Boeing 747 Crashes During TakeOff in the Heart of Europe (Nightmare Departure)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2023
- Find out why the Boeing 747 operating as Kalitta Air Flight 207 overran Runway 20 during takeoff at Brussels Airport, causing the aircraft to split into three main pieces.
Get early access to future videos and support the channel here:
• / theflightchannel
Check out the Official Shop with merchandise here:
• teespring.com/stores/thefligh...
Follow TheFlightChannel
• Facebook: / theflightchannel
• Instagram: / tfc_aviation
Business Enquiries
• Email: contact.theflightchannel@gmail.com
This video has been recorded and edited in 4K resolution and 60FPS. - บันเทิง
Hey at least the crew was was alive to be heavily criticized…
straight up
Even Sully was hounded after his landing on the Hudson River about if he was really able to land at a closer airport. We live in a Era that seems to need to put the blame somewhere else. 😮
Thanks for the spoiler. It's a shame when supposed adults never learned to comment without spoiling a movie, video, etc. for others.
@donnabaardsen5372 There's a simple fix for that; watch the video first, and read the comments afterwards.
@@donnabaardsen5372 What, you were hoping for a goryier outcome & needed to wait until the end to see it play out in living computer generated color.??? I'm sure they were just relaying their feelings of the crew & passengers being able to walk away & were not really thinking it was going to be triggering to someone else. 😃
Fortunately, there were no fatalities. Though the criticisms of the crew for their decision to abort after V1 are legitimate, and they made some errors in judgment, I can definitely understand why they chose to do that they did... It must be extremely difficult to determine in a split second whether or not the aircraft is actually capable of taking off. If it weren't and they hadn't tried to abort, the results might have been even more catastrophic than they already were.
There were 2 fatalities.
The 2 ducks.
@@timonsolus They weren't ducks. The ducks were stunt doubles for the video. The actual birds were kestrels.
They never mentioned that if they had used the two outboard reversers would they have stopped on the runway? I suspect not.
@@V8King770 It was mentioned that not using the thrust reversers was a contributing factor to the accident. It would have helped slow down the aircraft. Whether that would have been enough to keep it from overrunning we likely will never know for certain.
@@shdon : There’s a good chance that the plane would not have overrun so far if thrust reversers had been used, so it might not have run into the ditch and broken into 3 parts. Then the plane would have been repairable instead of a total write off.
I flew a Boeing 707 variant with a flight engineer (FE). The procedure during a full-stop landing or an aborted takeoff was to raise the reverse levers to the first detent. At that point, the engineer would tell the pilot which reversers he or she could use: "full reverse" or "inboards only" or "outboards only" or "no reverse." The idea that they didn't try to use any reverse thrust and didn't follow that procedure or something similar, based on the knowledge that one engine was inoperative (but not knowing which one), is bizarre. The FE can tell you which engine is out.
Maybe in simulators.
In memory of the birds who lost their lives in this accident.
Eh..the one owed me money
I think the poor things died. At least, in this video, they were ingested 5 or 6 times, which is usually fatal
@federicoprice2687 yea they obviously died. Nothing will survive those turbines
Some areas must have less bird ingestion problems because the population has ingested most of the birds.
I think they were depressed.
I found this channel 2 days ago and been in wormhole ever since. I actually found this channel from playing MSFS 2020...
I remember this jet. I worked with these guys and talked to them now and then. Kalitta and Atlas parked next to our jets (they were too big for TA aircraft). Kalitta at that time had some really badly maintained aircraft (or rather, they were junky from the start, so one could say the crew chiefs were pulling miracles to keep them air worthy. Atlas to an extent also back then, but they were clearly superior. By now, theyre both in a place where they order brand new planes. I think thats the case with Kalitta too)
The rumors on the flight line were that the jet had issues with sticking TRs, as well as other issues that reduced trust in the aircraft, particularly in its ability to get airborne. But, they lived and kept on flying. Sometimes I think its a miracle how this company got off the ground!
Pun intended 😂
@@hishamhamed5033 You caught that huh hehe
@@RipRoaringGarage
so did i! ar ar!
Trs=Thrust reversers?
