The Airline That Didn’t Care About Safety | Air Bagan 011
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ส.ค. 2023
- Help Support The Channel!: / miniaci
Join My Discord: / discord
Christmas day 2012 at about 6:03 am local time a fokker 100 jet with 65 people on board left yangon international airport to mandalay international airport for a short domestic flight in the country of myanmar. And also youtube algorithm, dont demonetize me for the name of the plane thats just what its called theres not much i can do about it. This was the first leg of the flight and by 8:26 am the second leg of the flight was underway. This leg took it form mandalay international airport to heho airport. The plane quickly climbed to its cruising altitude of 13000 feet and within no time the jet was closing in on heho. The pilots contacted heho center and they got the weather data for the airport that they would be landing at. It wasnt bad to be honest, calm winds a bit of fog but they had 3 kilometers of visibility. As the jet descended the radio altimeter came on on and the first officer called out radio altimeter to make it clear that the radio altimeter was working. As the plane went through 9000 feet of altiitide the jet overflew the heho NDB. The pilots would be performing a non precision approach to runway 36 at the airport. The NDB approach needed the pilots to overfly the heho NDB and then they would have to turn to the right onto a heading of 220 degrees, after this was completed they would then have to turn to the left onto a heading of 010 from this point they would just have to visually line up with the runway. The weather was a bit foggy and so the pilots decided to talk about the possibility of a go around they talked about what theyd do in the event of a go around. As the jet started its turn to 220 degrees, the pilots had started the turn a bit too soon meaning that they were to the west of where they were supposed to be. But the captain saw the runway ahead of them and then decided to keep up with the approach. The captain saw that there was a bit of fog between them and the airport but it wasnt big enough to be any cause for concern and so they decided to go ahead with the approach. The MDA or the minimum descent altitude for Heho was 530 feet which meant that you could not go below 530 in altitude without seeing the runway. Also you have to remember that the MDA is doubly important because they were carrying out a non-precision approach. Had they been using an ILS or something like that then under very specific conditions they could have followed the radio beam all the way down to the runway. But with a non precision approach they did not have that luxury. As the Fokker dropped over the myanmarian city of heho the pilots called “i visual” as they spotted the runway. In the cockpit of the plane the workload of the pilots started to pile up as they now had to fly the plane keep up with the radios and had a bunch of checklists to go through and all of those needed to be done before the jet go anywhere near the runway. As fog stared enveloping the jet the automated voice in the cockpit started counting down the altitude. The voice said 500, then 400 then 300 then 200 and then when they were just at 108 feet the captain - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I like how you are covering the less sensational incidents. They still hold important lessons for everyone. Keep up the good work.
Ageeed!!
That’s only because he’s covered all of the major ones and is running out of content so is resorting to the less known ones.
Pretty soon he’ll be down to Piper Class fixed wings.
lmao 😂
@@lurch789 idt anyone is gawking at carnage?
Airline crashes are so rare you have to scrape the barrel to find anything new.
An RAF veteran is giving a talk to a class of school children, and was trying to explain what a typical mission would be like.
"So there I was, escorting the bombers to their target, when out of the blue we were attacked by a bunch of fokkers. There were about 20 of these fokkers. One took out my buddy, but I managed to shoot the fokker down. Then one was on my tail and I couldn't shake the fokker, but my pal took care of him. Then I took out two more of the fokkers..."
The teacher interupts "Children I should explain, the Fokker was a type of figher airplane used by the German Air Force to stop the RAF bombers and their escorts."
"Yes, but these fokkers were flying Messerschmitts!"
😂 was thinking of that joke instantly when he said Fokkers
lol!
Nice one. Made me laugh
None of you are Dutch like my parents. I wanted a guitar when I was a kid, my mom thought it would be better if I got accordion lessons. Look at that little fokker go, he should start a band! Thanks mom.
FUNNY !!
I've had 0 pilot training but if I hear an alarm that says "Too low, pull up!" I sure as hell would have aborted the landing.
With the plane configured for landing they most likely wouldn’t had received any altitude warnings.
