I was friends with Andrew. He was a great pilot and was living out his dream. I tried to hire him once but he had just made a commitment to his employer and didn’t want to break it. That says a lot about his character! Atlas and these Tamarack’s are death traps. They have had other reported issues and it’s only a matter of time before another fatal accident happens. Not only are they installing this crap on the CJ series they are now in the process of going after the King Airs.
The 525 is a beautiful flying Citation Jet. Why anyone would buy this very expensive modification to gain very little handling/performance is beyond me.
@@bobwanmorgan9906 So , would you buy it despite the fact that the jet does not need it and several accidents involved jets "modified "with this after-market alteration ? Having flown the the family of Citation Jets and being type rated in this particular model, "high speed" is a relative term.
It seems a bit strange to have non-manufacturer control surfaces added to a plane that are independent of primary controls and basically not controllable by the pilot if I understand this correctly. Why would this ever be allowed?
Two words: fuel consumption. Yet, if Cessna does not add nor offer this gadgets, it's nonsense to add them to the plane. They don't even had a fuse to disconnect it!
Okay, the system acts independently but what triggers it? Can the pilot control the trigger? Also, he must have been able to counteract it somehow: he did start bringing it out of the roll. If he had enough room it looks like he possibly could have recovered the plane. 😥
The production value is impressive. But the "comprehend-ability" is getting worse. As a layman, non aviation expert, I found two thirds of this video completely meaningless. These videos are always full of jargon and technical terms, but I can usually follow them to some extent--I might even learn something. Increasingly I find I'm wasting my time trying to understand what's going on. Aviation professionals no doubt find them very rewarding, and while I've always found them interesting I've nearly reached the point of "Why bother?--this isn't for me." It's a shame.
Tamarack ~ "Look, guys, they're all dead and nothing's going to bring them back, but we've got a business to run here. Can we just say it was pilot error?"
@Steve Robinson oh no! Looks like someone had a bad day arguing with people on the internet! And i was never working for you (no shit i know) and I'm not taking orders from a stranger on the internet.
Of all the air crash investigation channels….this one is the best. Other channels do too much talking on their videos. This video gets straight to the video and the facts.
Hasn't there already been like 5-6 incidents with these devices- to include 2-3 fatal ones, and 2-3, where pilots were able to recover, but ONLY because they were already aware of what to look for, or, actually had some sim time with them?
Wow . . . Never heard of this one but that's pretty scary. A little (long) explanation for those not in the industry. When a manufacturer develops a new airplane, it undergoes quite a bit of testing and evaluation, and provided it passes, it is issued a Type Certificate from the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration. Later on, any other modifications to the aircraft's design can be similarly tested and evaluated, and a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) can be issued by the FAA. The FAA's oversight of the STC process has, at times, been less than adequate, and it sounds like (to me) this was probably the case here. As a further example of the FAA's lax oversight, years ago following an accident, it was discovered that of the nine Boeing 727 cargo conversion STCs then available, exactly NONE of them actually met the full requirements for certification, and they all resulted in a potentially unsafe condition of the hundreds of modified airliners then in service. The exact deficiencies varied from one modification STC to another, but none of them met the full FAA certification requirements. But the FAA had issued the STCs to each of the modification designs. (The Boeing-built freighter versions of the 727 were not included in this; THOSE airplanes DID meet the certification requirements.)
Dan Gryder has done an excellent review of this Tamarack system involving a fatal result of a clearly malfunctioning system. Tamarack, a modification from hell.
I just checked, it looks like the company Tamarack is still in business; at least their website is up. As per this video the malfunctioning of the TACS was due to misaligned or non contacting pins in the system's connector assemby due to poor maintenance or implementation. But since this incident and the subsequent 737 MAX automatic MCAS system problem that crashed two airliners killing hundreds of people years later, I don't like the idea of aircraft doing things on their own with automatic systems related to flight safety without the pilots knowing about it or having any control over it.
Louisville Courier Journal (Nov. 4, 2021): The NTSB noted in documents released this year and in its final report Wednesday that five prior incidents involving the ATLAS winglets had been reported to the FAA and European agency, but none "reported injuries or airframe damage." The European agency and FAA lifted the winglet directives in the summer of 2019 after Tamarack Aerospace Group announced it had found a fix to the system that improves reliability and safety. The fix included "centering strips" that "aerodynamically force" the TACS back to their correct position in the event of a system error, the NTSB said.
