Airbus A320 CRASHES during AIRSHOW! | Air France flight 296
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มิ.ย. 2024
- Get 68% off on the Two year deal with Nord VPN and a further month OFF using this code 👉🏻 www.nordvpn.org/pilot or use the coupon code “pilot”
On the 26th of June, 1988 a two day old Airbus A320 crashed in a spectacular way during an Airshow in Mulhouse-Habsheim airport outside of Basle, France.
Air France flight 296 was one of the first ever passenger flights with the new Airbus A320 and Air France had allowed it to take part in this air-show as part of a publicity day with the new aircraft.
During the fly-by at Habsheim airfield, the aircraft seemed unable to climb and ended up flying straight into the forrest on the far side of runway 34.
In this episode of "Air Accidents explained" I will dig deep into what happened on this day and why the aircraft seemed unable to follow the pilots commands.
Now! Come in to the Mentour Aviation app and discuss what You think about this! Download the app for FREE using the link below 👇
📲
📲 Mentour Pilot Discord invite 👉🏻 / discord
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward! 👇
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
I have also created an Amazon page with Aviation books, material and flight simulator stuff that I think you will enjoy!
👉🏻 www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
Follow my life on instagram and get awesome pictures from the cockpit!
📲 / mentour_pilot
Artwork in the studio 👉🏻 plakaty_lotnicz...
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode. Enjoy checking them out!
Final report: www.aviation-accidents.net/re...
A320 Photo: @Andrew Thomas
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
A320 Photo: @Airbus Industrie
www.britannica.com/technology...
A320 Photo: @British Airways
londonairtravel.com/2019/08/1...
A320 Photo: @National Air and Space Museum Archives
airandspace.si.edu/collection...
Crash Images: @B3A
www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash...
Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
02:04 - Chapter 1: Overview
05:32 - Chapter 2: Safety Systems
08:36 - Chapter 3: Flight Crew/Preparations
12:27 - Chapter 4: Pre-Flight Brief
17:27 - Chapter 5: AF296 Takes Flight
25:22 - Chapter 6: The Incident
27:42 - Chapter 7: Final Report
30:18 - Other Crash Episodes
30:37 - Nord VPN Exclusive Offer
31:32 - Full Crash Simulation
34:23 - Outro
Get 68% off on the Two year deal with Nord VPN and a further month OFF using this code 👉🏻 www.nordvpn.org/pilot or use the coupon code “pilot”
The A320, flew dozens of times on those to go from Ft. Lauderdale to LaGuardia in NY. Round trip many times. Always get the A320 with Delta. I'm gonna change airlines next time. Maybe I'll get to fly on the 737? I only got a 737 two times in my whole life. Both planes are similar. Both are perfect planes to fly north and south up the east coast of the U.S... Aprox. 1300 miles each way.
Passenger weight 130x170lb=22,100 lbs. He was expected go-around performance of an empty airplane with no passengers.
Wasn't Concorde the first airliner that had FBW ?
@Mentour Pilot would love to see inex adria 1308 investigation.
can you do a video about southwest 345?its an interesting case,where the front landing gear collapsed after touching down with it first.
commander took control over the first officer just 20 feets before touching down,if i remember right.She loose the job because of that.
The women that went back into the airplane to try to save that little girl is a HERO. May her heroic actions never be forgotten.
🫡
True. She probably wasn't even thinking about how carbon monoxide can KO an adult in seconds. She zeroed in on saving the child. RIP.
I cry every time I think about it because tho she might not have been able to save the little girl, I like to think that the child at least did not pass all alone feeling forgotten or unseen. even if just for a few seconds I hope they each were able to bring the other a sense of hope or comfort in that nightmarish scene
@@jalyntan3044 Shortly before the Warsaw uprising, Nazis rounded up a bunch of children and a retirement age teacher insisted on going with them. Nazis said he wasn't on the list, he replied he knew he wasn't and he knew perfectly well where the Nazis were taking them.
@@destroyerinazuma96 i like your pfp
"I have full confidence in the safety of the aircraft"
*proceeds to disconnect safety systems*
I have had that thought for years.
I remember seeing this on the news and after seeing the plane going into the trees I knew it was going down, kaboom
Thank you! My thoughts exactly. Not only did they disconnect some of the safety features, but they pushed the plane to the very limits of one they left on... which ultimately contributed to the crash. Imagine hot-dogging with a commercial airliner at 30 feet while your engines are at idle with an angle of attack on the very edge of a stall in a location you are unfamiliar with (that happens to be surrounded by tall trees)... while the plane is full of passengers! It's just unimaginable. It's a miracle ANYONE survived.
to me the primary cause of the crash seems to be disabling the radio altimeter and not having or watching any other instrument to tell them that they are far below 100 feet. those trees were nowhere near 100 feet tall and that was the safe predetermined altitude
@@tacokoneko Exactly this. They should have watched altitude and the moment they saw that they dipped below 100, they should have aborted, climbed and gone around for another try. That said, such a maneuver shouldn't have been allowed to be done with passengers on board either. So really both the pilots and whoever gave the ok on that plan are to blame.
I remembered the news report saying there were three fatalities and had at the time assumed it was the flight crew. I would never have thought passengers would be onboard during an airshow.
I immediately assumed there were because it was Air France. Death by arrogance is an Air France specialty.
Just like the Captain of 447. Super arrogant throughout the recording and then fails to identify a stall for 3 minutes while they fall from the sky. He finally gets it when it's too late but instead of insisting on nose down full power, they're only chance at life he says ok, pull, it's too late.
They could have gained some forward momentum and possibly done a somewhat survivable ditching. Any simulator wannabe homepilot can identify a stall ans recover. The aircraft will so it for you if you let go. Even without alpha floor protection. Eventually it rolls over and begins to dive rapidly regaining speed and the nose rises. But no, let's have a passive aggressive argument for 3 minutes while 220 aft are depending on their wits for survival. I don't fly Air France. I would rather die to a malfunction than in a fully intact and flyable liner with an arrogant French captain behind the yoke (relax I'm French, I can say this. It's true).
The entire world was surprised except the French. You read in the paper Air France crashes brand new super safe airliner full of people at air show while showing off.
The entire nation's reaction amounted to "that figures" or "sounds about right".
Did the Captain survive and leave passengers to die in the flames? Yes? Classic. I will fly Lionair or Garuda a thousand times before I ever set foot aboard a French liner again. It's always the arrogant super experienced old Captain whilw the FO is usually the only one who knows why they are all about to die and had been trying to say so for a while. 447 was different, the FO was incompetent but the Captain as well and the entire cockpit was scared of him you can hear it in the tone of voice. He is dismisse, impolite, aggressive, uncaring and... arrogant af.
It's absolutely unfathomable that this flight - basically a joy ride - was ever allowed to take place with passengers on board.
unbelievable
Exactly !
You’re right about passengers. The similar situation happened with a B-52 but only held the crew.
Same. It is inconceivable.
This!!!!!!!!
That whole scenario was crazy right from the start. “Maximum attack angle” at slow speed at 100 ft in an airliner full of passengers is nuts.
Yeah man I figured they'd just do a high flyover and maybe a barrel roll.
When you really think about it, comsidering the grass field, low altitude, trees, etc. this makes even that stunt seem tame--passengers or not.
Very close to the ground, aviation events happen quicker than one can think, and spooling-up idling engines is not going to save you. Yes, completely nuts ... beware the frogs consuming raw meat which place risk-inducing Toxoplasmosis cysts in the brain.
and he did it at 30! Total lunatic.
