the 3 fatalities.
A True Hero indeed.
I am so glad this series still goes on TH-cam!
14 mins in and I can already predict the issue. The plane's computer determined that the full throttle was a "dangerous maneuver" and refused to obey the command. The fatal flaw with giving the computer the ability to override the pilot is that the computer does not understand an emergency nor does it have the same intuition a human being does. I will reply to my comment if I am wrong
@Owennn the computer shouldn’t have done what it did. Period. The whole thing could have been avoided if the pilots had been allowed to actually fly the plane. Yes, the airline was also at fault for the lack of preparation, but it all comes back to the computer program overriding the pilots actions.
@Owennn The pilots could plainly see a forest at the end of the runway. It was daylight and trees are obvious.
@Owennn 1) You're piloting a plane - never assume, 2) Computers should not overrule pilots, 3) Flight was poorly planned by all involved, 4) Pilot too low regardless of whether they 'thought' it was a forest or bushes. This was a giant cluster**** waiting to happen.
After finishing the video, I was right and wrong at the same time. The computer DID override the pilot's input, however it was to prevent a stall. Unless set to autopilot, a plane should NEVER override the inputs of a pilot.
As for the "lost" four seconds, it's odd. Because you would think that if it is real, the court would immediately realize that such a discrepancy is wholly unacceptable and grounds for dismissal of the case and an investigation into the investigators. Maybe France has different rules that govern the justice system itself than in the US.
@@whyyeseyec the nose was too high up to see the forest until it was too late......
This episode, which aired in 2010, leaves out a CRUCIAL detail. In 1992, on appeal, Captain Asseline WAS exonerated. That the program, produced _18 years later,_ failed to give the Captain his rightful status is something I find reprehensible.
"This is the world's first fully automated plane, flown by a computer."
Therefore, everything is the pilots fault
Yeah so don’t try to do stunts in this airplane bc the computer may not cooperate.
*Plane explodes *
L1011 noises
I think the OS is called HAL
This is by no means the only time the BEA has been accused of a non-impartial investigation. See the controversy surrounding their investigation of Air France 4590, in which they completely disregarded multiple inconvenient facts that would have put Air France at fault. The BEA seems to have a particularly sketchy record when it comes to investigating its own state airline and/or heavily state-subsidized aircraft manufacturer.
The fact that the Swiss confirmed that the blackboxes were not the originals should have been a giant red flag for everyone.
Never buy a first-generation gadget.
So the capt was a sacrificial lamb. How nice. Meanwhile Airbus prevails and prospers. Pilots fight for their planes and their passengers in adverse situations. Some die trying. I dont believe you can identify all scenarios (therefore all parameters) and have code waiting to execute. Just cant be done in these sophisticated planes. Way too many that have yet to be identified.
They're not different on what Boeing did trying to hide their flaws with the 737 Max. Remember, we're all "expendable" for the corporations.
It's a problem when an investigator keeps saying that things that are clearly possible are "impossible".
Love the narrator and the videos. There’s not many video documentaries with this high of quality.
Thanks God they didn’t blame the trees .
yes, the trees moved.
Oh, but they did! It was said that the trees HIT the plane....
@@nimueh4298 "how dare you" - Grata
Smart ass. 😊🖐
I'm surprised they didn't. The stunt was so poorly conceived and planned that I wouldn't be surprised to hear them say a forest jumped out in front of the plane! Who could have seen that coming?!
" It's fly by wire ......the computer won't let the pilot do something unsafe" I bet the Wooded Area wasn't at that meeting.
❤
I can't imagine being one of the survivors, knowing their thoughtless scramble to get out is partially to blame for the death of a child.
By my count there was 1 woman 1 little girl and 1 little boy.
Survivor's Guilt might hit but Garret has an honest and very raw truth: the only kids people care about are their own or those close to them.
Should the people not have done that? Yes. Was the woman staying behind to help doing a good act? Yes. Ultimately it comes down to what you value more: being alive and able to walk away or be remembered for something that you died doing.
@@TheJer1963 Right, but one child was impaled by a piece of wreckage and the other was basically crushed as her seat back was shoved forward. The adult died as she tried to return to help the little girl. So one child's death is partially to blame on the mad scramble to escape.