I can't believe there was no way for a pilot to be unable to override this system. Seems like a huge problem. A pilot should be able to disable any onboard system and manually override it. Shame.
Agreed. I really like Alec’s work and look forward to his output but I only have two criticisms. One which I have commented before is I don’t like the changing of the image separate to the changing of caption. The other is as you point out the seemingly verbatim copy of extracts from investigation reports without some element of summary interpretation for the viewer.
I did not know this pilot, but I live 25 miles to the northwest of this airport and have worked at that airport before. I will go on to say that I feel the same way about TACS as I do Fly-by-Wire controls. The pilot has no control over TACS, and I feel the same way about FBW. With that being said, I hope this man's widow cleans house with the manufacture of that winglet apparatus. I can't believe that they are still in business.
The 737 crashes you have have heard about lately were the result of a independent flight control system not known to be on the plane by most pilots who fly the 737
I have a feeling we are going to learn more about the 2nd 737 max crash. There is more going on there than the modified flight control system. Just a hunch...but keep your mind open.
Apparently what happened is there was some sort of damage to the TACS system causing it to get stuck, and not operate properly on one side. Tamarack apparently has since implemented failure reporting systems that will say when there is damage or an issue with the component.
Are Co-Pilots not required on these flights? An extra set of hands and eyes, plus experience in my opinion is a plus. Both can fly and troubleshoot and maybe come up with a workable solution.
This is another terrible tragedy where everything happened so fast. 3:20 gives no indication this was ever an aircraft. Other pieces were certainly elsewhere. I am surprised that with all the tech there was no flight recorder. RIP for the three.
This is why I don;t like computers flying the plane. Sure they work 98.9% of the time but there always that rare instances (such as with the 737 MAX) that they don't and the pilots are often doomed.
I am not a pilot but love crash investigations and that is how I found Alec and his videos. I am retired LE and did alot of crash investigations in my career and actually helped with a few small plane crashes but just minor ones, no one was injured very serious. But I have a question for any of the pilots. How many hours is considered experienced on that particular aircraft. I know in general 3500 hours is pretty experienced but that does not mean they have 3500 on that particular aircraft. Just curious what is considered like average, expert, etc. Thanks for any replies.
All that I have to say is to use the rudder instead of the yoke to recover from a sudden roll. Only good simulator time can teach you what you forgot in flight school.
Lack of control of the aircraft because of conflicting systems? Pilots should be able to disable and enable anything he wants. Common sense lacks considerable here!
@@AllecJoshuaIbay yes it does.. But Boeing never told the pilots what mcas was and how to shut it off indirectly. For all intents and purposes it was the same as this system. No off switch except MCAS was installed by the manufacturer.
Looks like the pilot was betrayed by an automation (not controllable by him!) designed supposedly to improve safety. The best is the ennemy of the good. When will they admit that the pilots are, among others, trained to fly their aircrafts? Any problem in any incident or accident leads systematically to the implementation of a new automatrion ... It's a mad world.
"Hi Mom! Look at this nice ailerons I found for the car in the supermarket! Oh, I have a million dollar idea! I will make this for airplanes!" Tamarack argument to NTSB: I don't like being blamed, reconsider.
Who certified this device? Is it usefull or even necessary? Go check Dan Grider`s "probable cause" video on this acident. He knows what he says. A perfectly capable and experienced pilot saying "I can`t control the aircraft"?
Alas I had to give up on the complex, post-crash subtitles - the terminology was way too technical and specific, to engage anyone not professionally involved in the aviation world! Getting into that much complexity and jargon is fine, if it is at least prefaced/followed by a summary in plain English, without all the specifications etc. I'm sure many non-aviators like myself would appreciate Allec Joshua Ibay's great content even more, if he could only write his scripts in simple, direct and non technical terms that the layman could understand.
Hey, Allec - the average viewer does not know the meaning of terms like "bell crank" "witness mark" "actuator" and more. Kinda like me telling you that the 3000 stone has resin not magnesium so you'd be better off with a fine diamond plate for HRC 67. If I throw in a couple of typos and some terrible grammar, it becomes more fun even to you.
