MK Airlines Flight 1602 - Crew of 7 sadly died. The aircraft was loaded with a cargo of lawn tractors and made an intermediate stop at Halifax to be loaded up with approximately 53,000 kilograms (53 t; 117,000 lb) of lobster and fish.
I used to deliver a lot of lobster to the airport. I remember talking to the ramp guys after it happened and the story I was always told was the pilots never factored in the water when loading the lobster. I always found that story a little odd because when we move lobster in a truck there is very little water. The lobster is in a crate and in the crate is a pad made of cellulose that is soaked with water to keep them alive.
As a note, the "CVR" from MK 1602 isn't real, it was confirmed by the TSB that the tapes for the CVR were melted beyond their ability to play properly.
He he....If you knew what V1 and Vr were you would not be asking that question..To aviators it is obvious as to why they are committed to fly it off the runway
No wonder videos aren’t as popular anymore, this guy keeps reuploading. EDIT: Because I started a war, I want to clear something up. I don’t necessarily want Air Crash videos, I would do just fine with other av-related content from this channel. I’m a long time viewer so that’s why I’m not happy with reuploads. And no, I don’t want more planes to crash so we can have more videos. That’s heartless.
why do they keep doing this with no dates. Disgusting and click bait. I at 83 years old am getting real sick and tired of social media. Drama to the max!!!!!!
@@Richard.oo7 get out of here bro, not matter what you say, this channel is dead with re uploads. me i just stay tuned ti see which video he will upload.
From the final ICAO report (MK Airlines 1602): "The CVR was found under debris in its mounting bracket near its installed location, and it had been exposed to fire and extreme heat for an extended period. The recording tape had melted; consequently, no CVR information was available to investigators. Although this model of recorder was not required to meet the more stringent fire test requirements that exist today, the conditions of extreme heat were such that the likelihood of any tape-based recorder surviving in those conditions is considered very low." That audio present on your video is a recreation
@@malcolm5514this channel has been running for several years, all the uploads in the last 12 months are just re-uploads of the originals but here’s the catch, it includes half the enthusiasm, detail and engagement that made this the best Aviation incident channel at the time. Old owner used to even do “Season” trailers, to highlight his dedication and inspiration to make videos, would go above and beyond. I cannot speak on the new owner but it’s just copy and paste and taking away all the good parts of it lol
@@PatTalisman Re "copy and paste", I noticed awhile back that one of the _other_ flight incident channels lifts whole sections word-for-word from wikipedia where one simply has to look up the airline flight numbers to get the history; that's the only homework that the other channel does.
@@nathanahubbard1975 Travel is a luxury not necessity. Nowadays you can visit any place in the world using google maps from the comfort of your home!! And although it crashes allot, it's rarely fatal!
That BOUNCE on landing must have felt BRUTAL with damaged landing gear and it’s MIRACULOUS that the Plane managed to come to a standstill without any explosion, especially after it tilted BACKWARD on it’s TAIL like that which apparently had NEVER happened before.
Little fact for you. This PAN AM flight was in 1971 which would have made the BOEING 747 one year old at the time(My favorite plane). The 747 is still in operation today, mostly in cargo flights and some commercial passenger flights(Lufthansa, Korean Air, Air China). Boeing ceased production for the 747 last year(2023) ending a 53 year run of the most iconic 'JUMBO JET'. Some planes that replaced the 747 include Airbus 350, 330neo, Boeing 777X and 787 Dreamliner.
Crazy how that whole crew on the MK Airlines cargo 747 effed up that bad. Any experienced 747 pilot would look at those numbers spat out by the computer and realize it was bullshit. Reduced power takeoff while at full weight, that would raise an immediate red flag. There were three brains that didn't catch that IMO very obvious mistake.
The PanAM 747 is really weird one. If you use more flaps your v1 and vr speeds are lower. So if you have the the old speeds it should not matter that much. In the MK airlines cargo crash it was obvious that they wanted to rotate with speed too slow to rotate (they were under the V1 and VR) the PanAM is the exact opposite. They were over that V1 and VR speeds...