Pratts are garbage engines anyways. Should’ve replaced ‘em with GEs.
I love the way that the NTSB ( or whoever investigates these crashes) comes in and assesses the blame, spend sometimes years figuring out what happened. These pilots have seconds to make a decision. Could they have made different choices maybe Just what would have happened if they had got airborne and crashed into the heart of the city?
It's why procedures exist. The hard part is supposed to be identifying what's going wrong; the "what to do" part should be automatic. In this case, they knew that they were above V1, so they should have taken this particular problem with them into the air...
The only time procedures typically allow rejection after V1 is if the aircraft cannot fly. (e.g., loss of multiple engines, take-off configuration warning, runway obstruction, loss of flight controls, etc.) The reasons to reject at "low speed," "over 80 kts," and "after V1" are part of the pre-take-off safety brief, so there really should have been a clear understanding of what to do in this case.
That said, a certification requirement for all commercial aircraft is they must be able to fly after losing an engine at the Maximum Take Off Weight during the "most critical phase of flight" (usually at "rotate).
This is why the crews are trained on procedures and drilled in simulators - to experience the startle reflex and become used to reacting properly. If crews are putting too much thought into things, they are doing it wrong... "thinking" is what is used during wargaming procedure development; Once a crew is operating the aircraft in a time-compressed and high workload situation, they should really be following procedures.
A Boeing 747 costs like $418.4 million, the NTSB damn well try to find a way to prevent future disasters.
Those birds shown are not Kestrels of any kind.
Of course the NTSB did not investigate this accident.@@Edax_Royeaux
@@luka3532 On this aircraft the flight engineer and pilot monitoring should be watching the engine instrumentation and communicate to the pilot flying what was happening with the engines if there was a problem. The engine performance is clearly indicated and the gauges should have shown which engine(s) were effected. (N1 readings, EGT changes, even fuel flow, would have highlighted where the problem was. But... Ultimately the issue to resolve at the time was "can we fly?" If "yes" you don't reject after V1. By definition at that point you either fly or you crash/overrun the end of the runway...
RIP to the birds. I love it when you guys use that epic song at the end!
Had the pilot chosen to use the longer runway, the aircraft would have had enough room to brake and stop before the runway threshold... 660 meters of additional paved runway was enough to make the difference between saving an aircraft and.... sending it for scrap.
The birds wouldn't have been there, either. I don't know why any pilot would reject a longer runway, all other things being equal.
You don’t abort after V1. They could have a 10 mile long runway but the rule still stays.
@@perniciouspete4986 The crew probably set up for 19 and programmed the Flight Management Computer, the V speeds, the legs, and the routing on the climb out. So... They were probably reluctant to go back and set everything up again - especially since they had already pushed and were "on the clock" to depart. If everything had gone as planned, they wouldn't have had to reject, and runway 19 had plenty of length for takeoff and rejection. At least, that's my sense of this...
@@a24396 Agree...no other reason to reject the longer runway. They were used to using 19 and that's what the plane was set up for.
@@EdOeuna Incorrect. Aborting take off beyond V1 is allowed when the aircraft is deemed unable to climb. For example, if you lose all engine(s) or most engines, in case the aircraft has 3 or 4 engines... Moreover, in this instance, the 747 needed the entire runway and all engines working, to take off. With 3 engines running, it would barely take off before the end of the runway
This is the greatest channel on this topic
This channel is really good at reenactments 👍🏾
I want to know why your thumbnail shows a Burning Plane when in fact the plane did not burn like the thumbnail shows?
Clickbait, TFC probably thought a good idea to introduce that and shoot itself in the foot
Glad they all survived. I wish your thumbnail was not false and would provide a true picture of the incident. Its misleading.
That's the only reason I watched it.....!
In memory of the 2 birds who lost their lives.
They were trespassing.
Saboteurs.
Great, except that geese are not kestrels (which is a rather small species of hawk.)
This may be a simulator limitation.
Just had a squadron of geese fly over my house in Nottinghamshire, UK as I was watching the geese enter the engine on the recreation. Very weird!!!!