No way can he ‘break down’ EVERY aspect or mechanical part to the AVERAGE NON-flier or non-aviation buff. Heck, a lot of people who view Allec’s channel regularly or are subs (I would surmise) AREN’T A & P’s or mechanics either. It would certainly add a serious amount of work to his vids plus extend them beyond reason. Not speaking FOR him but basically it’s an impractical suggestion..
Man when all that technical jargon starts I either fast forward or move on, nobody wants to read the instructions on how to build a nuclear reactor. 😂🤣.
Maybe it's the autopilot controls cause I have another theory maybe the autopilot was in error mode somehow or it's just glitch or maybe a malfunction on the autopilot and I think it was autopilot fault
yeah sure Goober...they picked up the 100,000 pieces of frame and 40,000 pieces of engine that hit the ground at 400 mph, and spread over 2 miles, and put it all together in one week.....and all the passengers got out of the hospital that week......
Well, of course Tamarack wants the NTSB to reconsider its findings. They've only succeeded in killing three people to date with a system that is outside the control of the pilot. Who the LetsGoBrandon thought there should be flight control surfaces that an aircraft's pilot cannot control in any way whatsoever?
Bonner County Daily Bee (November 9, 2021): SANDPOINT - The cause of a 2018 Cessna Citation plane crash in Clark County, Indiana, was likely caused by modifications to the aircraft by Sandpoint-based Tamarack Aerospace Group. Those findings were “strongly disputed” by Tamarack officials following the report’s release. According to a final accident report by the National Transportation Security Board, the cause of the fatal crash that killed three people was caused by the Active Technology Load Alleviation System. ATLAS is an after-market modification where an upturned metal extension is placed on the aircraft’s wing tips to assist in fuel mileage and reduce turbulence. “The main components of ATLAS consist of two wing extensions and two winglets with an ATLAS control unit,” NTSB officials said in the report. The malfunction came from the left Tamarack Active Camber Surface. The NTSB report alleges that the left TACS became inoperable shortly into the flight. It was stuck “trailing edge up” on the left wing side “for reasons that could not be determined.” Because ATLAS is an after-market modification, it is not built into the plane it’s attached to, and does not have any internal recording devices. This is not the only time ATLAS systems have experienced this particular issue. “The investigation found that five uncommanded roll incidents have been reported to either the European Union Aviation Safety Agency or the Federal Aviation Administration involving airplanes equipped with ATLAS,” the report said.
A system that is not connected to the aircraft's other systems, yeah, that's a very bad idea. ATLAS sounds a like piece of junk, smaller airlines should steer clear of installing after-market junk like that.
I hated this video! I am a retired airline pilot and current corporate pilot with 30,000 hours so I know the flying business. The First problem with your video is that it is WAY to detailed for the average reader, and even I was overwhelmed by the technical explanation of the failure. Second, you did not provide enough time between slides to read the WAY too long text explanation in excruciating detail of what went wrong. Did no one watch this video before posting it online?
The text was shown with more than enough time for a pilot to read and comprehend what was being said. Considering the rapid fire communications that are heard coming from ATC and the equally rapid responses typically heard coming from pilots, a guy like yourself with '30,000 hours' should have been able to read those text slides 3 damn times! Maybe it's time for you to relinquish your license before you react too slowly one day and get someone killed.
agreed that the tech explanation was a bit much, but it is what it is... Since you are the retired pilot, why don't you entertain us with how you would have explained what went wrong?
@@thedocnak I can explain it simply - Plane banked dangerously for unknown reason......pilot went "Whoah!" and lost control..... plane smashed into the ground at high speed..... peoples dead.... the end! Sorry, but I also thought the explanation of what possibly happened with the independent ATLAS system was incredibly confusing and overwhelming!!
Why would someone install this kind of thing in a perfectly flyable airplane goes beyond comprehenshion! I would definetly not like it,not trust it and ask the owner to remove it! and what? it function autonomosly? no way! If Cessna did not make it,dont spoiled it! To me that device reminds me of those clunky experiments of the 1950´s! Shame on all those involved with the existence of such stupid ,unnecessary devices!
I was friends with Andrew. He was a great pilot and was living out his dream. I tried to hire him once but he had just made a commitment to his employer and didn’t want to break it. That says a lot about his character!
Atlas and these Tamarack’s are death traps. They have had other reported issues and it’s only a matter of time before another fatal accident happens.
Not only are they installing this crap on the CJ series they are now in the process of going after the King Airs.
Sorry for your loss of a friend Chris.