Airports are usually located at 0' AGL so you're gonna have to get low at some point to get there
I really liked the Fokker regional jet. It had a very spacious cabin that would be like premium economy by today's standards. Unfortunately the Dutch company never managed to make it a commercial success and went under in 1996.
now they make parts for planes, including F35
They did have a lot of success for a long time. Especially in WW1.
@@EneTheGenelol yea
I really appreciate the videos on those lesser-known accidents, I don't recall ever having heard of thi one before.
With that being said... MINI!!!!
Amazing how only 1 person on the plane (and another on the ground) perished in that violent crash.
RIP to both victims.
@@gutewasser5900Not to excuse him but it seems like that whole airline was corrupt
Absolutely. The power lines temporarily knocked the passengers out so when they hit the ground they were relaxed. They then woke up and walked off the plane. Miraculous..
Indeed. Sad that anyone died but thanks to the locals and fire rescue all others survived. I wonder if both pilots survived...I don't think it said.
@@thereissomecoolstuff is that what happened? I didn't know the powerlines would do that on a plane.
@@juliemanarin4127 they don't unless your allergic to gluten and have IBS.
Your comments starting at At 5:14 sum up the final cause exactly. When you mentioned it earlier I was also puzzled. Pressing altitude hold at 50' AGL makes no sense. I can understand loss of situational awareness, but they should have gone around. Virtually all accidents involve an error chain. Break one link, and the flight can still have a safe landing. A go-around would have been the right decision.
I’ve never flown a plane outside of video games but in the initial narrative of the accident when you said they turned on altitude hold, even I asked why they weren’t going around.
-The Airline That Didn’t Care About Safety- The Airline That Didn't Give A Fokker
I think they were trying to "get low and grope for the runway" and just missed the legitimate minimal altitude they needed to maintain the aircraft. It's tempting to get down early, level off, and slow the plane to just coast over the terrain while you search for the runway in the fog in this kind of scenario. You KNOW that with less altitude, visibility reaches just a little further forward, and it does... BUT that's a marginal benefit at the best of times. It's just not worth getting below the minimals, even if you know the area... In a jet, you've got almost no time to react.
People have already been killed to put those minimal altitudes and go-around rules and protocols in place... BUT I can't think of any other way or excuse for the pilots "missing' that minimal safe distance from the ground. They KNEW what they were doing when they went to 100 feet and when they hit the "hold altitude" mode. They knew they didn't have a visual on the runway when they NEEDED it. They made a bad call for "Get-there-itis" in sh*t weather and it cost a plane, a couple towers, and lives... They're incredibly lucky it didn't cost a lot more and get a lot worse. ;o)
I am not a pilot, but I know when the warnings of pull up, ECT. You obey immediately. That's why there are terrain avoidance sensor and warnings.
Very surprised only 2 died, but it is 2 to many.
Condolences to their families.
Maybe they had broken english because common sense says to go up and around?
@@Jabarri74 be interesting to know.
I live near 2 huge schools and a big park, lots of kids on the street. When I'm backing out of the driveway and the car starts beeping it's for a good reason. I almost hit a kid 40 years ago, once in a lifetime is enough.
These guys had been taught how to basicly operate their aircraft but not how to FLY. Big difference.
Yeah, its so easy to say "pilot error", but when u take a little closer look at all the accidents with a finding of "pilot error", u will find, that the vast majority of them are further explained by lack of training, wrong training, inadequate procedures etc.
Sure, it happens, that a pilot simply fails in contradiction to training, procedures etc, but far too often a pilot fails, coz the pilot was failed b4 even getting in the aircraft.
Would hate to think of these characters driving a forklift…
Plane-catching trees are the real MVPs here.
Well done! Not a video I would recommend to people afraid to fly. I am happy the airline is now out of business,
Great job covering these lesser known incidents. Thanks for that!
If (thankfully) only two people perished, and one of them was on the ground, and there are supposed to be two pilots on the plane... how come they couldn't just ASK THEM afterwards what they were thinking at the time...?
My thoughts exactly. I don’t get the “four theories” aspect.
@@CAROLUSPRIMAYes I wanted more explanation on why there were just theories rather than any information about pilot interviews. Seems that that was left out of this video. Even if it wasn't in the final report it would be nice to at least have that be mentioned.