Yeah, the simulator probably doesn't include every species. And as the birds got close to the intakes, they would've really sped up - those engines are each sucking in between 1.5 - 2 squash courts of air every second..... Instant 500 knot tailwind for the birds as they approached the chicken-chopper!
Brussels airport, BELGIUM.
We're not all Americans here.😂
i don't think TheFlightChannel creator is american either - based on his slight accent when he narrates (assuming the creator is doing the narration) - and on the grammatical errors that show up when he uses text - he might be european
Very nice video and analysis
I love your videos :)
Would much rather take the criticism or even lose my job. Being dead gives you no chances to fix your mistakes. Even a heavily experienced pilot knew that his chances of survival were much higher on the ground even being past V1. Don't blame him at all.
That’s not how aviation works though.
The 747 can easily take off with only 3 engines, not a problem at all. My guess is that captain never flew again, not as a captain at least.
Again loving the video, but somehow I cant get passed the birds flying backwards with 150 knots ;) Keep up the good work!
A few months after this accident there was another one involving a Kalitta Air B747 at El Dorado airport in Bogota, Colombia. It would be great to have a video recreating this crash.
06:11 Holy crap! Did you see the size of those geese? They must have been 12 feet long! You sure they didn't hit a couple of pterodactyls instead?
ha ha ha ha ha.
Even the most experienced pilots can make the wrong decisions.
I got a kick out of how many times those poor birds met their demise.
I think the Flight Channel was incredibly proud of that animation.
A new meaning for "overkill"?
Aren't controllers aware of the aircraft and runways? One would think a cargo plane, taking off on a shorter runway, would be met with commands from the control tower to "stop!"
Controllers have no idea of how much runway length any given aircraft requires.
The ATC sent the Kestrels after the aircraft to get it to stop. But, yes, it was a little hard to follow this video. It seems like some important information was left out.
I didn't realize that pilots have the option to reject a runway assignment. "Hold short of runway 25R." "Nah, bro, we gonna' use runway 19." I've always assumed you go wherever ATC tells you to go.
@@SarahRenz59- pilots can request certain runways, but only for genuine reasons. Runway 19 isn’t particularly short and so take off performance from it is well within the comfort limits of larger aircraft.
Why did they chose a different runway that was 700 meters shorter than the one initially proposed by the ATC???
Why didn’t they use full length when they knew they needed full length
Another great video! But I'll turn the volume down on the next one! Beautiful birds, but I think the poor things died. At least, in this video, they were ingested 5 or 6 times, which is usually fatal...
NO reverse thrust. Sheesh! 🤦🏻♂ (Thanks for the retelling TFC. 👍🏻)
@TheFlightChannel are you planning to make a video on Japan Air Lines Flight 123? Or have you already made one and I just didn't find it?
It's amazing how a tiny bird 🐦 can bring down a big bird 🛫
@@lougottlieb156 I doubt his software had a "Kestrel" available.
@@lougottlieb156 ... 2 even!
I wonder why the crew decided to use the shorter runway despite the plane is at its heaviest at takeoff. Then aborting the takeoff beyond V1 and not using the reverser wasnt helpful. All odds were thrown onto the same pile.
One article I read said they tried to use reverse thrust but they failed to deploy. I couldn't find the actual Belgium report.
Runway length hasn’t anything to do with it.
@@EdOeunarunway length does improve V1 for an old 747
@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 - the thrust and flap setting will change accordingly, so using the longer runway doesn’t gain much. The important bit of this is that they rejected after V1. You could calculate for a 4000m runway and reject after V1 and you will still run off the end of the runway.
No fatalites and NO FIRE....
In memory of the 2 birds that died 😅
Two birds and a 747 were sacrificed in producing the events needed to create this video.
I worked for Kallita out SE Michigan In the late 90's and i will have to say it was the worse company i ever worked for!!!
No human fatalities with a hull cracked open like that is pretty amazing, really. Like they say, airplanes can be replaced.
Pilots can be replaced also. I’m sure these guys were replaced PDQ
Loved the animation of the birds going into the engine.
What would have happened if the pilots decided to go through with the takeoff, given they have passed V1?