This is why, no one needs an airline pilot that is smart. Just need a routine bloke.
Airbus should have known better than to approve this risky flight plan, and it was especially insane to put passengers at risk.
I'm not an aviator, but even I recognize altitude is a major safety factor.
As a wheelchair user one of the scariest things for me about flying is the thought of being in a “survivable” plane crash but not being able to get out because I can’t walk. How awful for the two children and the woman who weren’t able to escape 😔
@MB
Bravo. My son was in rehab many years ago due to a severe brain injury (nothing to do with aviation). I've had my eyes opened. Ironically because he was a child and lost all memory of the accident, I was the one who suffered PTSD.
@MB thank you so much for posting that. I am so glad you found the courage and strength of spirit to come through that ordeal. We all need a reminder to stop and appreciate just how lucky we are to be alive and experiencing our gorgeous, troubled planet. Keep that good attitude my friend.
I think about that every time I fly
I would gladly attempt to pick/help you or any other wheelchair user up even if it ended in us both losing our lives if that ever happened…. Life is valuable and I personally couldn’t leave an aircraft knowing someone was there who can’t get themselves out 😫
I'd risk my life to help those that are not able to save their own. I worked in a trauma center for 20 years and saw so many lives changed and struggles many faced from disabilities. If it were MY children aor loved one in a wheelchair, I'd want someone there to do the same. Do unto others right? All it takes is one person to make that decision and soon thereafter, others step in to do the same. There's still good people everywhere you go, please know that 🙏
What a woman, to not leave this child alone in total fear,she decided to comfort her, that is unbelievably tragic but it makes me proud that there are still people that put there own lives at risk for children. Those poor humans.
That was from a time past unfortunately.
@@janet53589 not at all true
I agree, there are still people today who would do the same.
What about the other kid?
Comfort her? Like you think she sacrificed her life just so the child wouldn't feel bad while dying?
She obviously went to rescue her.
Let's all take a moment to reflect on the bravery of the woman who heard the little girl and gave her life to try and save her.
sorry but she gave her life and saved nobody.
IDK if that's bravery. Going into smoke like that is a 1 way mission. It puts you unconcious fairly quickly.
@@Julia-nl3gq i dont think she had the time to 'think things through' in the middle of escaping a burning plane...what else could she do? grab a gas mask, from where? wait for who, when the girl was already dying? just because its not succesful doesnt mean its not heroic. in one of the worst situations imaginable, she tried her best to save a child's life. let's not put her memory down.
12:00 - What astonishes me to this day is that at no point did anyone involved in Air France's planning of the exhibition flight, including the flight crew, bother asking Airbus themselves - and their test pilots in particular - what their own exhibition flight parameters were. As I recall, Airbus's standard procedure was to perform a low-speed flypast demonstrating alpha protection somewhere between 600ft and 1,000ft (depending upon conditions), then circle back and perform a high-speed flypast at a lower altitude. If Air France had presented their intention to combine the low-speed alpha demonstration with a low-altitude flypast to Airbus, the likelihood is that Airbus would have done everything in their power to persuade Air France not to go ahead - even Airbus's own test pilots wouldn't dream of cutting margins that close.
And that's without even touching on the fact they had passengers on board.
Absurd thing about this whole accident is that they had the aircraft configured for landing which would completely eliminate any possibility of a crash... except they didn't have anything to actually land on!
It beggars belief that someone would be so confident risking a $100 million aircraft and lives of 130+ people without having a clear freakin' runway underneath him if anything goes wrong (like it did).
I used to work with Air France and there is something widely recognized about corporate culture inside this company regards navigating crew's behavior and how they see themselves.
Much as I love the French people and France, their pilots do push the envelopes too much on occasion.
@@farcydebop7982 In other words, classic French arrogance.
Well the French do have a reputation for 'panache', especially with female crew in the cockpit 😬
It's weird how the woman who risked her own life and sadly perished with the girl isn't mentioned more when you look up this incident, she's a brave soul that knew life is too short and the little girl had not enjoyed half of it.
Yes I wondered about that too. She lost her life attempting to save the little girl. Bless her and the child. The woman should have received greater recognition for her sacrifice.
Could also be a bit apocryphal....
Survivor's guilt, all that....the two children it somewhat "made sense" weren't able to get away ... the one presumably able bodied adult who perished more easily "makes sense" to have not just been unlucky, but rather given a "reason" for having died while the 133 others dud not....
@@pullt Wtf are you talking about? It is normal reaction to help the weak as a human being.
@@goku445 How is what 1 person did more "normal" than what 133 did?
@@pullt Do you think the 133 persons in panic noticed the 2 persons stuck at the back of the plane? You wouldn't have tried to rescue them yourself if you noticed them?
This woman died trying to rescue a child and you're trying to find psychological explanations as to why she did that. You have serious issues.
Some more insights from this crash (a little long! ☺️), as I was partially “concerned” about it at that time:
At that time all commercial engines needed 8 seconds to go from Idle to Full thrust (standard at that time; economy).
I worked at SNECMA in R&D who produced the CFM56 (GE-SNECMA corporation) and was, at that time, working in a new Low Pressure Turbine (5 stages instead of 4, CFM56-5C) for the future versions of the CFM56 (now I am a Professional Pilot).
We thought, right after this accident was announced, that “our” engine was the reason of the crash. Then we realized that the time the pilot took to go from Idle to Full thrust was one of the main reason for the aircraft accident, because the computer calculated it couldn’t give the thrust it needed to accelerate (more speed to climb without stalling the aircraft). So, the computer “decided” to descend to give the speed it needed to then climb (the computer doesn’t integrate where the plane is in relation to the ground or obstacles).
Increase in thrust (through the throttles) in an Airbus should be considered increase in speed (especially in relation to the Power Curve), not just increase in power. We calculated that the pilot should have increase power from Idle to Full (at least 60%) before turning toward the “runway”. If you are on Idle and increase the power to Full on the engines WHILE being at or very near to Stall Speed, the computer will make the aircraft pitch down (even if you pull up on the joystick) to increase the speed to avoid the aircraft to stall until enough speed is enough to level off and then climb. I understand that some pilots will say that’s not safe, but in fact, it’s way much better than to stall the aircraft by pulling on the joystick without the power needed to accelerate and then climb (the Power Curve is of main importance in this low speed conditions). That ultimate computer safety actually saved most of the passengers and its crew. A test in a simulator proved that without that computer safety, the plane would have stall and the crash would have been fatal for all.
Also, right after that accident, all modern engines were programmed to go from Idle to Full thrust in 6 seconds (now 5 seconds), instead of 8 seconds. It doesn’t seem a lot, but in that case the accident may not have happened, because the aircraft wouldn’t have go down as much as it did, giving more margins in altitude to be finally able to climb.
This “show” was the worst flight “demonstration” ever done. No serious preparation and having passengers on board, including handicapped people (for a good cause). All these passengers have been “lucky” to fly in an airplane which, in a way, saved their lives, no thanks to the pilots and Air France which authorized this ridiculous “show”; tragic for those who died. The Captain was also known to be a “know-it-all” and a show-off; no excuses for him!
Real air show pilots are always doing rehearsals before performing and always timed their manœuvres, including altitudes and positions relative to the ground, speed and power needed to accomplish them safely, with the weather (cloud ceiling) and the terrain/limitations in mind. .. and, most of all, knowing the limits and characteristics of the airplane they fly.
Again, those pilots were just “amateurs”, not air shows’ pilots. It shouldn’t have been authorized in the first place; shame to Air France managers of that time.
Showing off in aviation is not for “amateurs”!