2 children.
I don’t blame anyone for saving themselves, that’s ludicrous to risk everyone’s lives to save one.
Just saying that this would have been one situation in which it would have been handy to have a knife on the plane to cut that little girl's seat belt. I'm appalled that the crew didn't even know if everyone got off the plane yet claimed everyone was off, and they left 2 children to die. It's such a contrast to some of the outstanding crew members like that one woman who crawled up and down the aisle making sure the passengers were in the correct crash landing position while a large section of the plane's roof was missing, protected her injured co-worker, and then checked on all the passengers after the pilot's incredible landing.
I thought bout a knife as well. Bu with all the smoke and chaos even if there were one how could you find it?
@@lila2028 What I meant is a pocket or pen knife, like my dad always carried in his pants pocket b/c it was handy. You could find it b/c it was in your pocket.
@@DonnaBrooks Makes sense.
@DonnaBrooks
Sweetie, passengers can't take those on board anymore. When was the last time you flew?
At the end of the day you had no business whatsoever flying an airliner below 400 feet. As a veteran captain, you should have known that. But he still decided to do it cuz you know “what could go wrong”
Agreed. So avoidable.
Air accidents are almost without exception the result of a string of seemingly unconnected occurrences which end, as a whole, in tragedy. No single factor can be solely blamed.
“I can’t let you do that, Dave.”
>nose up
2001 A Space.....
I remember when I was a teen, my father won a pair of ticket for a plane ride above my city in a Cessna (the small 5-6 places planes). When we went to the plane, there were several parked in a row and the one next to ours had a pilot with two guys in suits, then we left, did our ride and landed back without trouble, it was really nice. The day after, we're watching the news and they start talking of a Cessna plane that crashed in an empty spot in my city, then they show the wreck and we both recognize the plane that was parked beside ours, we're not too sure at first, but then they say it had onboard a pilot with two business men that were in there to potentially buy that plane,. We managed to recall part of the serial on teh side and it matched, and the time the accident happened matched ours. It was a weird feeling to know that me, my father, our pilot and his daughter were the last people to have seen these three men alive.
Since then me and my father went on a ship that then sank later that day and went on a foraging platform that then sank as well.. Guess we should avoid flying or floating vehicles in general.
thank God he kept you all safe 😇
@@Theranchhouse1 We were very lucky. It weirded us out for 2-3 days after learning of this crash, it gives a strange mix of great memories with my father but I keep in mind that things went wrong for a few persons with these events.
A lot of these tragedies in this series could have been averted if companies weren’t so cheap. Most of them can be traced back to financial decisions including blaming this pilot when it was clearly not his fault.
You know any pilot that is flying in an airshow is going to push the limits to try and impress the crowd ..For that reason you shouldnt' be aloud to bring passengers along with you ...
brad fiser: Allowed, not "aloud". But the point you made about not being allowed to put passengers on a demonstration flight was made in the video in which it was stated that it is now a mandatory rule.
@@lazurm Thanks for pointing out "aloud" my bad
@@lazurm Thanks for pointing out "aloud" I think when i watched this video it was Beer night 😃
Criminally charging the captain is the worst move. The co-pilot should have been monitoring the instruments and helping the captain keep inside the flight envelope.
Honestly, the delay of the engines isn't as big of an issue when you take into account that the crew put this plane 70% lower than it was supposed to be, which was already 4x lower than international law required. If they hadn't been that low, the stall protection, delay in engine spooling up, etc. would be moot. I am reticent to blame pilots automatically, as piloting is intensely complicated, but these pilots really fucked up.
@Garret Grant 21:36 pilot error..... maybe you need to watch it again.....
Yeah. Sounds like sour grapes from the captain. You have to anticipate that something might go wrong, and protect the passengers by aborting the mission.
The root issue is that after the pilot "fucked up" as you say, the plane compounded the mistake by failing to deliver as advertised. Did the engines spool up correctly? Was the anti-stall nose drop that parked the aircraft in the woods actually necessary? Idk. But I know that blaming only the pilot was very helpful to Airbus, Air France and France.