In theory they should have rotated the aircraft, initiated the climb, did the ECAM checklist (i think), and proceeded back to the airport. On the other hand, we don't really know if it would have ended well if they proceeded with the take off roll taken into consideration that the aircraft stopped gaining speed upon the bird strike. The most important part is that nobody got killed here. An aircraft can be replaced, but a human life can't.
Provided they made no other errors, they would have safely got airborne and likely returned for an uneventful 3-engine landing.
They would have saved a perfectly good aircraft from crashing off the end of the runway. Poorly trained pilots doing bad things and ruining a perfectly good aircraft.
didn't work out so well for the Concorde
@@Kill-Dozer Concorde was forced to rotate and take off prematurely because the asymmetrical thrust was forcing it off the runway. It was a situation which was going to result in a crash no matter what the pilot did.
sad to see the 747 leave it was my one of my favorite boeing plane ever i never got the chance to fly in one i really wish that i could sit in one
It’s easy for us as well as the crash investigators to sit on our butts and criticize the pilots. Much harder when barreling down the runway when the bird strike occurred. Yes I know they are trained pilots but they had literally seconds to make the decision and I don’t know if I would have done anything different. Once you are in the air, always chance of being in worse situation. I’m not a pilot in any sense but these guys were humans doing what they thought best in order to live. They lived, so good ending as far as I’m concerned.
There is no decision to be made in this situation. Above V1, take off must continue.
"I would rate this disaster as a bad day at the office..."
It's interesting that even experienced crews can make serious errors in judgment, likely because they don't fully understand their airplane. In February of 1989, United Airlines Captain David Cronin and First Officer Gregory Slader understood the nuances of asymmetrical thrust and signs of damage to flaps, and used only the inner flaps when landing their crippled 747 in Honolulu. Other crews died in similar circumstances despite having thousands of hours in a cockpit. Here in Brussels, we have a crew that did not remember that they could selectively choose thrust reverse on Engines 1 and 4 to help them stop the airplane. They also did not appear to understand that a 747-200 can take off on three engines. Further, it was carrying only 76 tonnes of cargo; its maximum payload is about 110-112 tonnes. Hence, assuming the fuel on board did not take 747-200 to maximum takeoff weight, the crew could have completed the takeoff with confidence, shutting down the #3 engine. Then the flight crew members could decide if they wanted to continue to Dubai or turn it around and land at Brussels. The crew members went through a briefing and checklists, and yet they didn't know the basic information they needed to operate safely. And after calculating that they needed a full runway length, they chose the shorter runway even though the longer one was available. I find this appalling.
Exactly!
Far from an expert but I wouldn't think it would be standard practice to fly to the destination with a failed engine on takeoff. That's your safety margin gone for the entire flight. Surely in a circumstance like this it is standard procedure to always turn back and land immediately?
@@SPTSuperSprinter156 Whether to continue with three good engines and one inoperative probably depends on the operator's policy. I don't know of ICAO rules that require landing as soon as practical in that scenario. (I flew four-engine jets also.)
RiP to the birds lost......
Damn those birds were THICC
At @4:00 the wheels of the push car are moving forward while the push car is going in reverse. 😊
Is it possible to put a mesh or anything to prevent the engine from ingesting hail, birds, foreign object etc? RIP birdies😢
What really mystified me, and it didn't appear to be addressed or was not thought important was why the pilots switched from R25 to R19? Had everything happened but on R25, would the plane have had enough runway to stop?
Great post, like all your others, Thanks!!!
I'm generally in favor of overrunning the runway instead of plummeting to the ground 15 seconds after takeoff. Find out that you could have successfully taken off, rather than finding out that the plane is unable to fly after takeoff.
Performance calculations are done to establish if the aircraft can stop prior to v1 or safely fly with an engine failed after V1. The idea that they would not be able to safely take off is false.
Oh my, what giant geese you have.
Cannot count how often I stood and still standing there sometimes, watching for planes at the position the plane dived.
Thank goodness no fatalities
two birds died. just sayin' :D
Oh yeah your right lol
R.I.P.🦆🦆
I'm pretty sure I flew on Kalitta Air at least once during OEF-OIF.