Hello, thank you for your comment.
If I may ask you something. I am beginning to love airplanes as much as I love cars, maybe more.
With a cars turbo charger sometimes a smaller turbo is installed to give power until the main turbo kicks in. Is there a jet engine with something like that?
What are your thoughts. Thank you for the information and your kind reply. 😊
@@kg-Whatthehelliseventhat there is indeed somthing similar with the big fan engines though not with the way you mentioned in turbo charging in series. Because of the huge size of modern jet engines and the need to reduce the time from idle to t/o thrust, manufacturers have resorted to multi-spool design. Its like having a small engine within a larger one. The smaller engine(N1) is able to spool up quickly generating thrust which the bigger engine(N2) uses to spool itself up for the final thrust. These are commonly known as twin-spool jet engines. You can research more about multi spool engines on the internet. Rolls Royce makes an even more unique triple-spool model. Cheers🙂
Thanks for the detailed explanation! This is very valuable information, and really adds a lot of context to the story.
@@kg-Whatthehelliseventhat They had been projects in the 80’s (and maybe some still at present time in few secret laboratories 😉) of hypersonic-supersonic-subsonic hybrid capable engines. One of many project I knew was an engine with a turbojet engine (not to be mistaken with a turbofan engine which equips all modern airliners for efficiency) coupled with a surrounding ramjet. The turbojet part of the engine was planned to be used for the subsonic and supersonic part of the flight, while the ramjet would progressively take over while in supersonic, to finally be the main propulsion system to be used in hypersonic, becoming a rocket engine when its front/inlet was totally closed. Of course that was just a project (or concept) that was very complex and would have been too expensive to realize and operate (consumption) at that time with very limited application in the world of commercial airplanes (and even military airplanes) and the thermodynamic problems that the structure of an hypersonic airplane would imply. The project was therefore shut down for realistic reasons (mainly financial). Maybe it will resurface since progress has been made in materials used in aviation, but I think its high fuel consumption will be a deterrent to any users, and would fiercely be opposed due to its effects on the atmosphere, especially since an airplane equipped with such an engine was planned to be flown in the stratosphere, instead of the troposphere like most aircraft. That could have an impact on the ozone protecting our planet from the sun radiation. So, I don’t think this type of engine could resurfaced anytime soon… it was scientifically exciting, but not so much for the environment and fuel economy! ☺️
It's actually remarkable how many people survived this. I remember seeing it on the news that evening and seeing the huge fireball I was thinking there wouldn't be many survivors.
But why did the children die? Who were the adults responsible for them that just left them to die? The handicapped child might have been too problematic to evacuate on time but the little girl could have just had her parent undo the seatbelt but apparently her parents ran out of the plane leaving her behind.
EDIT: Apparently the girl was 7 and travelling on her own for some reason and was trapped by her seat collapsing on to her and the boy had been impaled by debris.
@@David-ud9ju That really sucks !!
Indeed, even when starting to watch this video and hearing the basics of the crash I was really suprised :o
@@David-ud9ju The adults responsible for them were incapacitated. The one adult death was a stranger trying to help one of the children. The autopilot computer saved the other 250.
@@David-ud9ju which may explain why the woman died as she was unable to get the girl out
My heart goes with those who passed away, Still considering the gravity of crash it is relieving to know that 133 occupants survived...
So you are living without a heart now?
@@mushenji - Ooh, you so mean an' nasty... ;-)
It certainly was a testament to the safety of the A320, although the relative low speed of the impact also helped I imagine and Airbus would have prefered not to see the safety tested so soon.
@@mushenji 😂
Only one woman gave those two children a single thought??? Shame on those were seated closest to them and did nothing. Whether you are trained in rescue or not human instinct to protect children should be overriding all else.
Who the heck leaves children behind... That woman is a hero and her name should be remembered.
May their three beautiful souls rest in peace.
To be fair, the children shouldn't of been on board a flight like this, let alone a disabled child, RIP to the woman who went back in and hopefully the parents of the children got in trouble for allowing it.
@@tomdonis4315 I think their parents have suffered enough.
@@tomdonis4315 what are you talking about...
Why wouldn't kids go on an amazing experience like this, they and everybody else would think it's just as safe as any other flight.
they weren't left on purpose. the little girl was with her older brother and her seat got pinned against another while he was swept away by the crowd. the survivors suffer too. we should not forget how horrific it must've been to be dragged away from his little sister... all of it is incredibly tragic.
@@tomdonis4315 why ?? they clearly were not warned it was unsafe in any way, why would they get in trouble rather than air france who offered those seats as prizes. you think if they knew the pilots wanted to disable the safety systems for fun anyone in their right mind wouldve boarded that plane ??
The radio altimeter tells them 15 seconds before the go around that they're well below 100ft. They never attempt to climb back up until too late.
That's honestly the part that baffles me the most. A lot of questionable decisions were made, but most of them in a "controlled" setting, so to some degree understandable. But AT LEAST the moment things stopped going according to plan they shouldn't have continued. Insane.
I kept thinking "They didn't take a load of passengers for the fly-by, did they?" That alone seemed like a BAD idea.
Not just a bad idea - it's crazy. It's an activity outside of regulations!
My thoughts were exactly like yours, so when he said that there was another flight before that one, I assumed all passengers were taken off, and thought "why am I getting these crazy ideas, of course they wouldn't involve people in a stunt!"
Have you seen those videos from the robocop movie where everyone asks why OCP gave their prototypes live ammo? And we laugh at it because we know it'd probably not happen in the real world ?? Well ....
Before the crash, some VP of Publicity was guy getting praised for his "bold vision" and "thinking outside the box".
@@kcgunesq I think he wished he woulda stayed in the box. Sometimes there are reasons for the box.
@@FireStorm81318 if I recall correctly, at the time, at least in Europe, it was not against the regulations until AFTER this incident.
The woman who went back for the kids is a hero, even though neither of them made it out alive.
Absolutely!
I can't believe that they were left behind. It's so sad😥
@Alicia Sad? Sad??? There they were, all those adults, piling out of the cabin as it filled with smoke... and all, ALL, except one chose to pay no attention to two small children who were struggling or unable to move. The adults who saw those children were SHITS. Bravo les Français!
Indeed. That is the definition of honour.
The sad reality is that most heros never make it out.
I recall when I was a propulsion engineer looking after this CFM56 engine in 1989, there was a problem concerning engine spooling up from idle. It was inconsistent and it became procedure at takeoff to get both engines to about 45% N1 before going to takeoff power. There was also a problem during air tests to meet the CAA 8 second rule from idle to max for the CFM engine.
Inconsistent is worse than sluggish. It sounds like unreliable.
However, it doesn't appear to have been a factor in this crash. The engines responded normally, it was just that power was applied too late.
I can imagine that the captain would have felt they weren't responding. Those seconds would have felt like eternity.
its a characteristic of all Gas Turbine engines & 5 seconds is actually pretty good. On Aircraft Carriers the kites touch down on 100% thrust
I don’t think that would’ve played a factor here since the engines were at flight idle (~35% N1) not ground idle. Spooling up to TOGA thrust shouldn’t be an issue.
@robertgiudice5257 35% is about self sustaining,,, ground idle typically 45, flight idle 70+ %
He's the kind of a pilot I fear. Why do they have to show off? And only a 6 month sentence!