The 525 is a beautiful flying Citation Jet. Why anyone would buy this very expensive modification to gain very little handling/performance is beyond me.
This is not for performance. This device reduces the risk of flutter at high speed, reduces wing resonance which could also reduce structural fatigue.
@@bobwanmorgan9906 so its a bad wing that needs to be modified
@@bobwanmorgan9906 So , would you buy it despite the fact that the jet does not need it and several accidents involved jets "modified "with this after-market alteration ? Having flown the the family of Citation Jets and being type rated in this particular model, "high speed" is a relative term.
I've seen it happen and and flown the aircraft as well ( not a Citation) . Trying to fix something that is not broken.
@@bobwanmorgan9906 better than cessna engineer ?
It seems a bit strange to have non-manufacturer control surfaces added to a plane that are independent of primary controls and basically not controllable by the pilot if I understand this correctly. Why would this ever be allowed?
Yes for sure! I hope that this type of setup is not allowed at this time
The answer is always GREED $$$
I really like this channel!☘️👍
Two words: fuel consumption.
Yet, if Cessna does not add nor offer this gadgets, it's nonsense to add them to the plane. They don't even had a fuse to disconnect it!
Okay, the system acts independently but what triggers it? Can the pilot control the trigger? Also, he must have been able to counteract it somehow: he did start bringing it out of the roll. If he had enough room it looks like he possibly could have recovered the plane. 😥
So which US Senators brother in law owns Tamarak Systems?
The production value in these videos just keeps getting better and better. Great work Allec!
The production value in these videos it keeps getting worse and worse
The production value is impressive. But the "comprehend-ability" is getting worse. As a layman, non aviation expert, I found two thirds of this video completely meaningless. These videos are always full of jargon and technical terms, but I can usually follow them to some extent--I might even learn something. Increasingly I find I'm wasting my time trying to understand what's going on. Aviation professionals no doubt find them very rewarding, and while I've always found them interesting I've nearly reached the point of "Why bother?--this isn't for me." It's a shame.
@@Capecodham I agree. That's a 680 Sovereign in the opening shot, and it shows up later too, but the accident aircraft is the 525 Excel.
@@jamesclendon4811 You nailed it.
Tamarack ~ "Look, guys, they're all dead and nothing's going to bring them back, but we've got a business to run here. Can we just say it was pilot error?"
@steverobinson1334 This was not the fault of the pilot. It was the unexpected roll induced by a defective TACS.
@Steve Robinson Your judgement is based on what, exactly?
@Steve Robinson What an intelligent response.
@Steve Robinson you'd probably get fired by the NTSB with your lack of intelligent responses.
@Steve Robinson oh no! Looks like someone had a bad day arguing with people on the internet! And i was never working for you (no shit i know) and I'm not taking orders from a stranger on the internet.
Of all the air crash investigation channels….this one is the best. Other channels do too much talking on their videos. This video gets straight to the video and the facts.
Hasn't there already been like 5-6 incidents with these devices- to include 2-3 fatal ones, and 2-3, where pilots were able to recover, but ONLY because they were already aware of what to look for, or, actually had some sim time with them?
Sounds about right. Dan Gryder has covered this issue.
Why would ANYONE install a *completely* autonomous control system without any form of pilot information, notification, or intervention?
@@lairdcummings9092 Totally agree. Don't really like the semi-demand to the NTSB, either.
@@rickrickard2788 indeed.
@@rickrickard2788 I’m sure Tamarak wants the NTSB to blame the pilot. 😡
Wow . . . Never heard of this one but that's pretty scary.
A little (long) explanation for those not in the industry. When a manufacturer develops a new airplane, it undergoes quite a bit of testing and evaluation, and provided it passes, it is issued a Type Certificate from the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration. Later on, any other modifications to the aircraft's design can be similarly tested and evaluated, and a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) can be issued by the FAA.
The FAA's oversight of the STC process has, at times, been less than adequate, and it sounds like (to me) this was probably the case here. As a further example of the FAA's lax oversight, years ago following an accident, it was discovered that of the nine Boeing 727 cargo conversion STCs then available, exactly NONE of them actually met the full requirements for certification, and they all resulted in a potentially unsafe condition of the hundreds of modified airliners then in service. The exact deficiencies varied from one modification STC to another, but none of them met the full FAA certification requirements. But the FAA had issued the STCs to each of the modification designs. (The Boeing-built freighter versions of the 727 were not included in this; THOSE airplanes DID meet the certification requirements.)