@@R2Bl3nd Someone says that it’s in the video at about 3:20 or so; someone else pasted the Katheryn’s Report or something similar. I’ve looked closely at both as well as the NTSB final report and it’s simply not there. When I ask these people what the words are I get no response other than “it’s clearly in the video.”
Well, it ain’t in there, clearly or otherwise.
Someone suggested that the specific words on the CVR cannot be understood - which I guess is about as good of an explanation as I’ve heard until something better comes along.
There is a phenomenon called "get--there-itis". Trying to land no matter what. They might have never seen the actual runway but mistook something else for it, e.g. a road, Confirmation bias keeps you believing you are right with what you believe and it may be hard to get out of that mental "rabit hole" until it is too late. And even it they did see the runway at some point: if you lose sight of it you cannot go below the MDA (minimum descend altitude) - and if you already are you must go around.
Of course their actual actions showed a lack of discipline, breaking a number of rules one after the other. In the actual, legal procedures there is no such thing like a "constant angle nonprecision approach" getting you below the MDA without your clearly seeing the runway or the runway lights clearly identifying it.
I am sure that a number of pilots have made the same mistake.
When landing at your home or a familiar airport and you know that you have seen the runway, provided that you know that their is no rising terrain, forrests, buildings or electricity lines between you and the runway, losing visibility for a few seconds is no big deal. But unless you are certain of ALL these factors, a go around is the only safe action. Even then, dropping below 200 feet before visibility returns is highly dangerous. Needless to say, enough thrust to lift the nose immediately is vital throughout.
Regardless of workload and other distractions, the most important thing is to FLY THE PLANE !
Excellent video!
so non precision approach , bad visibility , gpws alarm ,100 and 50 callout , no runway in sight and he still chose to hold the altitude ? dam
Well…they sure…FOKK’d up that landing!
It’s amazing that only 2 people were killed!
I think they didn't pay attention with all the checklists etc. And simulation training for ALL POSSIBLE SCENARIOS is absolutely imperative! What a tragic incident! They were searching for the runway and ignoring everything else!
Checklists kill.
Training, training, training, and small, airline companies don’t like to waste money there’s a possibility the pilots felt pressured to take it in the first landing without burning fuel in time
The fact the missed needed to be discussed while they were flying the approach really says just how far behind the plane they are. Approaches are items that should be briefed before you even get inside the aircraft.
Nice side comment about youtube demonitizing you for the name of the plane. 😄
Great video
Quick question... The pull up, terrain. Is this in the pilots language??
We always hear English but wondering if there is a language barrier, even with ATC??
Another great video!!
Mini has become one of my favorite aviation channels ❤
English is the standard, and they would have been trained on what it sounds like and the meaning. They may have been overloaded.
English is widely spoken in Myanmar (Burma).
@@JFJD Thank you
@@cameraman655 Thank you
You might be thinking of China Northern Airlines Flight 6901. That's the accident where the pilots asked each other what the English phrase "pull up" meant. I always feel guilty for laughing.
Nice video sir❤❤
If possible then could you please make a video on the 2008 Mexico city Learjet crash and alliance air flight 7412.
th-cam.com/video/vwn0q1b7UxY/w-d-xo.html
Task oriented behaviour is very powerful. Suddenly switching to problem solving…. Takes way too long.
I recall flying Air Burma F28 from Rangoon to Dacca in 1980.Crazy days.The copilot was in training with expat captain.
Nice. Which version of flight simulator are you using?
This kinda reminds me of the Colgan Air tragedy, but unlike this Fokker, that mother Fokker was a an ATR-72 I think, a twin engined turboprop. A real tragedy that one too, as the flight crew were discussing the almost exact scenario they were into, leading to either incorrect flap configuration or ice build-up on the flight surface behind the leading edge de-icing boots.
at last, a crash that can quite literally be defined as "skill issue".
Looking at the aural photo I cannot tell if that is the scar left by their crash or if they had mistaken a dirt track for the runway
Burmese airlines have pretty lax safety standards. I flew out of this airport to Yangon and the plane started moving before everyone was seated. Lovely country though, shame what has happened.