Yes, i feel the same way !
this is France, stealing a car gives you a week sentence, killing your wife 10 years. Max sentence is 30 years for mass murders, but you are illegible for parole after 18 years.
caused the death of 3 innocent individuals and than blamed the aircraft for what was his doing 10 months is a long way from appropriate
@@billyburroo It's what many still believe. I lived nearby so this was big news and all the documentaries etc... just parrot the captain's view and the second half is about the danger of automation etc... much of the public believes the captain and see's him as a hero for "saving" almost everyone. Which is an interesting way of saying "he killed three people, two children and a much braver person than himself."
He should have been the one to go back in.
I was nearly on that flight. As it was, I was stuck in a traffic jam and missed it. I was annoyed at the time, but I regard it as fortunate now.
Wow
Did you buy a lottery ticket?
This seems fake
@@LShaver947 yeah it kinda does im not sure but it seems so
lier
When the captain said: "Yeah, yeah. Don't worry" I could literally feel the overconfidence that made this accident happen.
"Computer bugs happen"
"Yeah"
"Programmers can't possibly cover all existing scenarios, Especially in a complicated system like that"
"Makes sense to me"
"So this totally-new system can't be trusted for a stunt with 140 lives involved for no reason"
"Don't worry, nothing can go wrong."
@chris jones It's not just ships. Read up on the Iroquois fire in Chicago.
The playbill read "Absolutely Fireproof."
But that didn't apply to the stage things, nor the crowd.
Biggest fire in US, killed 602.
@@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823 was that the one with the asbestos curtain that got stuck on the way down?
Totally agree - at that moment, we have insight into why they were at 30" not the planned 100" ... he was never really planning to stay as high as 100 eh...
Overconfidence? I don't think so. If the airshow was happening on the asphalt runway as planned - nothing would happen.
Air France screwed it up. The people organizing the show screwed it up. The pilot was put in a position when huge changes became known to him in the last second and he didn't have enough time to fully think about the situation.
So I discovered your channel by chance yesterday and have been binge watching your videos non stop, the way you present and explain individual incidents is second too none! I don’t watch this sort of thing for any ghoulish reasons, more for the explanation of how these disasters can occur in the first place. Your added input as a professional pilot is invaluable when putting scenarios into layman’s terms, I can only imagine what is involved in the editing and inclusion of the graphics you provide….let alone the time involved in the research of individual incidents. Seriously well done Sir, I don’t fly often but I would feel a lot safer with your good self in the Captain’s chair! All the best and thank you for your efforts, I’m subscribed as of now.
Nobody seems to mention the fact that all the Air France cabin crew saved themselves, leaving three passengers including two small children, on of them disabled, behind. Compare this with the BOAC stewardess Jane Harrison who in 1968 had the chance to escape but turned around and went back to save her passengers, dying in the process. A shabby day for Air France.
So plan A (when people had the luxury of time in the office to discuss it over coffee) was to disable a safety limit, ride the next safety limit, ignore aircraft terrain warning announcements... at 100ft and idle power on an unsurveyed flight path through a forest in a new/novel airplane with PAX onboard. The negligence involved deserved a lot more gaol time.
Look at this fancy new aircraft we just got, it has all the best safety systems!
Okay let's disable all of those on our first passenger flight and do super dangerous maneuvers!
Air France executives get up and clap while congratulating each other.
I have infinite respect for the woman who tried too save the children.
My heart goes out to the families. The woman's family should be very proud of her. Very sad 😔
She was a true hero.
She was definitely a hero, but I can't imagine how much trauma the parents of those children went through following the event by blaming themselves for not saving them...
@@stepheneyles2198 but who the hell would leave their children behind? That’s the saddest part for me
@@shannoncrossland9710 They were both unaccompanied by adults. The 7 year old girl was flying on the plane with her brother, who did try to free her, but he was carried away by the crowd as they panicked and pressed to escape the aircraft.
She likely could not have lived with her conscience if she ignored the helpless child. I wonder how many people actually ran out on that child before she attempted to save the girl child and had more time to save her. Anyone else that ignored a helpless child should be ashamed of themselves. Out of numerous passengers onboard do not tell me she is the only one that saw the child.
One of the things why I admire you MP is that you put a simulated version of the actual event, instead of showing the real video footage, I truly respect that, it shows your character and the respect to those fatalities on board that day.
Prefer not to be censored.
It’s crazy watching interviews with the pilot and how confident he was that it wasn’t his fault. It’s mind blowing how some people refuse to admit they screwed up
Seriously. I had some sympathy for him despite his obvious mistakes but the refusal to acknowledge his poor decisions… he should have been given a longer sentence, what a POS.
@@krotchlickmeugh627 Pilots are responsible for what happens to the souls on board their aircraft, your assertion that it's completely natural for pilots to refuse to take responsibility is completely false, your comment says far more about how you would respond to involuntary manslaughter than it does anyone else in this discussion.
@@krotchlickmeugh627 the reason his attitude is pathetic is because the criminal conviction says all of that about him. Not being willing to admit mistake in light of the fact that it has been decided by his peers that he did, in fact, screw up. His inability to openly accept that suggests he is of such poor character that he never should have been trusted with other people's lives to begin with.
It's not mind blowing, it's great psychological protection
Look at Boing or for those die hards who never get enough thrill, go on a flight with a 737MAX. If you survive you have a story to tell.
Why is this POS allowed in european airspace. It needs to be banned.
What's even more saddening to hear after all of this is that the captain was still arrogant enough to blame the engines for not spooling up fast enough. Surely, people like that should be kept well away from any cockpit.
What a courageous woman she was! Putting her life behind trying to save one girl, it is simply heroic! RIP to all three passengers
Couldn't agree more Alex.
many blessings to her! ... and those 2 kids 🙏❤️🙏
What about this girl's parents? Surely she wasn't flying alone. Where were they?
@@djmips The fact that the passenger won the tickets makes it possible for the girl to be alone... Either that or she was a (cabin) crew's daughter and so it was impossible for them to reach her :) In all cases, we don't know so I think we cannot draw conclusions about their actions.
@@djmips seriously. Even tho @Alex makes a decent point, nothing could stop me from trying to reach my little girl. 100% I'd trade my life for hers no matter what.
I have often seen videos of the accident here and there on the internet and assumed(due to the explosion) that everyone died. Thank you for this video which has cleared this in my head. Amazing that so many survived. My heart goes out to those that died, but to that woman who seen that little girl and went to help at the cost of her own life......what a brave person she was, just selfless!
Imagine how it would be for her if she had not tried. It would be extremely hard to live with that.
Absolutely, a selfless act.
@@flagmichael For you or me yes, but sadly, don't forget there is a plenty careless people in the world.
@@matejjjjjjjjjjjjjjj "For you or me yes, but sadly, don't forget there is a plenty careless people in the world."
Well, I can't really blame people with kids of their own to at least potentially not leaving their children without parents.
@@nt78stonewobble it's perfectly normal, that sometimes children have to travel without their parents.
How incredible that after the accident the pilot blamed the plane instead of accepting responsibility for his actions. He was reckless beyond belief and the 6-month prison sentence was way too short. I'm sure the passengers were not aware that their captain was going to disable the safety systems designed to keep them all alive. If a pilot had ever told me pre-flight that he/she was planning such tomfoolery in a commercial plane, I would never get on board.
Ikr, it's far below the minimum sentence (3 years and a large fine) for negligence causing personal injury--let alone manslaughter!!
Source: legifrance article 222-19
Proof enough for me that his arrogance was the single greatest contributing factor. If you can absurdly cling to your ego after the event, we know the state of it before.
He never flew again, obviously, and lost his pension. A human factor accident is always the flight crew's fault - the flight crew are responsible for their actions, either intentional or not...
@@MrBrukmann Great point regarding ego. He was never humbled.