Thank you, appreciate the translation for civilians. This was what I gathered from the video, but I wasn't entirely sure.
This 3rd party control surface upgrade with a control system that's not managed by the pilot is just ludicrous
Dan Gryder has done an excellent review of this Tamarack system involving a fatal result of a clearly malfunctioning system.
Tamarack, a modification from hell.
"Fantastic machine, ATLAS. No off switch."
It's a brilliant design - no cockpit indicators of any kind.
A new variant of M-5? No thanks 😆
@@supaordie Nice reference
I just checked, it looks like the company Tamarack is still in business; at least their website is up. As per this video the malfunctioning of the TACS was due to misaligned or non contacting pins in the system's connector assemby due to poor maintenance or implementation. But since this incident and the subsequent 737 MAX automatic MCAS system problem that crashed two airliners killing hundreds of people years later, I don't like the idea of aircraft doing things on their own with automatic systems related to flight safety without the pilots knowing about it or having any control over it.
Louisville Courier Journal (Nov. 4, 2021): The NTSB noted in documents released this year and in its final report Wednesday that five prior incidents involving the ATLAS winglets had been reported to the FAA and European agency, but none "reported injuries or airframe damage."
The European agency and FAA lifted the winglet directives in the summer of 2019 after Tamarack Aerospace Group announced it had found a fix to the system that improves reliability and safety.
The fix included "centering strips" that "aerodynamically force" the TACS back to their correct position in the event of a system error, the NTSB said.
I can't believe there was no way for a pilot to be unable to override this system. Seems like a huge problem. A pilot should be able to disable any onboard system and manually override it. Shame.
Indeed and in agreement with many here. Independent control surfaces which the pilot cannot control? Who the heck approved this?
….uhhh ONE guess: “SOMEBODY” withIN the FAA..for starters.
@@m118lr , who wants to let a little thing like regulations get in the way of making money?!
@@mebeingU2 The F.A.A. does not make money by issuing STC's. Go troll elsewhere.
Things can go to crap very fast ,in the life of a Pilot
It's those high speeds and third dimension that make it difficult for the pilots to pull over and park in order to figure out what is going on.
The pilot went from a normal day in the office to knowing he's about to die in ~30 seconds
Which is why I would never think of being a pilot.
For me, there was WAY too much info on the position, etc. etc. etc. of the TACS. A summary would have been appreciated.
Yes! Really hard to assimilate all of those remarks. I finally gave up and just came down to read comments.
Agreed. I really like Alec’s work and look forward to his output but I only have two criticisms. One which I have commented before is I don’t like the changing of the image separate to the changing of caption. The other is as you point out the seemingly verbatim copy of extracts from investigation reports without some element of summary interpretation for the viewer.
He is trying to show how smart he is.
@@oliverclark8873 He is lazy
Utterly insane. Why would the plane even have this added to it.
I did not know this pilot, but I live 25 miles to the northwest of this airport and have worked at that airport before. I will go on to say that I feel the same way about TACS as I do Fly-by-Wire controls. The pilot has no control over TACS, and I feel the same way about FBW. With that being said, I hope this man's widow cleans house with the manufacture of that winglet apparatus. I can't believe that they are still in business.
Happy new year allec 🙂
Was a bit hard to comprehend all the different actions but in turn the music really hits home!!
FYI, the initial exterior shots of the airplane in the video are of a 680.
Agree with others. Why would anyone modify an aircraft with a control surface that can't be managed by the pilot.
I wish all commercial pilots trained for a time in gliders. It makes for fast reactions, situational awareness, and aviation skill.
not sure i understand the relevance
@@f3nd13y the instincts acquired in gliders can translate to better/faster reaction in powered flight emergencies.
Rubbish, for one we dont want all commercial pilots using rudder in turns like all glider pilots do
@@herobo123456 ah, so you're saying Glider trained pilots operate other craft wrong as a matter of course?
That's an utterly indefensible call, there.
Bonin, known from AF447, would disagree.
This TAC system is like flying Russian roulette, i would never board an aircraft with that system on board, why hasn't it been banned.
Crazy to put on system separate to aircraft and no way override it.