Okay, I'm not a pilot, so excuse if this is a silly question. Since I'm sure the instrumentation would have shown which engine was not functioning properly following the bang, why did the flight crew not just shut down the suspect engine, add thrust with the remaining 3 engines and continue the fly out? The 747 is rated to take off, fly, and land with only 3 functioning engines. Thanks.
You are basically correct. The crew would normally get safely airborne first and shut down the engine later.
I actually flew this aircraft particular aircraft for this company numerous times. It was a good jet that was destroyed by a series of errors by the crew. I'm not demonizing the crew, and I wasn't on board, but I did have some insight as to how things transpired. It was an unfortunate situation, but I'm grateful that no one was injured or killed.
At least they got out of it with their lives.
Saw it lying there whilst passing by with my car, could have been far worse.
I was thinking it was fortunate a train didn't come barreling around a corner.
They were lucky that the fuel tanks were not ruptured and that leaking fuel was not ignited by the engines.
?? Why would the tanks be ruptured by a compressor stall?
@@ElectricPicsmore likely by the whole "dropping off an embankment and breaking into 3 pieces" part.
@@Forest_Fifer Ah yes, indeed. 👍
Wow. Great job of relating the events. The pilots didn't seem to know just how little or great the damage, and so, aborted the flight. Perhaps over cautious in not deploying speed brakes, and having chose the shorter runway, may also contributed . Tough calls, wrong choices. Sadly, it happens.
Yes. I also wondered why they didn't engage the speed brakes. It might have bought them just enough time not to overrun.
Why no thrust reversers?
Even if they only deployed them on engines 1 and 4 to avoid asymmetric reverse thrust it may have been enough to stop in time.
Wasn't it runway 19? At the end you mention number 20...
Checking the Belgian authorities' report, there is not a single mention of Runway 19 in that entire document. Runway 20 is mentioned 29 times. The Wikipedia article does mention Runway 19 several times. The Brussels Airport website, however, mentions they have 3 runways: 25L (7R) and 25R (7L) and 01 (19). So it is likely that the designation of that latter runway may have changed at some point.
It's crazy how the plane jumped to different parts of the runway during the take off, that's out of this world turbulence.
The animation of the geese going into the engine was funny for some reason
As if they were aiming for the motor.
I can imagine a flock, or even a couple of geese causing a jet engine to have problems. However, a Kestrel is a very small bird, weighing only a couple of hundred grams. They are also solitary birds, they don't fly in flocks. I wonder how they determined it was a kestrel. I also remember that someone was sucked out of an aircraft and went through an engine. They did find some DNA to identify the person.
every bird strike has a dna swab after the fact
@@denniswilson8013lol no that is not true at all.
The cover image shows this wreckage in flames, but the aftermath photo shows no sign of fire.
Was there a fire or not? If yes, it wasn't mentioned. If no, the cover image is deceptive.
Love this channel!
There was no fire so the photo is clickbait!
At least there were no fatalities, however this was a bad time for Connie Kalitta and Kalitta Air. I believe they had 2 planes crash and the lost of his son Scott Kalitta in a horrific drag racing accident....
It was pretty fatal for the kestrels. 😭
Kestrals dressed as geese!
Which Plane game do you use to make your videos I rlly want to fly the 747-200 in that game
Poor birds 🦅
Sorry, but there was no fire whatsoever. Why do you show the aircraft in flames on the clickbait cover?
@TheFlightChannel
admittedly, none of these are meant to be humorous, but by the 3rd time the ducks got cleaned up neater than by a Dyson, it was all 🤣🤣🤣
Dear Flight Channel, I am a big fan of your videos. However, this time, as I live in Brussels and saw that accident (I have a photo of myself in front of the damaged 747) I would like to highlight some details. First, you should say Brussels, Belgium, not Brussels, Europe. If it was in Paris you would certainly have written Paris, France, right? Second, your arrow points to the wrong end of RW 25R. A7 is not where the arrow was. Third, the typical runway usage in EBBR is 25L for landings (only) and 25R for takeoffs (and landings, in particular of cargo flights as well as Schengen flights, given the shorter taxi distance to respective terminals). A second (less common but not rare) setting is with takeoffs from 07R and landings on 01. Takeoffs from RW 19 are extremely rare. In 30+ years as a relatively frequent flyer, I may have taken off from RW19 maybe 4 times. So, the Kalitta crew - for their own reasons - decided not to take off from the USUAL, 25R. Many thanks again for all the dozens and dozens of videos I've been watching with great interest.