Sorry. No. Lots of people signed off on what was a planned and botched (oops not that runway) maneuver. He was the scapegoat. Thrown under the Airbus. Where are the prison sentences for those that authorized passengers on that flight?
Air shows create an environment that encourages manoeuvres meant to thrill spectators at the same time as appealing to the pilots more hubristic side. Safety sometimes drops from a primary consideration which as an infrequent flyer i would hope would never be overtaken by other concerns.
The woman gave her life trying to save a stranger. Selfless and heroic.
Certainly not the first aircraft to go down during a show due to foolishness. How many loose their wings in hard maneuvers? Even the Soviet Union managed that with their shiny new "Konkordsky".
And collisions too. They fly these spectacular formation flights where one nudge of the stick in the wrong direction creates a fireball that plummets into spectators.
Not sure how any of those adults and fled the plane could leave kids behind. That woman who tried is a hero.
I could. My own safety would be my first priority. 😊
This is a really good example of "never point your aeroplane anywhere that your mind hasn't been 5 minutes before", by the time they caught sight of the field, they were rushing and never caught up to where they were supposed to be to conduct the event safely
Lack of situational awareness, behind the power curve and the aircraft. Recipe for disaster. You are correct.
Yeah, they should just made a go around for a proper low flight aproach. The problem with these accidents is alway that they are a chain of many things that have to go wrong.
They also broke all their minimums - altitude and speed, hard to understrand what they were thinking.
Nowadays, a simple check on Google map/earth visual check or playing with MS Flight Simulator could have save these 3 lives !
But anyway, I agree with other comments that guests passengers for such a demo flight was a very bad idea :-/
Even now , 30 years later, I can't forget the pictures on TV sowing the forest in fire when I'm boarding an A320 ... guide bad long term advertisement !
When pilots become VERY EXPERIENCED they tend to become overconfident, cocky, adopt a laissez faire attitude and become less thorough. And that's when they cause accidents.
Extreme and profound respect for the woman who went back after the two children. _/\_
I never imagined there were so many survivors. To me it just seemed like a non-survivable accident (although I’d always thought - wrongly - that the pilots had actually stalled the plane over the trees, which would’ve been a much worse situation).
So here’s a senior Air France Captain that doesn’t understand the dangers associated with a high alpha pass,, (one of the most dangerous maneuvers in show flying), slow, flying below briefed minimums , at a venue he has not reconned or attended a boss briefing for, flying a demonstration with passengers on board! What could possibly go wrong?
This is a good proof that experience does not count as competence. The captain is clearly an incompetent pilot. Denying his own fault makes him a despicable human being as well.
Absolutely ridiculous how they approved this to be done.
When I heard the plane was full of passengers I almost spit out my drink. wtf?
@@justinwbohner Also, the captain did not understand that the engines needed five seconds to spool up from idle, which is where he had them at on the pass.
@@timstich1052 Yeah, years of experience as a pilot.... on other aircraft. Had never even tried this stunt before. He messed up. The craft was destroyed, a large area of forest torched, and 3 deaths. this is what you get when you THINK you know what you're doing, but you're wrong.
I love how the aviation industry learns from every accident to avoid the next. That's why I'm always comfortable flying. Thank you for this video.
Yep, that’s one of many ways we learn.
Anyone who doesn’t know his history is condemned to repeat it.
Mentour Pilot An aviation docu from the past says that we will have a crash a week if we only learn after accidents. So i guess we have other ways these days. I assume computers really help these days with simulations. Big accidents seem quite rare still, despite the many flights.
@@deadpoetoftheyear the magic is 'flight simulators'. I worked for a company which had a Fokker 27 Friendship simulator, and the first Fokker 50 sim (and some more). The sims - in the '80s - were already pretty sophisticated machines, I wouldn't even know how much development has happend since then, for sure the visual systems have vastly improved, and so computing power. The oldest one ran on a machine with either 1/2 or 1MB of RAM. Simulation task ran at 20Hz in less than 400Kb. Your modern phone has more computing power and memory.
Only if it doesn't cost too much money. For example, they could be using less flammable fuel but they don't.
Our professor for flight control systems told us at the beginning of the course: "every single rule and regulation in the aviation industry is written on gravestones"
Found your channel about a week or so ago and have been hooked on it since! Your videos are excellently put together, better than anything in the same genre produced for TV. Thank you and the team for the content.
I like these series a lot. You´re doing great.
Often, Air crash series are over dramatized, or repetetive. You share a lot of in dept info, get to the point, and you´re describing everything with such accuracy that I don´t even have to watch: I can just listen, which is great when having insomnia and don´t like to watch a bright screen at night :)
He does well enough describing that I too don't need to look at the screen. For example a cockpit has so much instrumentation it's impossible to memorize it ALL. So approach it like a car. WHERE the tachometer is located, is less important than just knowing what and how a tachometer works.
To me, it is completely unacceptable to do "aerobatic" maneuvers with a load of passengers. By aerobatic, I am referring to any maneuvers that are close to maximum limits especially in close proximity to terrain. Unbelievably stupid!
that's what decades of safety first culture do to you...
@@michalsoukup1021 what, is that a bad thing?
Also very stupid: removing automatic safety measures from the plane before trying this.
@@TesterAnimal1 No, meant to point at how plenty things that seem obvious to us, may not have been so obvious until someone got killed because of it
@@michalsoukup1021 If it HAD been 'safety first' this wouldn't have happened. But they intentionally TURNED OFF safety features such as the alpha floor protection. Every system in that plane, that was designed to prevent something like that, got overridden by the PIC. The only way he could have made it worse would have been putting the plan in alternate law. The captain, to this day, blames the plane for the crash. He insists that the engines didn't react (they did) and also insists that, if the plane would just have accepted his pitch up input command he would have been able to avoid the crash. Every simulation showed that this is wrong, the plane would have indeed gained more height momentarily, but it would have stalled very shortly after, and then it wouldn't have glided down into the forrest as it did, it would have literally fallen out of the sky and plonked down from higher up. Estimates are that this would have been way more lethal.
He also claims that he is the victim of a conspiracy, that Airbus knew something didn't work as intended and that they tried to sweep it under the rug by pinning the fault on him. However, Radar, CVR and FDR proved otherwise.
And while it was mentioned I don't think it got stressed enough: The preparation for that flight was ... sub par, to say it nicely. You realy can't blame EVERYTHING on the pilots, Air France management thought it was a good publicity stunt, the organizer of the airshow was elated to be able to show off the newest plane, and everyone threw out any form of concern. Everyone was convinced that the plane was so secure that nothing could happen. And if it had been operated normally it was. But they wanted to show off, and the results are ... well.
So ... yeah.
UNBELIEVABLE what this flight crew (Captain especially) did. With passengers on board. Unbelievable.
What he did was planned by the airline and was considered safe.
And it WOULD be safe if not for the fact that some fucker changed the runway without telling the pilots and reassessing the risks involved.
@@ripLunarBirdCLH And as it turned out, the "fucker" who changed the plan on the fly was the captain and not some guy on the ground. No need to change the planned route in favor of a risky maneuver just because the spectators on the ground are some hundred meters away.
@@tychobra1 typical french arrogance. a$$$$eholine couldn’t even act with some professionalism at the result of the enquiry, let alone regret for the lives he ended and ruined.
The nature of the job is that it tends to attract daredevil, risk taking types--trans-Atlantic 'surfers', extremist climbers etc.-- who maybe have more than a bit less fear than the norm and who must master instincts somewhat at odds with conventional caution.
french arrogancy to its best ! arrgh !