I'll never understand what pilots like this are thinking...It'a amazing. Reminds me of a guy with a gun in his face being robbed and saying, You cannot have my wallet, watch. etc. The length of the runway is really irrelevant to this unnecessary tragedy.
I was miles away from this when it happened, had just gone to bed and was scheduled to fly out that morning back to Toronto. My mom woke me in the morning and said flight cancelled there was a major plane crash. I laughed and said yea ok.... till I actually got up and saw the news.
The Air Force had a pilot at Wright Patterson AFB on a stopover, take off in a FB-111 and struck a goose. The pilot knew the plane was damaged and brought it back down to the runway. He ran out of runway and tore out the front landing gear but did not destroy the plane. It was later determined if he had attempt to continue flying the plane would have crashed before he could return to land it.
th-cam.com/video/7l0d1LlihAg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=KD0LN24b-_DmmYOs An example of a pilot doing what you suggest is the right thing. "A special kind of stupid" as you phrase it in the Spantax 995 scenario was safer, but sadly the pilots didn't know that at the time. "A special kind of stupid" would mean people in the plane and on the ground would have been alive. idk about you, but if you need to be a "special kind of stupid" to saves people's lives, I'm going to be the biggest goddamn idiot you've ever seen.
Why didn't the pilots of the MK 747 stop the flight as soon as the tail hit the ground the first time??? Instead, it looks like they were insisting on getting airborne. If your tail hits the ground, you should abort the flight and inspect the airplane for damage and find out why you hit the ground in the first place... obviously there was something wrong....by insisting on taking off the tail hit the runway again and now they ran out of runway and they had lots of fuel in the tanks.....what were the pilots thinking? Safety must always come first.
He he....If you knew what V1 and Vr speeds meant you would not be asking that question.. To aviators it is obvious as to why they are committed to fly it off the runway
Maybe a dumb question but if the pilots see the takeoff roll going badly, can't they add more throttle and flaps? They came so close to a safe takeoff...
Adding more throttle would be smart, however, high throttle settings on takeoff put a huge strain on the engines and wear them out faster....As a pilot I would always set takeoff power to 10% more than what the calculations called for to have a safety margin....The flap settings are whole different issues...If you set high flap settings on takeoff you will increase drag to a point of being more detrimental than good..
how many crashes due to incorrectly calculated takeoff power requirements? Use full power until positive rate of climb, then back off to a calculated rate of climb power.
Most airlines don't use full power unless necessary for a few reasons: 1. Using 100% power degrades the engines faster, increasing costs. 2. Running 100% power on a light aircraft can actually make takeoff complicated, because you'll be going too fast and climbing way faster than you want to. And turning down thrust doesn't immediately reduce speed, it takes time for the engines to slow down.
Although these incidents happened years ago I was sitting with my heart in my mouth. These videos are so brilliantly put together. Thank you. I'm off to read up on what happened to the crew of the second incident.
If it's past the point of no return but doesn't take off on rotation, wouldn't it make more sense to put the nose back down onto the runway, open the throttles wide and gather more speed before trying again?
I remember that Pan Am accident from when I was a kid in the Bay Area. The two passengers who were injured when that thing ripped through the fuselage, one of them was a soldier or Marine and he was very badly injured. BTW what is the music playing at the end? I like it so much but none of my music identification apps recognize it.
I was there that night at IMP hangar 1. I never knew what happened until now. I was so far away I didn't see or hear anything. The years are flying by.
I subscribed to you a long time ago but I haven't watched any in my feed for at least a year. The engine sounds are just too invasive, it's a real shame too because I clearly subscribed for a reason. Just a bit of feedback, obviously some people will like it but it's just like the vacuum cleaner sound to me, sends me up the wall
He doesn’t respond or heart comments anymore and the videos are pure reuploads. TH-cam pages get sold all the time and this has the markings of a sell, where the new owners just try to use it for passive income, and rehash the old vids.