The first time that I saw this accident on TH-cam in a show about crashes, the narrator said that Nobody had died because It was a test by remote control and that the airplane was empty. Wow, just crazy.
Roman C.: I believe you're confusing this crash with another one that was actually flown remotely.
@@lazurm I don't know about that but it is the same image.
Captain was still responsible. He wasn’t prepared and was too low. Poor
Kids were killed
NO! That sweet little girl was not forgotten, how could the man even date to say that?!!! She WAS remembered! She was remembered by a remarkable woman, she was remembered by somebody who gave their life trying to save hers. That little girl was not alone, she was not left! She was with a true hero!
She gave her life trying to save the little girl. There's No greater thing a person can Do...
Also from what I have read his brother was also beside him but he was dragged out with the crowd so he couldn't help his sister
Those 'flight attendants'. Very stunning
I’m waiting for the copilot to give his version. I have questions I need answered.
‘MERD!!’
Nice way to sneak in a swear word, lol
The accident happened because of the negligence and unprofessional handling of the aircraft. On advanced commercial aircraft like A 320 height call below 100 feet is from radia altimeret which is not effected by the reading of baro- altimeter even if QNH is set wrongly. It's surprising that such an experienced pilot was relying on bar-altimeter at low altitude instead of Radio-altitude which gives the absolute height above the terrain and more accurate as compare to Baro-altimeter.
For landing all audio calls comes from Radio Altimeter below 100 feet to keep the pilot aware of the actual height above the ground on which he acts to reduce the power at around 30 feet and give final check to cushion the touch down impact. It strange that Pilot did not hear the audio height calls.
One of the contributing factor in this accident is high angle of attack due to which the line of sight of pilot eyes from cockpit must be above 15 degrees and tree tops become visible when A 320 came too close to the trees. Jet engines take time to spool up from flight idle to take off power and it could be under 5 seconds. For discussion perposes if it is assumed that A 320 was flying at 110 knots then it's covering horizontal distance of 183 feet in one seconf and by the time Pilot initiated the Go Around procedure and engines took 5 seconds to spool up from flight Idle to Gi Around power even then the aircraft was only 917 feet away from the trees tops and below the height of trees and accident was imminent.
“…And fly by wire technology would be safely adopted by a new generation of aircraft”.
Yeah, sure, like the Boeing 737 Max. I don’t doubt for a minute they tempered with the tape we all saw the way Boeing worked to blame the pilots when their own death traps hit the ground. The clear lesson of these incidents is that you cannot trust computers to intervene in flying airplanes. it is simply the old Computer axiom “garbage in garbage out” or to put it another way; “Open the pod bay doors, please HAL.” “I’m sorry, Dave I can’t do that.”
Throughout the entire video, I can only see people pointing finger at one another while not trying to really look at whats wrong and make improvement to avoid that being happened again in the future. A fruitless investigation
No one ever want to take the responsibility at all
The lead investigator was also an employee of the airlines investigating a crash on a 2 day old airplane that was a huge embarrassment to Airbus. You bet this was a cover up
There are types of crashes that are survivable but passengers die from smoke inhalation since the burning plastic gives off deadly fumes, despite the fact that the FAA recommended changes in materials years ago to no affect.
As such, when flying, I carry a certified smoke hood (the iEvac) that takes about 30 seconds to don; one can hold one's breath while donning it. I also wear Kevlar clothing to reduce the possibility of burns.
Nice, but I will do you one better.... I simply dont fly lol
I agree bad idea from start, no planning hadn't even seen the place, and didn't know where it was..
Always relived to see survivor interviews
pilot - "I can't fly using numbers, I tried but couldn't do it".
Well then...
In fairness, the clip they showed of that altimeter had the numbers cycling extremely fast. I’d imagine a pilot would want to be able to read it at a glance when dealing with all the controls in the cockpit.
@@nadinewesterveld5597: Especially when doing a risky move 100 feet from the ground.
Pretty obvious conflict of interest in this investigation. (Not to mention the Airbus CEO is French.)
And the moral is …. Avoid flying Air France. Here, their top pilot flies into the trees. Elsewhere poor training causes a dive into the Atlantic. Elsewhere again, they nearly dump a plane into central Paris after a transatlantic flight. Luckily, we have other Air France-employed investigators to determine that no-one was at fault.