Many pilots feel that having to go around is a clear indication of a pilots poor piloting skills. And any missed approach/go around will have to be explained. Also, every pilot with an instrument-commercial rating has had training cockpit voice commands. Yes the airlines is required to continue this training. The pilots simply had that "get thereitis syndrome. We all get it. Professional pilots recognize it and get over it.
I think there needs to be a strict "no blame" culture regarding go arounds, the pilots should not have justify them or be penalised for making making too many. Pilots want to get their job done like anyone else, they have their own motivation to avoid go-arounds. It's really the pilots that make the fewest that need to be monitored, they might just be excellent pilots, but on the other hand...
My thoughts is that your second scenario fits best.
Did the pilots know they were at 50 feet when the activated altitude hold? Had they set the QFE correctly? As I understand it, if the " terrain pull up" warning goes off, you give it full power and climb as fast as you can. Were these pilots tired? On drugs? Drunk? Absolutely bizarre.
Thanks!
Thank you for these videos. Please consider helping our visits by concentrating on keeping the last words of each sentence, or the last syllables, audible. As it is, your voice trails off to a very low volume and become inaudible. Those words can only be heard if the volume is turned way up. The CC is helpful, but it, too, has a problem discerning those last words. Thank you
Regardless of what airline you are flying with...somewhere between high-school and flight school you should understand the concept of MDA...
😢 It seems this time it waa not the fault of the Fokker plane ...but it was the fokkers in the pilots seats.
😢Rest In Peace😢 the two fatalities, and thoughts to the stress / trauma to the other crew and passengers.
Thankyou for your sensitive videos.
Stay safe.
00:52. In every airplane that I’ve flown with a radio altimeter, it doesn’t gone alive until you are within about 2,500 agl or so.. which would mean they are very close to the mountain tops..
May you please cover bearskin Airlines flight 344
Non precision approach went wrong
This accident is so similar to the 2010 Polish LOT tragedy in Belarus.
In Brazil these Fokker had a series of accidents
As the RAF used to say, “I had those Fokkers to the right of me and Fokkers to the left, Sah!”
The approach chart shows surface elevations over 4000', so how can the MDA be 530'? Did you calculate the MDA minus the runway elevation and still call the result "MDA"?
for the region, this is in fact quite a sizable airline... considering that the passenger in Myanmar is generally less numerous than in a more developed part of the world... two medium sized Fokker jets?... this probably represented a good chunk of the local aviation industry.
it's a distance by any other means from Rangoon, & Mandalay is like the second sized city here... so this is probably one of the busiest flight routes in the country
How to spot a Fokker!: Look for an Airbus looking cockpit on the exterior and look for the rest to look like a DC-9/MD-11.
Sounds a bit like get-there-itis?
WE GOT ASLEEP
That's decently sized little Fokker
Does the Fokker 28 dash really have a "subscribe" button? @2:20
Nice catch.
The air safety book "The Tombstone Imperative" reports a case of CFIT in South America in which the CVR records the following two sentences just before impact.
GPWS: *PULL UP! PULL UP! PULL UP!*
Pilot: "Shut up, Gringo."
Whats the game you use
What is that blinking yellow light ?
how many of these pilots are working within the aviation industry?
"Buddin".....ITS BUTTON!!😖😖😖
How often do pilots do a go-around? A lot of these accidents seem to happen because the crew didn’t do a go-around.
Maybe a combination of no clear assignment of tasks/responsibilities and wishful ignoring?
Myanmar has jet airliners?
Oh THAT name!
I will never understand pressing altitude hold at 100ft, terrain can vary by 100ft in seconds at the speeds of a plane, I would have felt immense terror for the terrain coming up and CFITing me and gone around immediately, which makes me think both of them didn't pay attention to their altitude, but they're literally on they way down to land so how did that happen?
I have, so, so many questions
Edit: never being trained on GPWS, yep, that'd do part of it, but the warnings are self explanatory, so I still have questions
just 1 passenger killed ? that's amazing
How many people have checklists killed?
Your videos are good, and thanks for making them. A bit of constructive criticism: At times you mumble and slur your words to the point of unintelligibility. This is exacerbated by your extra rapid delivery. I respectfully suggest you work on your enunciation, plus try to avoid rushing...edit the text down a bit; hopefully, fewer words will result in clearer speech. Best wishes.
Way better now,depicted on MSFS 2020!