At 7.55 it says that the available runway for take-off starts at the displaced threshold. This is false; that part of the runway is not available for landing, but OK for take-off.
I think you need to read your own conflicting statement. At 7:55 it states that it IS for takeoff..There is no mention of landing on the threshold portion
@johnhanson9245 No, you either don't understand what a displaced threshold is or misread what the video says. A DTHR is a threshold that is not placed at the extremity of the designated runway. Both TORA and TODA (look it up if you don't know what they are) include the distance between the extremity of the designated runway and the DTHR. The video says that the runway has a certain length, starting at the DTHR, and that this is the length available for take-off. That is false. The portion of the runway between the very beginning of the surface and the DTHR is available for take-off. The total distance available for take-off does not start at the DTHR. It says nothing about landing, but it should, because that is what a DTHR is about. A runway that has a threshold displaced by 400ft is 400ft shorter for landing than it is for take-off.
"when in doubt, flat out" Colin McRae.... So, if in doubt about the length of the runway being sufficient for a safe take off, go flat out, at full throttle, to minimize the risk of runway overun...
Wait. What? They are *THAT* heavily loaded, having trouble getting airborne and they increase thrust to 92%? They were trying to take off at *_less_* than 92%? Why didn't they just begin at 100% thrust?
why they don't always take off at 100% power doesn't make sense to me. You'll just lift off earlier, right? If your engines can't handle a few minutes at 100% I'd be worried...
A rotation speed of a 747-200 at typical weights should be in the 160-180 knot range. A rotation speed of 130 knots? The crew should have caught that one.... Airlines these days are very careful about how speeds are calculated. They can be calculated in the cockpit, but most companies these days have automated systems that merge weight and balance data with local ATIS and present the speeds to the crew via ACARS. Even with that, we are taught to ask ourselves "Does that sound right?".
MK Airlines Flight 1602 - Crew of 7 sadly died. The aircraft was loaded with a cargo of lawn tractors and made an intermediate stop at Halifax to be loaded up with approximately 53,000 kilograms (53 t; 117,000 lb) of lobster and fish.
I used to deliver a lot of lobster to the airport. I remember talking to the ramp guys after it happened and the story I was always told was the pilots never factored in the water when loading the lobster. I always found that story a little odd because when we move lobster in a truck there is very little water. The lobster is in a crate and in the crate is a pad made of cellulose that is soaked with water to keep them alive.
@@thegamingtruckdriver Poor lobsters!
@ricks_talented_tongue Eaten with melted butter I imagine.
I noticed the video did not provide this rather important information.
The audio from MK 1602 sends chills to my very core. How that company remained in business until 2010 baffles me.
Typical for an independent freight company. They are not "the cream of the crop".
As a note, the "CVR" from MK 1602 isn't real, it was confirmed by the TSB that the tapes for the CVR were melted beyond their ability to play properly.
I don't know why the pilots didn't abort the takeoff when it was obvious the plane wasn't leaving the ground.
Typical canadian wokness.
He he....If you knew what V1 and Vr were you would not be asking that question..To aviators it is obvious as to why they are committed to fly it off the runway
No wonder videos aren’t as popular anymore, this guy keeps reuploading.
EDIT: Because I started a war, I want to clear something up. I don’t necessarily want Air Crash videos, I would do just fine with other av-related content from this channel. I’m a long time viewer so that’s why I’m not happy with reuploads. And no, I don’t want more planes to crash so we can have more videos. That’s heartless.
why do they keep doing this with no dates. Disgusting and click bait. I at 83 years old am getting real sick and tired of social media. Drama to the max!!!!!!
Why dont you start your own channel and do it better then? Staggering entitlement.
@@Richard.oo7Me?
@@Richard.oo7 get out of here bro, not matter what you say, this channel is dead with re uploads. me i just stay tuned ti see which video he will upload.
They do it for the TH-cam money plain and simple!