The 737 crashes you have have heard about lately were the result of a independent flight control system not known to be on the plane by most pilots who fly the 737
I have a feeling we are going to learn more about the 2nd 737 max crash. There is more going on there than the modified flight control system. Just a hunch...but keep your mind open.
Apparently what happened is there was some sort of damage to the TACS system causing it to get stuck, and not operate properly on one side. Tamarack apparently has since implemented failure reporting systems that will say when there is damage or an issue with the component.
Are Co-Pilots not required on these flights? An extra set of hands and eyes, plus experience in my opinion is a plus. Both can fly and troubleshoot and maybe come up with a workable solution.
My thoughts exactly. No way would I fly on anything with only one pilot. Especially a jet.
@@donnabaardsen5372 The Pilot was doing checklists when he should have had “ his eyes on the road “ I agree with you.
Alas it always comes down to money. Can charter a similar airplane for $500 less.. Let's go with that.
2 is better than one. But pretty sure this Citation is certified for 1 pilot.
The CJ2 (along with the rest of the Citation CJ family) is certified for single pilot operations.
Why are there no FDRs on all private jets ? Crash investigation needs all jets to have this at their disposal...
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Cost
This is another terrible tragedy where everything happened so fast. 3:20 gives no indication this was ever an aircraft. Other pieces were certainly elsewhere. I am surprised that with all the tech there was no flight recorder. RIP for the three.
ANYTHING uncommanded..is a BAD day in the air. Rest in Peace to all aboard..
This is why I don;t like computers flying the plane. Sure they work 98.9% of the time but there always that rare instances (such as with the 737 MAX) that they don't and the pilots are often doomed.
That's a 680 Sovereign in the opening shot, and it shows up later too, but the accident aircraft is the 525 Excel.
I am not a pilot but love crash investigations and that is how I found Alec and his videos. I am retired LE and did alot of crash investigations in my career and actually helped with a few small plane crashes but just minor ones, no one was injured very serious. But I have a question for any of the pilots. How many hours is considered experienced on that particular aircraft. I know in general 3500 hours is pretty experienced but that does not mean they have 3500 on that particular aircraft. Just curious what is considered like average, expert, etc. Thanks for any replies.
Thanks for this video! Can you do the Zagreb mid air collision as a request?
It's in the schedule :)
Your visuals are excellent. I subscribed after my first video.
All that I have to say is to use the rudder instead of the yoke to recover from a sudden roll. Only good simulator time can teach you what you forgot in flight school.
True. I saved my own bacon with the rudder one day- learned while gliding as a teenager.
Good content but white letters on a light background are hard to read. Thx for sharing the video.
Yes, that really is a problem.
I have no problems reading it in the slightest.. maybe check with your eye doctor
@steverobinson1334 No the lack of contrast and shadow edging makes the lettering almost impossible to read.
Dan Gryder whipes the floor with this idiotic tcas system that killed this pilot
See this episode on his channel “probable cause” dtsb
Lack of control of the aircraft because of conflicting systems? Pilots should be able to disable and enable anything he wants. Common sense lacks considerable here!
Is this similar to the MCAS issue on Boeing 737 max?
MCAS had an off switch if I'm not mistaken.
@@AllecJoshuaIbay oh. Thanks for the info.
Great question!
@@AllecJoshuaIbay yes it does.. But Boeing never told the pilots what mcas was and how to shut it off indirectly. For all intents and purposes it was the same as this system. No off switch except MCAS was installed by the manufacturer.
@@Bren39 is that Boeings job? Or does Boeing tell the airline and it is the airlines job to tell the pilots?
This is why FDU is needed
I have to say I don't believe I would ever attempt to fly a plane with after market parts that can so effect flight yet I have no control over them.
Been multiple incidents. Would never fly on an aircraft that had these installed.
The aircraft in the video is that of a Citation Sovereign 680 and is bigger and heavier that the Citation 525 which was the accident aircraft
Are these explanations just for pilots? Had no idea what any of it means. Something was broken, right?
Strange that the aircraft in the video is not a CJ 2 plus. Not a CJ at all.
Allec said he did that because sometimes some Aircraft are not available in his simulator.
Looks like the pilot was betrayed by an automation (not controllable by him!) designed supposedly to improve safety. The best is the ennemy of the good. When will they admit that the pilots are, among others, trained to fly their aircrafts? Any problem in any incident or accident leads systematically to the implementation of a new automatrion ... It's a mad world.