I've been binging your content for the past few days after discovering this amazing channel, and while there are many incredibly sad stories with huge loss of life, this one hit especially hard. Those poor kids.
The lack of preparation of the aircrew is a huge issue I would imagine as a show pilot. I'd imagine those guys always scout a location, then make show plans after seeing the surrounding area. To do such a low fly by on a huge plane with last second knowledge of the airfield is crazy.
One thing that seems strange in this accident is that the pilots didn’t seem to leave themselves any margin for error. To be at alpha prot at or even below the minimum acceptable altitude with a dirty configuration, what’s between you and a single mistake or unlucky event? They were both very experienced pilots and I’m surprised they were comfortable riding so close to the edge even if nothing went wrong
Experience often comes with complacency, unfortunately.
Which is why 6 months in prison. No room for error, with passengers on board. Not enough preparation. I don't know if 6 months is the right sentence, but definitely needed some kind of punishment.
It's probably their experience that made them feel comfortable with this. Had they respected the floor level they set for themselves, they would have had some margin. But dropping to 30ft and not keeping the thrust up took that away.
@@Hans-gb4mv Even then, they should have lined up for the planned runway long before having the airport in sight at that altitude. What is so hard in picking a landmark a few kilometers away at the right angle and flying over that.
@@Hans-gb4mv Yeah, it seems they weren't aware of the trees (or at least the height of the trees) ahead. It is incredible that they thought they could instantly power out of trouble from idle (especially with the souls on board making more weight) and that the flight plan changed based upon the last moment change to a shorter grass runway.
I was live there with my best friend and saw every second of this accident....very sad...for 20 seconds no one said a word and then most people began to cry...I had very often nightmares and still the pictures in front of me today!
You (and everybody there) must have assumed from the fireball that there were no survivors. What a trauma for everybody present!
@@flagmichael Exactly. I remember seeing this on the TV news when the story broke thinking everyone perished. I must have missed the part of survivors. Not sure how I missed rest of story as I was a regular reader of Aviation Week. I always had the impression there was complete loss of life.
@@flagmichael you're right....remember, this was the time of TopGun...everybody of my friends wanted to become a pilot, so did I...
after a couple of years later, I was invited to my first visit to the u.s.a. We were transported to the big apple with a brandnew md-11.....HB-IWF. I made the maiden flight and smelt the odor of a brandnew plane the first time ;)
This flight was formerly known as SR-111.
You all know what happened with SR-111 on 9/11/98...
@@wrightmf The bigger the tragedy, the more ads sell and the more papers and magazine sales.
A truly masterpiece in explaining in a very clear and concise way this tragic accident. Congratulations Mentour Pilot !
According to their (brief) briefing, the co-pilot was meant to add thrust (60%) during the maneuver. This to me seemed to be a contributing factor, as well as the pilot ignoring the altitude called out by the co-pilot.
The woman who went back to rescue the little girl, what a hero she was. Being in such toxic smoke does overcome one very quickly. I had a house situation whereby I was rescuing a neighbour, and I was able to keep going out to the hallway for some air. I am so surprised that most got out of that aircraft or what was left of it.
"5 seconds is a long time" - especially at 30 feet altitude.
It seems as though Airbus built an impressively sturdy plane. In the Miracle on the Hudson and this accident, both times the aircraft managed to stay intact.
Indeed. I was surprised that the fuselage stayed relatively intact whilst plowing through a forest. Though, I think the very low speeds played a big part.
Don’t forget the A32x airframe survived intact during the crash landings of Ural 178, Turkish 1878, Air Canada 624, and Windjet 243(only A319 hull loss in its 25 year history, survived CFIT intact, nobody badly hurt). Plus that Syrian Air A320 landed despite half the tail sheared off in a collision.
That was a huge blessing the cabin was not broken up, they were lucky to have kind of skimmed into that forest.
From reporting at the time, I assumed the cause of the crash was a conflict with the fly-by-wire system. It is interesting to discover that it was the normal inertia of the engines the prevented the aircraft from climbing out of the position the pilot had put it in to. It is amazing that modern aircraft are tough enough to land in a forest with so few (though still tragic) casualties.
I just wanted to say that I think it's very kind of the woman that she went back to help the girl even though she put herself in danger and sadly died as a result.
This is a demonstration of the dangers associated with changing a well rehearsed plan. No time for a proper risk assessment.
Yep, correct
@@MentourPilot
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I gained the impression that the manoeuvre wasn't rehearsed even once, which was why the captain didn't know which runway they were supposed to land at.
Right. This was not rehearsed, which makes it more dangerous in the first place, but then they deviated from what limited initial planning there was, which only made things even more dangerous, and ultimately resulted in the crash.
But honestly the more they differed from a standard deliberate missed approach type flyover, the more risky things got. A normal approach against the long runway leveling out at 100 ft at just above landing speed, and executing missed approach from midfield is the sort of thing that is well rehearsed. The pilots will have done that many times over, and is indeed a very common emergency procedure if there are landing gear concerns so the tower can look at at the gear for them. Even a high speed low missed approach is reasonably close to what they have trained for. But the fancy max AOA stuff, yeah, that is not something they they could be said to be highly trained for or rehearsed at.
I do not agree that this was well rehearsed, but the on the fly (so to speak) decisions just made it worse.
Plan the flight, fly the plan. That was jumpschool 101 for me.
Captain during briefing: "Do not go below 100 feet."
Captain during fly-by: "Forget about the plan, YOLO!"
Seems like the same kind of mentality that caused the wreck of the Costa Concordia cruise liner.
@@rondadams also the same lack of guilt, so yeah... best buddies they could be
@Stellvia Hoenheim This is about a single person, not a country. From which country are you from? There is a prejudice for every country on earth, the polish steal, the Germans have no humor, etc.
@@rondadams they both had females in the captain's cockpit too. It seems that captains tend to forget their training when in the presence of a single female.
Love the clear and articulate presentation of this difficult topic! Thanks!
Captain Mentour, just want to tell you run such a great channel. Thank you a lot for all effort you put in. Thank for all episodes you presented in professional and information rich level so far!
"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that..." -Hal, 2001
Would only be a valid analog if Dave was asking to destroy the ship.
Except in this case by limiting the AoA, the FBW saved a lot of lives. Had the aircraft obeyed the command to pitch up at critical AoA the stall would’ve been catastrophic as opposed to a relatively smooth forest landing.
@@albertabound5124 I question, if the engines were finally spooling up and increasing thrust, what are the odds that some pitch up would have allowed them to gain the precious few feet that might have made this a very narrow miss instead?
@@alpurlLikely none - beyond critical AoA, any increase in pitch results in decrease in lift. This is why a nose down spin is much more ideal than a flat spin (and other reasons). This is also why adding opposite ailerons during a stall will result in a wing drop to worsen.
Best coment, and was indeed the case
I love how you seem to have really capitalized on your extra free time, the production value of your video's just keeps improving.
We do what we can! Glad it’s showing
@@MentourPilot it's snowing too
As ever, excellent technical explanation but also a polite teaching on human arrogance.
Yes, it is a pleasure to learn.
Eine gute Erklärung über die technischen Gründe aber auch eine gute Lehre über die menschliche Überheblichkeit.
Wie immer, ein Vergnügen zu lernen.
Danke 💕
@@MentourPilot Wie gesagt, Hut ab zu unserem Freund Mentour.
Danke vor allem, dass du so viele Shows produzierst. Jetzt in der dunklen Jahreszeit wird Unterhaltung halt knapp.
Manje tak.