“Let me show you the first plane flown by computers in order to avoid human error”
Proceeds to turn off the computer and fly manually 😂
I agree that the pilot should have some accountability as he should not have been flying so low. But he is not the only one that should be left accountable! He was given a poor plan, with hardly any time to prepare. He didn’t even have coordinates for the landing strip. Had no opportunity for a fly over, and yes was flying a brand new plane with technology that he did not fully understand. As they said, the pilot tells the computer what to do, and the computer flies the plane. Well he told the computer what to do and the computer failed to fly the plane.
Unbelievable! Flying a passenger airline, with passengers onboard in an air show at an illegal altitude with a show off pilot, flying that huge plane like it was a stunt plane. "Capitan Asinine" should still be behind bars, along with some others.
Introduction: "The pilot essentially flies the computer, and the computer flies the aircraft." What could go wrong? 🙄
Why in the world would you EVER do a flyover THAT LOW?! Why would you lower the landing gear for a flyover? If it was a flyover, why would you even need a runway? Why would you do a stunt with a plane full of passengers? None of this makes any sense! Other people's stupidity killed those 3 passengers. The first casualty was common sense.
Facts
One thing I’ve learned from watching all these videos it’s usually never just one thing that goes wrong it’s multiple that add up
10 months is a lengthy sentence? In America it would have been 10 years lol. I don’t think it was all his fault tho definitely shady stuff going on 🤔
I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't "get the book thrown at him" because there was shady stuff going on. As in, lets give him some time (so he takes the blame technically) but not too long where he is going to go snooping around and trying to get revenge his whole life. Pilot should be glad he got out alive and a 10 month white collar prison sentence isn't the end of the world.
@@cefb8923 exactly good point
It certainly was his fault as he was piloting the plane the government wasnt.
@@reginafontenot600 if they tampered with evidence that shows the plane itself played a role in the crash then yes the Government Is to blame. They were in a position to lose millions if this plane went belly up. The pilot isn't blame free by anymeans. Just kinda suspicious that the lead investor was a pilot for the same airline.
Airbus fudging data and tossing a pilot to the wolves to protect its brand new flagship? no way..
Everytime I hear about fly-by-wire, I think about actual wires, like bicycle brakes. I don't understand why they didn't name it for what it is: digital, electronic or computer controlled.
Think about it like a puppet. The pilot controls the computer that flies the plane
It is more comparable to an automatic car than anything
I always thought they called it "fly by wire" because there are actual electric wires connecting the controls to the computer inputs and more electric wires connecting the computer outputs to the control surfaces.
Well damn. I’ve watched so many of these videos that I was expecting a definitive resolution.
As usual it's a confluence of errors that caused a crash.
“How can a forest take a pilot by surprise?” Bad plan, bad map, bad idea!
They should have done a Fly Around and Approach from the opposite side.
The original plan was to perform the stunt twice, one time from each direction.
Excellent information and narration. Condolences to the families of the deceased and the loved ones...
Missing 4 seconds. So it's still unsolved? Very unusual.
There’s a lot of things we don’t know about this crash, but we know it flew too low and they flew on a runway that was too short with improper knowledge, that sums up the crash
Yeah, I agree with Mr. Marrero, it was a stunt, why risk life of others.
The other issue is, why was there no rehearsal of the flight plan,
the captain didn’t even know where the airfield was, it is the captain
responsibility to go and check out beforehand.
I still want to know where those childrens parents were.
@Junior Johnson stop with your lies
9:20 How everyone feels when they see another aircraft heading straight towards their aircraft.
Considering this accident, I'm sure there were improvements made such as: MODE indication and recording for landing in connection with STALL, LANDING GEAR, PITCH, POWER and ALTIMETER readings to allow the computer to prevent something like this. If so, the captain will find that in his favor.
While I do not have all the evidence, it was a flagrant conflict of interest with the investigator being a member of the Air France company as a pilot. It is not impossible to change the flight data recorder. Discrepancies between the two transcripts is a four second delay that in and of itself should have raised a bunch of eyebrows. Especially since both the tower and the plane are supposed to be synchronized on their clocks. My conclusion from the evidence I've seen, is that the pilot is telling the truth. It would not be the first time that a major corporation has covered up an accident.