Subscribed a bit ago. You sound like Dan but I can't find the connection.
It seems with a lot of these accidents that pilots don't know how to fly a plane and depend on the airline to train them. What the hell are they doing in the cockpit in the first place????
the airplane seems like one of the older ones, so, I am not sure it had many of the tools modern pilots may be used to. at thesame time, they were probably very used to flying through things such as mist and slight bad weather... this is the rainforest in the middle of the tropics..
I can't imagine an acceptable visual landing condition was common, so, it was probably the case they pushed the envelope many times and always got away with it; until they didn't that is....
Well that took 2 minutes solve. The pilots mistook a road for the Runway. That explains their actions. The good news is they landed in a rice field which made it a softer watery mud landing.
If you look at the airport on Maps, the ground features could be confusing.
I have to think a simple DME system would have helped a lot.
I am not now, nor will I ever be a pilot, but even I know that if you lose sight of the runway below minimum altitude, it's time to hit that TOGA and pray you don't hit anything.
If only that plane had what is called an altimeter! It's a device that looks like a clock but instead of the time, it tells you how high you are above the ground.
No no, It's like a timer, but it counts upward. It tells you how long you'll be falling if the engines stop!
With how poorly this airline was run, I am grateful that they went out of business. Any airline that engages in behaviors conducive to them not caring about the safety and well-being of passengers and employees alike should not be flying, at least from my perspective.
It's called Air Baagaan(spelled Bagan)
I took ground school in High School and have yet to even fly a simulator and yet I know that if you are losing altitude, you put on power and gain altitude. So how did two trained pilots not realize this?
Ok, they were new to the plane, sure. They were overloaded, ok. But that should have only added to the realization that they need to gain altitude and go round.
Do you think it could have been professional huberice? Most people know when their jet is on final and most people know when the pilot aborts for a goround. Could it be they did not want to admit to the geese in the back that they had muffed the landing? I don't know, maybe I am grasping here, but I know enough pilots that professional huberice is clearly a thing. Their "I can pull this off" attitude is a blessing in an emergency... but perhaps a curse when the simple, expedient and obvious thing to do is to abort the landing, put on power and go round again.
GTA5 power lines in a nutshell. The render distances for them is awful and I can never see them
heho MDAFokker...lol...someone had to do it :P
No... Just no...
How much simulator training is needed in order to follow the directions of "pull up"? I think I could get that one right and I'm not even a pilot! 😂
As a pilot I’m going with option 3. Always go around if unsure. MDA is super important
Too many complicated theories simply adding fog to the possibilities. I think the giveaway was when they tried to hold altitude at 100ft. They knew they were low and were trying to sneak into the airport by holding at 100ft until they had visuals and then hoping to just drop the power and ease it into the landing. A triumph of optimism over reality.
How well do you really need to be trained to hear "pull up" and pull up?
***TH-cam ALGORITHM HERE….
Sometimes we can be to ‘Fokking’ ridiculous!!…better luck next time on your next ‘Fokking’ video👍***
- TH-cam Alg ✌️
Hi i'm 11years old boy I don't have any pilot trainings but I know how to control the plane and I know what are those alarm meaning
Air Bag-an or Air Ba-gan?
Bugger the check list all they needed to do was haul their backsides up into the sky…driving in heavy fog is dangerous…
They were IFR, I Fly Roads.
100 ft above ground? Let's maintain the altitude and the ground effect will so the rest...
(seriously -- 30 meters is really not something where anyone would be comfortable; there is a good chance of some hill+tree or building could be high enough to crash into)
Operator malfunction.
if you pronounce the name right and you spell it right you won’t have an issue my guy
ive never seen a pilot do a pretrip.
Off hand? Don’t you mean off guard?
So it was nowhere near the airport
What? The Fokker is naughty? It's not the French word for seal.
Geez😊
Don't forget to hit that like button
...egos......
I think was alcohol.
A lot of videos talk about high workload in the cockpit. Two points arise:
1. If these individuals are unable to cope with high workloads they should not be flying airplanes.
2. If these individuals are able to cope with these high workloads then it can't be the reason for the mistakes.
You have to pick one, but we can't just say that OMG the workload increased causing the accident.