I've been listening to you while I work this is very far your best one yet amazing work covering these bud. I'm loving it
Perfectly good aircraft doing exactly what it was asked. Heart goes out to the two children and the hero that tried to rescue them.
The real punishment was to have to live with the consequences of their mistakes. The one pilot's continued denial of responsibility despite the evidence, is a slap in the face of the children who died.
Agreed. He knew he was going below 100ft, that was a purposeful decision, and he did it anyways.
It really is not fair to blame the pilot so harshly. And did not deserve prison sentence or punishment. The punishment of having to know that you screwed up ending in deaths and suffering is quite enough. Not to talk about the aftermath of dealing with the investigation and such. The pilots can not take the blame for what the hole industry fail to recognize as a problem about to end in disaster if not rules and such are put in place. The pilots are told almost nothing about the location there are going to. But are still expected to solve it on the spot? Then stuff like this happens.
The pilot where in the wrong for executing the flying. But really since it clearly is shown that the failure is in the planning of this + the danger of having passengers present in a stunt maneuver... We might as well be glad that not something worse happened.
Really it was a improvised solution to pull off a badly planned maneuver that compromised on safety and ended up in a disaster. Not this denial of responsibility despite the evidence nonsense. The pilots was given a task and there fault was to still execute it even after there was a clear problem with doing it.
Those parents were the ones who left their children to manage by themselves, especially as one was handicapped. They put themselves first and they knew it
@@julijakublicka843 no, I believe both were from orphanages/system-care... part of the lottery system was a distribution of tickets among the unfortunate children without families, other tickets were given to loyal customers, others, to notable employees.
Btw: one of the other things that came out of this was a set of recommendations on how the evacuation of seriously-disabled passengers could be improved... it was influential in the writing of EU regulations later, though not so much outside it.
@@TheDiner50 But he maintains he didn't screw up. He believes the only problem was the engines took too long to reach max thrust. I am sure in the event, it seemed like it took way too long for the thrust to be delivered but all the evidence shows otherwise. His own plan called for a much longer time to bring the engines up to speed.
It wasn't a gust of wind or some such that put him into his tricky position. It was his poor execution of his own plan. The absolute least he could have done is to do a very thorough study of the airport where he was going to do such a risky maneuver and go over it in detail with the co-pilot.
All those times he did the maneuver at twenty thousand feet, would he, could he have noticed if he dropped fifty feet more than he expected. Planning on coming in at one hundred feet is not doing the same thing. It is planning on doing something that has never been done before in that plane by anyone including him.
His comparing it to his previous experiences shows criminal attitude because when the plane is full of passengers, he knows the dynamics of the plane are different, if nothing else. He might just as well have said....I have done this lots of times before on a sim, no problem here. Nothing to worry about, hold my beer and watch this. .....
What he should have done instead as a prudent, professional pilot is do a flyover at five hundred feet so they could at least be sure which runway they were going to line up on. Then do a pass at three hundred feet so they could experience how little they were going to able to see given their pitch angle. Then do the dangerous stuff if they still wanted to after having noticed how long it took to actually start climbing given the designed limits of the plane with respect to starting to climb from a low engine speed condition.
That would have been the obvious safe procedure and would have been even more entertaining for the passengers and the people on the ground. If that was too demanding in terms of fuel or time, then they shouldn't have even been there in the first place.
The lady that went back for the kid should have her family looked after for life! That is some serious guts and heart! What a woman ❤❤😢
She gave her life trying to save the life of another. A great reward awaits her in heaven.
I love this channel and I'm completely hooked. I used to be a pilot so this is quite interesting for me as I can relate from my own experience. However the real genius behind this production is the delivery. I'm curious how much effort goes into non aviation aspect of the videos (for example in the selection of the two very bright pillows or the dogs or the wall art) Anyone can read the NTSB reports and get the same info but the delivery is where this channel shines. I just wanted to say great job, I appreciate the entertainment and education, I can only imagine how much work goes into making every one of these videos to the amazing quality. I especially like whenever you show that any of these minor accidents, errors or horrible tragedies have someone positive to teach afterwords and improve aviation throughout the world. One thing I've learned is that every single person placed in a specific situation can make any mistake that any other pilot has made, its a humbling realization and gives empathy toward other pilots who make mistakes. Thank you for making such great videos and to everyone who helps out with them.
man o man! such a complex subject explained so easily! the man deserves the highest award for articulating the whole lexicon for common man to grasp easily
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Detailed but not cumbersome, and not repetitive. Through.
I couldn't agree more of how well he presents himself; as well, the accuracy of the events as they unfolded. He's "absolutely fantastic", lol!!! Keep up the good work Mentour, thanks again.
From the video for all these years I made the assumption the incident was not survivable. I also thought the fly by wire system played a large role in what I was calling an accident. I now realize there was no accident, just negligence. How totally wrong I was and another case of allowing a perfectly reasonable assumption to, over time, become factual in one’s own mind. I stand corrected on several levels and thank you for your instruction and correction.
When I first started watching Mentour Pilot I found it interesting but after a couple of months I concluded the presentations, while accurate, were boring. The other day I landed on one of your recent videos, the one about a thousand foot a minute night descent onto an unlit runway in the middle of a storm cell. I couldn’t believe the improvements you have made. You made an equivalent leap from the Lockheed Constellation, to becoming a Boeing 777-X. If you quit TH-cam right now you have already made a huge contribution to the safety of modern flight in a manner useful to penguin and professional alike. I am 67 and my time in aviation has come but not gone thanks to your channel.
Thank you for your kind words. Welcome back to the channel!
I must be a penguin!
You aren't alone in your assumptions. For years, I've assumed that the pilots trusted the computer to know what they were thinking and crashed into the trees because the computer made a logical inference, mainly because that was how the crash was first explained to me through Scientific American Frontiers. To me, it was still pilot error, just pilot error built around a complete and tragic misunderstanding of what the aircraft was doing, which just goes to show how prevelant the conspiracy theories have become.
Mentour's explanation makes a lot more sense from a physics and human factors perspective, and clears up a lot of my confusion about what the aircraft was actually doing and why. This wasn't an aircraft that was trying to land, it was an aircraft that was trying not to stall and just ran out of space to avoid consequences.
When you have served as a stewardess in AF you know that there is another parameter that has not been mentionned in this accident : arrogance ! I'm not surprised at the deniying of the pilot to this day. Maybe sometimes people will talk about the attitude of those in the cockpit that day. And in all the AF structure also. What a shame ! disgusting !
Awesome comment.....
Well said , i agree with you although on the other hand Mentour Pilot's professionalism is about facts related in the final report and not pointing the finger..
This is my favorite channel. Just about every time I read about another crash/incident you have the video explaining what happened. Thank you for doing what you do!
It seems remarkable now that an airliner full of passengers was being used as an exhibit in an air show. Thankfully one of the contributing factors to the accident - the very low speed - was also the partial reason why so many people survived.
Correct
And luck ...
So, the pilots and Air France essentially subjected these passengers to a test flight. Incredibly stupid and arrogant.
French
Sadkly that is the Froggy Mentality! (before anyone get up in arms I am of french background! )
They were not forced to join.......
That's all upon them wether they wanna join or not!!!!!
@@everydaycarrycanada951 Nah, just the actions of a few.
@@him4nshubhardwaj I don't know what planet you're from, but here on Planet Earth we have a concept called "informed consent." The passengers were not informed that they would flying in test conditions, at least not to the extent that they were made fully aware of the risks such they could give informed consent to bear the risk.