From the final ICAO report (MK Airlines 1602):
"The CVR was found under debris in its mounting bracket near its installed location, and it had been exposed to fire and extreme heat for an extended period. The recording tape had melted; consequently, no CVR information was available to investigators. Although this model of recorder was not required to meet the more stringent fire test requirements that exist today, the conditions of extreme heat were such that the likelihood of any tape-based recorder surviving in those conditions is considered very low."
That audio present on your video is a recreation
What happened to the original The Flight Channel creator ?
He probably sold his channel
What makes you think it's a different person?
@@malcolm5514 compare this with his older video
@@malcolm5514this channel has been running for several years, all the uploads in the last 12 months are just re-uploads of the originals but here’s the catch, it includes half the enthusiasm, detail and engagement that made this the best Aviation incident channel at the time. Old owner used to even do “Season” trailers, to highlight his dedication and inspiration to make videos, would go above and beyond. I cannot speak on the new owner but it’s just copy and paste and taking away all the good parts of it lol
@@PatTalisman Re "copy and paste", I noticed awhile back that one of the _other_ flight incident channels lifts whole sections word-for-word from wikipedia where one simply has to look up the airline flight numbers to get the history; that's the only homework that the other channel does.
Fatalities in first incident not mentioned. So nice that there were no fatalities in the second incident.
A very nicely presented video. Thanks
MK Airlines 1602 Has 7 Fatalities In This Accident, Read In Wikipedia.
Is there a particular reason why you won't tell us what happened to the passengers/crew on board when there are fatalities?
Didn't used to be, fatalities were listed in the old days.
Older video had it
They all got promoted to Southwest
@@mainmansentertainment They all got promoted to Ryanair to learn proper safety
Nice hard bouncy landing when the landing gear is toast.
The second plane ✈️ made safe ! Sorry for the first one.
Thank you flight ✈️ Channel. Keep up the good work 👍❤️!
What good work? A ton less detail in these videos now and not to mention I don't even remember the last time a non re-upload was posted
every time i watch one of these video's it makes me want to buy a ticket on amtrak.
😂 😆
You should watch some Amtrak videos then.
@@nathanahubbard1975 Travel is a luxury not necessity. Nowadays you can visit any place in the world using google maps from the comfort of your home!! And although it crashes allot, it's rarely fatal!
Exactly my thoughts.
Amtrak has issues too with motor vehicles being stuck on the tracks.
That BOUNCE on landing must have felt BRUTAL with damaged landing gear and it’s MIRACULOUS that the Plane managed to come to a standstill without any explosion, especially after it tilted BACKWARD on it’s TAIL like that which apparently had NEVER happened before.
Little fact for you. This PAN AM flight was in 1971 which would have made the BOEING 747 one year old at the time(My favorite plane). The 747 is still in operation today, mostly in cargo flights and some commercial passenger flights(Lufthansa, Korean Air, Air China). Boeing ceased production for the 747 last year(2023) ending a 53 year run of the most iconic 'JUMBO JET'. Some planes that replaced the 747 include Airbus 350, 330neo, Boeing 777X and 787 Dreamliner.
Crazy how that whole crew on the MK Airlines cargo 747 effed up that bad. Any experienced 747 pilot would look at those numbers spat out by the computer and realize it was bullshit. Reduced power takeoff while at full weight, that would raise an immediate red flag. There were three brains that didn't catch that IMO very obvious mistake.
I’m glad he’s re uploading. It would be bad if he had a lot of material.
The PanAM 747 is really weird one. If you use more flaps your v1 and vr speeds are lower. So if you have the the old speeds it should not matter that much. In the MK airlines cargo crash it was obvious that they wanted to rotate with speed too slow to rotate (they were under the V1 and VR) the PanAM is the exact opposite. They were over that V1 and VR speeds...
I would think with more flaps you need more throttle to accelerate to v1 to overcome the additional drag on a shorter runway.
The PanAm one was new to me.
Same
TransAm was from Pontiac. R.I.P.