I believe both the pilot and the investigator. The plane had a delayed acceleration, was reading an altitude slightly high, and pitched nose down. However, the data was tampered with, so the investigator could only conclude it was the pilot. After all, the nose down was only proved by physically testing another plane.
Who's the genius passenger that decided to take his young daughter on a demonstation flight of an, as yet, unproven airplane? Also, it appears her dad left her in her seat while he scrambled out of the plane. I believe a father of the year award is in order. I also found it comical that the dramatization twice showed the pilot drinking hard liquor at his home. I'm sure he appreciated that.
She was on it alone. It says in the beginning of the show.
@@KDu400 Why? Give me a good reason why anyone would do that? Don't tell me no one was responsible for looking after her. Someone abandoned her.
@@nickv4073 this was the early 80s. Children could fly alone.
1:39 "There are even children like seven year old Mariama Barry unaccompanied by their parents." On wikipedia it says her brother was on the plane as well and tried to free her but the rush of people pulled him away from her and out the plane. Another little boy who was disable and also unaccompanied was also forgotten.
In the 80s, I flew from the US to Dominican Republic during the summers and I would go by myself. My parents couldn’t afford to fly with me. It was a risk, but it allowed me to get to know my grandmother so I’m grateful. However, I now realize all the things that could have gone wrong. Still, I can’t fault them for doing so. We don’t know what transpired to induce parents to let their children fly alone on this flight, but my heart goes out to them. I can’t imagine the heartache and guilt they have lived with all these years
IMO they need to repeat the fly test with the stall protection off. Would the airplane really have stalled or not? I think this information is key.
Would be too dangerous because a stall at 30 feet would mean a sure impact with ground.
@@joecraskki3175 yeah I don’t know anyone with an A320 lying around waiting to slam into the ground with a human pilot.
@@gabrieldavis4434 that's why you do it over a long runway like they did the other test in the video. If you stall, you just end up on the runway
@@joecraskki3175 could be done in a simulator
This is such a wild ride of an episode. The whole replacement theory makes sense, there was technology to check for tampering used in the case of the korea airlines flight that was shot down during the cold war
They still haven't fixed that flawed system to this day. It's been installed in every Airbus since and it went on to strike again.
I seriously got an add for Lufthansa Airlines in the middle of the crash sequence 😂
They for sure covered this up since France was one of the main sponsors of this aircraft. That's like asking a company if it's product sucks. No conflict of interest at all!
Thank god I'm back from my trip so I can watch these videos again
Yup, you cant watch these close to travel time
Imagine watching them while in flight.
Whenever a government official says "that's just impossible", it's likelihood suddenly seems more plausible.
pilot puts aircraft in dangerous situation...then cries victim. had he got his authority of the aircraft controls it would have still likely crashed.
How could you take a risk with passengers in the plane.? Geez... computer verse man riding the plane. . OMG. The PILOT! You don't let the machine drive the plane.
After watching all these crashes on this channel, you definitely can't convince me that flying is safer
You guys do realize that statistically air travel is the safest right? Per million miles traveled, air travel has the lowest fatality rate
Planes are absolutely safer. This case, like most, was HUMAN error..not the plane's fault
explain the 4 second discrepancy in the black box data with the final report's conclusions, was power applied to the engines 5 seconds or 9 seconds from impact? how could this discrepancy reported in this video come about by any means apart from someone tampering with/manipulating data? it seems to me that the pilot really is innocent
Let's goooo full episode, thank you!
sorry no, rather have edited so No Repeats like a cheap cable show. Despite this I love this channel and respect everyone involved.
@@danielueblacker9118 What are you saying?
Instruments or not, this is on the pilot. It's a brand new plane with passengers and he attempted a risky maneuver at a low altitude that the plane was never designed for. If it were up to me he would have been charged with negligence at the least
"Brawndo...It's got what plants crave."
Idiocracy. A foretelling documentary.
@@LtDan-lj7oj Ikr? Who would have thought?
every passenger who pushed past that stranded DISABLED (look it up) child to save themselves should close their eyes for the last time to wake to an unquenchable flame