It's a testament to airbus that most of the passengers survived even though it was a horrific crash
I remember seeing this as a short with the words "This is what happens when you use computers instead of pilots". I knew there was more to this story.
Thank you for clarifying that.
Now about what you might do a story on.
How about what the near future holds for aircraft design. I have seen glimpses of some very beautiful shapes of things to come.
Your ability to flesh things out and explain greater detail in a simpler, easier to understand way, would be wonderful for showing us what exciting ideas may be about to manifest into shadow casting reality!
Thank you Sir.👍
God I remember that like it was yesterday, does that make me really old! Great video again Mentour 🙌🏼
Same here...
I do too mate, although I wasn’t born 😂
@@itsjoel haha mate good to see you here 😂👌👊 Maybe your folks were old enough... 😂
@@itsjoel Well, i'm 50 now, LOL!
An avoidable tragedy. Such a very sad memory.
Another excellent review. I have 25,000 hours (Airbus and Boeing) and I learn from you every time. You obviously put in a lot of hard work. Thank you!
25,000? that's amazing! What was/is your favorite plane to fly?
@@kaloo3340 Hey. Thx for asking. Hard to pick one. I started in a C150 when I was 13. Loved it! haha My first commercial job was single pilot in a Twin Beech D-18. That was awesome. I was only 18. Then 6y years captain on an MU-2 and Learjet. Both were amazing. Then 13 years and 10,000 hrs on the B727. Love that airplane. Then my first glass cockpit, 8 years on the A320. Awesome! Then 10 years captain on the B777! Yep. That's it. B777. That airplane is so awesome it's hard to put it into words. Simply amazing! Cheers
damn, your very experienced!
25000hrs. wow. thats a lot of time holding your JOYSTICK!!!!
@@CaptainSteve777 have you by any chance flown the A350, too? If yes how is it compared to the 777?
I'm glad you decided to do air crash investigations, even though I watch those programs, you often fill in the unanswered questions. Thank you.
I can never get over this one. This one will always make me crazy. Good job Mentour pilot!!
The alarm bells were ringing as soon as you said that the flight crew were two Management Training Captains. There's a recipe for disaster to begin with. I've done quite a few air displays as the F/E sitting between two pilots, normally with the fire axe in one hand. Pilot's egos grow exponentially as they get closer to the ground at air displays.
Is... is the fire axe for cutting your way out, or for cutting up rowdy pilots?
@@CiaranMaxwell First one, then the other.
I was only a child back then, but I remember this incident and hearing all the news report about it... that was way back before I even learned how to speak English and read a lot about it in the French scientific magazine "Science & Vie" that had a whole issue devoted to discussing this incident.
Apparently the engines performed better than they were supposed to and spooled up a few seconds faster than normal... but it was too late.
Indeed
Resuming flights of the max is the real current hot topic!
such a sad event, due to that 3 souls lost their lives and the woman being a wonderful lady, who put others before herself, going back to try to help the kids, may the rest in peace, thank you for covering this, thanks to you after being a away from the plane situation for a while, im watching again
i love your posts. Lots of detail without becoming boring.
The simulator footage quality has gotten really good.
Is that simulator???
@@uberdriverlondon yes Microsoft flight simulator 2020
One day it will be better than reality
@@HomoMathematicus. hope so
@@suttonflorer7258 no that’s x-plane 10
The work and attention to detail you put into your presentations is exceptional. Your channel is a real asset to the aviation community.
Yes, it is amazing that the pilot says that the plane didn´t apply thrust, you can hear in the videos the engines starting to spool just as the plane enters the trees, he reacted too late and was too low, as simple as that.
Mentour thank you for a very clear explanation of some very technical concepts.
It’s amazing to think that this happened almost 32 years ago. At the time, I remember the media were all over the idea that fly by wire as responsible for the crash. So it’s great to learn the full story. That was a great explanation, even if I had to rewind to review some of the technical points. The animation shows winglets, which were not standard at that time and were definitely not on this aircraft. I have noticed that on other videos, the livery of nearby aircraft is the current livery rather than the one that was current at the time. I think I first flew on an Airbus (Air Canada) in 1991. Meanwhile, I have not set foot on an aircraft for over a year. God, I miss flying! Damn virus......
The fact that the numbers aren't switched, from 133 dead and 3 survivors to 133 alive and 3 dead, is absolutely incredible. Especially looking at the wreckage and fireball.
so you switched them in your comment instead? :)
had me worried
So sad. Excellent analysis and presentation as usual. Thank you.
So sad anytime there is loss of life, I am amazed that so many survived. Great video
This is the airfield where I am based. At the right time of year, you can still barely make out the outline in the forest where the trees were cut in half by the plane.
That's really interesting, do you have any pictures?
@@StarkRG it's right next to the pattern here at Habsheim so I just fly my plane rather than take pictures at that point ;)
@@Zxb12 Ha, that's fair enough, really. Don't want to create a new clearing...
@@StarkRG It is visible on Google Earth at 47 degrees, 44' 48.7" N and 7 degrees, 25' 32.82" E
@@flagmichael you can see the line of trees where it went down looks different as they have been chopped in half
I was initially skeptical to these crash videos, but the depth and fullness of explanation has converted me!
Another excellent video, Petter.
Glad to hear that.
I’ve found that these crash-investigations just make it easier to explain certain systems in an interesting way. They are also great learning experiences although sad in nature..
@@MentourPilot I really appreciate the time and detail that you are going into to share your insights......very nicely put together.....impressive.....please keep them coming, hopefully you are also enjoying making these
Loving these videos Mr Mentour Pilot! :)
Wow! I had no idea that only three people died, still very unfortunate but it’s a miracle that everybody else survived. The first time I saw the footage I figured, given the large fireball, that everyone on board had to of passed away. Excellent video as always Mentour! Thank you!
Heartbreaking to know how the children died. I hope that the adult that came back to help them gave them some comfort before passing away. R.I.P. with the angels.
Reminds me of Barbara Jane Harrison on BOAC Flight 712.
Unfortunately this is how people die when they try and save someone, smoke filled plane you be unconscious within 20-30 seconds once the smoke fills the cabin she had already had used some of that time getting to the exit (unless you got O2 tank not much you can do really and even then high risk of fire)
It's amazing that almost everyone got off the plane
I assume they passed out from the smoke.
@@leexgx Yes, and this is also why it's suicide to go back into a burning house without breathing equipment to retrieve something or someone.
@@technoroom5 "Yes, and this is also why it's suicide to go back into a burning house without breathing equipment to retrieve something or someone."
True, but... to some people that might preferable than living on without having done the attempt.
Did either pilot ever fly again? Juan Brown of Blancolirio TH-cam (he is a 777 pilot) has said: one of the most dangerous flights in aviation is when two very experienced pilots get on board.
@Stellvia Hoenheim that's a knee-slapper
the video of the plane crashing was one of the first youtube videos i saw. i think i was like 10 years old and i really thought it was fake back then. only few years later i discovered it was actually real and i couldn't believe that almost all of them survived
Excellent analysis and presentation.
Basicly this fly by wire system stopped a stall and therefore saved many lives
speculative
MCAS: Damn right!
@@momchilandonov They disengaged several warning systems.
Hope they sacked the stupid pilots, any wonder air France has a shocking safety record
@@momchilandonov Bruh, they deactivated the Alpha Floor System and that's why the plane didn't do anything. Did you watch the video or just skipped around?
A very well done report on a tragic accident caused by human factors. So sad the two children and the woman who tried to save them perished.
Thank you for your explanation of how this accident happened, I've viewed the video many times on TH-cam but with no explanation of why it happened, thank you.