@@chucksurgeonertribute2113very sad. 😔
I'll never understand what pilots like this are thinking...It'a amazing. Reminds me of a guy with a gun in his face being robbed and saying, You cannot have my wallet, watch. etc. The length of the runway is really irrelevant to this unnecessary tragedy.
All of you reupload complainers …don’t watch. You have seen it. Some of us haven’t. It’s not about you.
and its not about you either, its about all of us, if you haven't watch it then go and watch it. he should stop re uploading and make new stuff
you know all the old uploads are still here, just browse the video section. Many excellent ones.
Us "complainers" are longtime viewers who once loved this channel but are upset now due to the lack of new content
@@asan4628 actually
I still say stop crying and watch other content if you’re unhappy.
I was miles away from this when it happened, had just gone to bed and was scheduled to fly out that morning back to Toronto. My mom woke me in the morning and said flight cancelled there was a major plane crash. I laughed and said yea ok.... till I actually got up and saw the news.
Imagine being a lobster and someone will come and tell you "you will die in a flight accident"
guess ill never see new videos from this channel, just a bunch of re-uploads.
It takes a special kind of stupid to insist on trying to take off when it definitely does not want too.
After V1 they have no choice but take off. Mentour pilot recently explained it in his video. Basically it is about statistics.
@@user-yt198 It's called decision speed for a reason.
The Air Force had a pilot at Wright Patterson AFB on a stopover, take off in a FB-111 and struck a goose. The pilot knew the plane was damaged and brought it back down to the runway. He ran out of runway and tore out the front landing gear but did not destroy the plane. It was later determined if he had attempt to continue flying the plane would have crashed before he could return to land it.
th-cam.com/video/7l0d1LlihAg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=KD0LN24b-_DmmYOs
An example of a pilot doing what you suggest is the right thing.
"A special kind of stupid" as you phrase it in the Spantax 995 scenario was safer, but sadly the pilots didn't know that at the time. "A special kind of stupid" would mean people in the plane and on the ground would have been alive. idk about you, but if you need to be a "special kind of stupid" to saves people's lives, I'm going to be the biggest goddamn idiot you've ever seen.
You MUST take off after V1.. you must be new to aviation.
Why didn't the pilots of the MK 747 stop the flight as soon as the tail hit the ground the first time???
Instead, it looks like they were insisting on getting airborne. If your tail hits the ground, you should abort the flight and inspect the airplane for damage and find out why you hit the ground in the first place... obviously there was something wrong....by insisting on taking off the tail hit the runway again and now they ran out of runway and they had lots of fuel in the tanks.....what were the pilots thinking? Safety must always come first.
He he....If you knew what V1 and Vr speeds meant you would not be asking that question.. To aviators it is obvious as to why they are committed to fly it off the runway
So what happened to the first one?
Everyone got the stairway to heaven?
That is correct yes
Thanks for saving me re-watching as mother re-upload, guys!
I was busy watching the Boston Red Sox win their 1st World Series since 1918. I don't remember this at all.
I love the vids
No
Me too. Their graphics make it easy for us laypeople to understand.
@@nanyanghuayi no
@@nanyanghuayi agreed
@TheFlightChannel What's the name of the song @11:21??
It's "Speed of Light" by Caleb Etheridge. He has a channel here on YT.
PanAm one was new to me.
Maybe a dumb question but if the pilots see the takeoff roll going badly, can't they add more throttle and flaps? They came so close to a safe takeoff...
Adding more throttle would be smart, however, high throttle settings on takeoff put a huge strain on the engines and wear them out faster....As a pilot I would always set takeoff power to 10% more than what the calculations called for to have a safety margin....The flap settings are whole different issues...If you set high flap settings on takeoff you will increase drag to a point of being more detrimental than good..
how many crashes due to incorrectly calculated takeoff power requirements? Use full power until positive rate of climb, then back off to a calculated rate of climb power.