Wow,that ended quickly
Yes, and how terrifying for all onboard, especially the pilot.
Another excellent video
why?
@Steve Robinson I agree with you, poorly done video.
Please make the 2014 santos plane crash
Why does your animation show a mid-tail horizontal stabilizer?
A bit too much text in this otherwise interesting subject. Is there any developments in Tamaracks objections?
"Hi Mom! Look at this nice ailerons I found for the car in the supermarket!
Oh, I have a million dollar idea! I will make this for airplanes!"
Tamarack argument to NTSB: I don't like being blamed, reconsider.
Twisted pins in the TCU cannon plug?
Who certified this device? Is it usefull or even necessary? Go check Dan Grider`s "probable cause" video on this acident. He knows what he says. A perfectly capable and experienced pilot saying "I can`t control the aircraft"?
I don't know but suddenly I'm thinking about 777x folding wing mechanism, how if one of them folded mid flight...(?)
I'd NEVER fly in any plane, including a jet, with only one pilot.
Why no flight recorder?
3:32 understatement of the year with that picture
Why are you showing a Citation Sovereign 680 and calling it a CJ 525?
maybe closest aircraft to the accident aircraft that is available on the simulator?
So TACS are now outlawed?
I sure as hell hope so.
@@freddy4672 lol no still in operation
@@f3nd13y Nothing like payoffs to officials to keep dangerous items on the shelf!
none of this accounts for why no action was taken by the pilot to correct ...
Wasn’t this the crash that killed a family’s daughter and they uploaded a tribute video on it?
@Steve Robinson Felt like it. Sorry.
Alas I had to give up on the complex, post-crash subtitles - the terminology was way too technical and specific, to engage anyone not professionally involved in the aviation world!
Getting into that much complexity and jargon is fine, if it is at least prefaced/followed by a summary in plain English, without all the specifications etc.
I'm sure many non-aviators like myself would appreciate Allec Joshua Ibay's great content even more, if he could only write his scripts in simple, direct and non technical terms that the layman could understand.
Add on controls that the pilot is unaware of does sound like a bad idea
You should do Air India Flight 182
Well that’s a Citation 680 for a start so wrong aircraft type
Hey, Allec - the average viewer does not know the meaning of terms like "bell crank" "witness mark" "actuator" and more. Kinda like me telling you that the 3000 stone has resin not magnesium so you'd be better off with a fine diamond plate for HRC 67. If I throw in a couple of typos and some terrible grammar, it becomes more fun even to you.
No way can he ‘break down’ EVERY aspect or mechanical part to the AVERAGE NON-flier or non-aviation buff. Heck, a lot of people who view Allec’s channel regularly or are subs (I would surmise) AREN’T A & P’s or mechanics either. It would certainly add a serious amount of work to his vids plus extend them beyond reason. Not speaking FOR him but basically it’s an impractical suggestion..
funny, but seriously, im sure google could tell you what those things are... if you are that interested...
Dude, you need to show us with some graphics what this is.
Do Northwest Flight 710 !!
Another great video and explanation of the system. Thx
Thx? the production value in these videos just keeps getting worse
no co-pilot required for this aircraft?
@steverobinson1334 interesting
Purposefully enabling AC to crash without pilot input.
Mucho
No
Bueno
Allec why did you delete my comment? It had nothing to do with you. Me and andre are in a big situation here, and we need your help.
Fix: Don't install this crap on your aircraft.
Fitting aerodynamic controls that are not accessible to the pilot seems like a crappy idea to me. Sort of thing an accountant might come up with.
Couldn’t be troubled to use a C525 for the simulation instead of a C680 huh…
Sometimes aircraft are unavailable unfortunately.
"Whoah"... famous last words
These people will not recommend this company.
Man when all that technical jargon starts I either fast forward or move on, nobody wants to read the instructions on how to build a nuclear reactor. 😂🤣.
I spent over 25 years as a pilot and I have no idea what this video is talking about.
I agree....He could have just said it crashed and we dont know why----could have been a better 3 minute video! LOL
@@chadhaire1711 info is sometimes hard to possess.