Will you make the documentary of 9/11 flight accidents??
#3 was one effective bird incinerator
The Kalitta family also has a really good NHRA Drag Racing team in both Top Fuel and Funny Car categories.
a few months later, one of their cars ran off the end of the paved road. (RIP Scott)
Who cares?
Didn’t realize Europe was a country 🤔🤦♀️… Brussels is in a country called Belgium 🇧🇪
dam bto nice bird animation 10/10
Shoulda used those THRUST REVERSERS! They were correct not to take off, but why didn't they use their thrust reversers? That's the first thing I thought of.
Why were they correct not to take off? The B747 is perfectly capable of taking off and flying with only three engines, the crew even did the performance to prove it.
No icebergs needed just 2 geese. RIP Geese😔
If they used Runway 19, why do we see 'Runway 20' as the runway value?
Please do pulkovo flight 612
I dont understand why the plane broke into 3 pieces?
those are ducks, not European Kestrels. The Flight Channel was heavily criticised for it's lack of avarian accuracy.
Those are Canada geese, not ducks.
Those poor birds 😢
I'm the missing third kestrel. At the last moment, I decided the other engine looked warmer, but due to heavy drinking that morning, I missed it completely.
Naughty Kestrel.
Yeah, who sent you? Sheesh....
Looks like heavy drinking affects the brain!
@@rossbrown6641 Yes, Ross, and considering that Kestrels start out with pretty small brains, it's especially hazardous.
Earliest I've ever been to one of these vids!
And?
Wow, so very interesting and insightful. You're very clever and witty. You should be in pictures. 🤡
Greetings from Brazil🇧🇷
🥇
Salve, amigo 👍👍 É noix
Greetings to you in Brazil!
Those 2 ducks were absolutely massive. Nearly the size of the engines. I didn't know ducks could get that huge.
The birds shown in the video are Canada Geese, which are quite massive, but in reading about the crash the actual birds involved were Kestrels, which are pretty small falcons, much much smaller than the geese shown. The simulator used to make this video must not have had Kestrels or any similar species available.
hi, i have a request for Avianca Colombia flight 11 and/or Pulkovo airlines 612
I find it hilarious how the birds are moving backwards at 100 kph 0:03.
Earliest ive been here!!!!✈️🛩️
So?
Have 747 pilots/experts weighed in on whether the bird strike would have compromised a safe takeoff? No one died, thankfully, but the catastrophic loss of the aircraft, clearly due to the pilot's decision to abort after V1, seems like it could have been averted if the pilot had just taken off, circled the field and landed using its 3 good engines.
They had calculated the performance so there is no reason to suspect that the aircraft would not have become safely airborne
I flew this particular aircraft for this particular airline from this particular airfield for a number of years prior to the mishap. To answer your question, the crew should have continued the takeoff, as they were past V1, which is the maximum speed at which you can reject/ abort a takeoff.
Multi-engine transport category aircraft are designed to be able to takeoff past V1 and climb with an engine out. Had they continued the takeoff, they would have been fine. I'm not vilifying the crew, as I wasn't aboard, but I was an instructor on the 747 and I knew all of the crewmembers. I'm happy they're safe!
All that's missing in video are feathers shooting out from the back of the engine...
Poor birds 😅
Mistake in the video. At the end of the video, you mention twice runway 20. You stated at the beginning and showed runway 19. - the pilots should have continued the takeoff.
The queen has fallen 💔
Pilot standing outside the wrecked aircraft before equipment arrives lighting a cigarette with the plane behind him: "Brakes worked good, but not that good..."
Even a rookie would know to deploy the reverse thrust!
RIP 🙏
So did the birds survive? 🕊️
I would always choose for the longer runway if possible