Most airlines don't use full power unless necessary for a few reasons:
1. Using 100% power degrades the engines faster, increasing costs.
2. Running 100% power on a light aircraft can actually make takeoff complicated, because you'll be going too fast and climbing way faster than you want to. And turning down thrust doesn't immediately reduce speed, it takes time for the engines to slow down.
@@Skilliard I get it.... they also crashed their plane and cargo and died.
@@Mike88GT Mr Obvious here
Although these incidents happened years ago I was sitting with my heart in my mouth. These videos are so brilliantly put together. Thank you. I'm off to read up on what happened to the crew of the second incident.
That’s not the real CVR, that’s a reconstruction.
Why are we left hanging with these videos? What was the fate of the first story’s flight crew?
If it's past the point of no return but doesn't take off on rotation, wouldn't it make more sense to put the nose back down onto the runway, open the throttles wide and gather more speed before trying again?
I was thinking the same thing!
Well unless you have a time machine...
Vision in hindsight is always 20/20
@@ats-3693 20/04 in this case
The other option would have been to reject the take off at this point. Which is also contrary to the way pilots are trained to fly aircraft.
Pan Am plane landing at all was a miracle 😮
Thanks for the video
RIP TheFlightChannel
I remember that Pan Am accident from when I was a kid in the Bay Area. The two passengers who were injured when that thing ripped through the fuselage, one of them was a soldier or Marine and he was very badly injured. BTW what is the music playing at the end? I like it so much but none of my music identification apps recognize it.
Both of these mishaps were 100% preventable if the aircrew had just followed the established procedures.
They use a BLT to calculate the takeoff speeds?
beef lettuce tomato
Yeah, they got it from Ma's Diner.
@@soggypancake001 No, its bacon, lettuce, and tomato.
@@deepthinker999 it is? where im from it isnt lol
RIP 116,600 pounds of lobster and fish that died for nothing. Definitely felt bad for the beautiful 747s too
Why no mention of the 7 fatalities in the first accident? Rather a large oversight, and what a shame as this was otherwise a well produced video.
Flight 1602 RIP 7 souls.
1971 was back in the day when Cali still existed, before sinking into the ocean and giving AZ ocean front property.
I know! I lived in the Bay Area at that time and watched this event live on TV that day. Got out in time and live in AZ now!
Where did you get those airport sceneries from?
And the pilots didn't realize their aircraft was about 100 metric tons over their incorrectly calculated weight, until it was too late :-(
I was there that night at IMP hangar 1. I never knew what happened until now. I was so far away I didn't see or hear anything. The years are flying by.
Lol at the emergency slide fail at the end
Yeah I saw a different video with a front gear failure and the rear slide couldn't reach the ground.
Ok now i accept that this channel is dead & just keeps on reuploading his older videos!😢
Not happy ?? Do your own videos ! Jerk !
I miss the Pan Am livery.
What airline is it
Ooh an upload
Reupload
@@ElectricGalaxyso? They probably want to get more views to see how it will preform
@@777Aviation1 RE UP LOAD.
@@777Aviation1 yes, they are trying to squeeze as many views out of this channel without any effort.
Hopefully the pilots involved had an incident report written against them. We need to keep people accountable, human errors
At least they kept trying to take off. Full power and pulling back on the controls. They never gave up! Lol
I subscribed to you a long time ago but I haven't watched any in my feed for at least a year. The engine sounds are just too invasive, it's a real shame too because I clearly subscribed for a reason.
Just a bit of feedback, obviously some people will like it but it's just like the vacuum cleaner sound to me, sends me up the wall
nice content farm you got there
so I know I was busy but how the heck did I not hear about the plane crash in my own city? so sorry to hear about this.
This account is slowly degrading and it’s just sad
Somebody knows what happened with the channel owner?
He doesn’t respond or heart comments anymore and the videos are pure reuploads. TH-cam pages get sold all the time and this has the markings of a sell, where the new owners just try to use it for passive income, and rehash the old vids.
@@HTXJOLOI feel bad for anyone who is a Patreon. This was my favourite flight channel to watch.