Maybe it's the autopilot controls cause I have another theory maybe the autopilot was in error mode somehow or it's just glitch or maybe a malfunction on the autopilot and I think it was autopilot fault
Imagine being a passenger on that jet o.0
Was the aircraft repaired and returned to service?
yeah sure Goober...they picked up the 100,000 pieces of frame and 40,000 pieces of engine that hit the ground at 400 mph, and spread over 2 miles, and put it all together in one week.....and all the passengers got out of the hospital that week......
@@chadhaire1711 i suspected that was the case, but needed someone in the know to confirm it. Thanks
Well, of course Tamarack wants the NTSB to reconsider its findings. They've only succeeded in killing three people to date with a system that is outside the control of the pilot. Who the LetsGoBrandon thought there should be flight control surfaces that an aircraft's pilot cannot control in any way whatsoever?
I'm no real expert, I drove a plane a few x, on MSFS but I think this here, Something appears to have not worked properly
What a waste of fuel for 2 passengers. Rich people problems.
Bonner County Daily Bee (November 9, 2021): SANDPOINT - The cause of a 2018 Cessna Citation plane crash in Clark County, Indiana, was likely caused by modifications to the aircraft by Sandpoint-based Tamarack Aerospace Group.
Those findings were “strongly disputed” by Tamarack officials following the report’s release.
According to a final accident report by the National Transportation Security Board, the cause of the fatal crash that killed three people was caused by the Active Technology Load Alleviation System. ATLAS is an after-market modification where an upturned metal extension is placed on the aircraft’s wing tips to assist in fuel mileage and reduce turbulence.
“The main components of ATLAS consist of two wing extensions and two winglets with an ATLAS control unit,” NTSB officials said in the report.
The malfunction came from the left Tamarack Active Camber Surface. The NTSB report alleges that the left TACS became inoperable shortly into the flight. It was stuck “trailing edge up” on the left wing side “for reasons that could not be determined.”
Because ATLAS is an after-market modification, it is not built into the plane it’s attached to, and does not have any internal recording devices. This is not the only time ATLAS systems have experienced this particular issue.
“The investigation found that five uncommanded roll incidents have been reported to either the European Union Aviation Safety Agency or the Federal Aviation Administration involving airplanes equipped with ATLAS,” the report said.
Also, did the report indicate that the PIC didn't pull power back?
PIC?
Pilot-in-command.
Pilot-in-command
@@jimblasingame7528 What did you do with the time you saved not typing ilot n ommand?
Sorry for any confusion. That's a common acronym in aviation.
It's the same thing on all the newest jets. Too much automation.
Ummm, I would be pulling that TACS system off the jet asafp….
what turd is atlas & tacs
Great video
A system that is not connected to the aircraft's other systems, yeah, that's a very bad idea. ATLAS sounds a like piece of junk, smaller airlines should steer clear of installing after-market junk like that.
I hated this video! I am a retired airline pilot and current corporate pilot with 30,000 hours so I know the flying business. The First problem with your video is that it is WAY to detailed for the average reader, and even I was overwhelmed by the technical explanation of the failure. Second, you did not provide enough time between slides to read the WAY too long text explanation in excruciating detail of what went wrong. Did no one watch this video before posting it online?
The text was shown with more than enough time for a pilot to read and comprehend what was being said. Considering the rapid fire communications that are heard coming from ATC and the equally rapid responses typically heard coming from pilots, a guy like yourself with '30,000 hours' should have been able to read those text slides 3 damn times! Maybe it's time for you to relinquish your license before you react too slowly one day and get someone killed.
agreed that the tech explanation was a bit much, but it is what it is... Since you are the retired pilot, why don't you entertain us with how you would have explained what went wrong?
@@thedocnak I can explain it simply - Plane banked dangerously for unknown reason......pilot went "Whoah!" and lost control..... plane smashed into the ground at high speed..... peoples dead.... the end! Sorry, but I also thought the explanation of what possibly happened with the independent ATLAS system was incredibly confusing and overwhelming!!
@@2760ade well that kind of piss poor effort isn't good enough for my man Allec
I don't know about your platform, but on all the ones on which I watch TH-cam videos, I can pause the video if I need time to absorb something.
Thank you Allec !
Why would someone install this kind of thing in a perfectly flyable airplane goes beyond comprehenshion! I would definetly not like it,not trust it and ask the owner to remove it! and what? it function autonomosly? no way! If Cessna did not make it,dont spoiled it! To me that device reminds me of those clunky experiments of the 1950´s! Shame on all those involved with the existence of such stupid ,unnecessary devices!