I miss them!!
Nice content, and don't listen to them haters
It's reuploads
You just ignorant
HOW SAD
Did any of the lobsters survive?
yes they were shipped to red lobsters all across the country and everyone had dinner the next day
Why you dont use Felis 747 for cockpit also?
Those poor fish
Not a fish...Crustacean
Unsubscribed.
"don't recommend channel" selected.
RIP Flight Channel
For this site to survive he needs to look into all aviation. War planes, history etc. if he doesn’t, this channel will die unfortunately.
Why blast jet noise in the very first second of the video?!?! How about a headphones warning
Yep, expected, atleast the channel didn’t stop posting abruptly.
At 7.55 it says that the available runway for take-off starts at the displaced threshold. This is false; that part of the runway is not available for landing, but OK for take-off.
I think you need to read your own conflicting statement. At 7:55 it states that it IS for takeoff..There is no mention of landing on the threshold portion
@johnhanson9245 No, you either don't understand what a displaced threshold is or misread what the video says. A DTHR is a threshold that is not placed at the extremity of the designated runway. Both TORA and TODA (look it up if you don't know what they are) include the distance between the extremity of the designated runway and the DTHR. The video says that the runway has a certain length, starting at the DTHR, and that this is the length available for take-off. That is false. The portion of the runway between the very beginning of the surface and the DTHR is available for take-off. The total distance available for take-off does not start at the DTHR. It says nothing about landing, but it should, because that is what a DTHR is about. A runway that has a threshold displaced by 400ft is 400ft shorter for landing than it is for take-off.
I’m a subscriber and I notice you are reuploading. Why is this?
"when in doubt, flat out" Colin McRae.... So, if in doubt about the length of the runway being sufficient for a safe take off, go flat out, at full throttle, to minimize the risk of runway overun...
Make video about AirSerbia Embraer incident
I thought the pan am one was the second 747
You can't even watch the videos anymore because of ads getting involved!! If you ban tik tok ban these stupid ads!!!
put this one on your list. TNFlygirl Crash 7 Dec 2023 N5891J...not sure if the complete investigation is done
I used to be able to watch these but my anxiety makes me have to stop half way 😂
Wait. What? They are *THAT* heavily loaded, having trouble getting airborne and they increase thrust to 92%? They were trying to take off at *_less_* than 92%? Why didn't they just begin at 100% thrust?
12:00 Successful landing of shame.
this audio is not real, and is a reconstruction 6:03
Can’t you do QR161 or Latam 800 bro?
Never heard of MK airlines
When will there be a video of Korean Airlines 007
What game is this ?
This occurred in Flin Flon International Airport which is in Canada
the name of the channel should change to re upload master aviation edition
He has made that one
Stop with the teaser at the beginning, I already clicked on your video. Or tell me the reasoning.
Yeah. I was wondering about that, too. WHAT became of part one of this upload?????
0:36 1601?
If I notice that the plane isn't taking off... why don't I increase the throttle?
Don’t wanna go on that slide.
Should have went to full throttle to begin with instead of 92%
why they don't always take off at 100% power doesn't make sense to me. You'll just lift off earlier, right? If your engines can't handle a few minutes at 100% I'd be worried...
super grand.
A rotation speed of a 747-200 at typical weights should be in the 160-180 knot range. A rotation speed of 130 knots? The crew should have caught that one....
Airlines these days are very careful about how speeds are calculated. They can be calculated in the cockpit, but most companies these days have automated systems that merge weight and balance data with local ATIS and present the speeds to the crew via ACARS. Even with that, we are taught to ask ourselves "Does that sound right?".
the reupload channel presents....
Don’t hate on them bro, there are only so many plane incidents that have ever occurred
@@Recoverlerbotines you have google right? go and do a search on the total number of air crashes that have happened and then tell me
He isn't hating
@@Recoverlerbotines BS.. au2553 remains undone and is a terrible accident
The heck is a body gear?