Tenerife: The Other Side Of The Story
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- El Aviation: / @elaviation
Donations are never expected but are appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Source:www.project-ten...
KLM 747 Image: www.flickr.com...
Pan Am 747: Rob Russell
The tenerife crash is the most deadliest crash of all time. A month or so ago I put out a video about the tenerife crash and that one was based on the spanish report. In the case of the tenerife crash there are basically two reports. One by the spanish authorities and one by the dutch. They both agree on the facts, but they disagree on the interpretation of those facts. Most of the videos on the internet i've seen are based on the spanish report and I haven't really seen any that take a look at things from the dutch point of view and that is what we are going to do today. Well go through the dutch comments on the spanish report.
Before we go any further, i covered the circumstances leading up to the crash in my other video, which you can find on your screen right now. I highly suggest that you watch that or watch another documentary on youtube before proceeding so that you have context going forward.
So let's look at how the dutch see things shall we? The first issue that they tackle is the argument that the crew were under stress and that they were rushing to take off to meet their duty time requirements. The dutch investigators point to the calm and relaxed method in which the taxing and the takeoff was conducted. This according to them shows that the crew of the of the KLM was not hurrying to take off, as they did everything in an orderly manner.
If you'll think back to the other video you'll recall that the captain of the KLM ramped his engine power and the first officer of the KLM had to stop him and go “ Wait a minute we don't have ATC clearance ”, this was recorded as the plane moving forward ever so slightly on the CVR, the captain responded with “No: I know that go ahead and ask”. The dutch report says that the engines were ramped up to an EPR or engine pressure ratio of 1.10, the EPR value is a measurement of the thrust generated by the engines, the higher the value the more thrust you're generating. The dutch said that this was perfectly normal this is done to check the spin up of the engine prior to take off and according to them this does not indicate that the crew were hurrying to get airborne.
Listening to the CVR it was evident for most of the time on the flight deck the captain was acutely aware that he did not have clearance to take off, the first officer had reminded him of that fact. So lets go through the events of that day second by second to see what happened.
At 5:05 pm and 53 seconds the Controller gave the KLM crew the following bit of information “KLM eight seven * zero five uh you are cleared to the Papa Beacon climb to and maintain flight level nine zero right turn after take-off proceed with heading zero four zero until intercepting the three two five radial from Las Palmas VOR”. The controller is basically telling the crew what they need to do once theyre in the air, and as always the first officer starts a readback of the clearance. “Ah roger, sir, we're cleared to the Papa Beacon flight level nine zero, right turn out zero four zero until intercepting the three two five and we're now at take-off” That transmission began at 5:06 pm and 9 seconds and it lasted till 5:06 and 17 seconds. At 5:06 and 11 seconds the captain says “lets go check thrust” and the breaks were released. If you've been paying attention nowhere during that exchange was a take off clearance given. there was 6 seconds between the brakes being released and the end of the first officers readback.
Hey Everyone hop on our discord where we talk about planes and stuff: discord.gg/rhDgbc9
Starting the takeoff roll before being given explicit takeoff clearance when the airport is covered in thick fog is about as serious an operational issue there is!
You might be surprised how often it happens, though mainly with private pilots.
Keep in mind that the ATC controller and KLM pilots both had thick accents, which could have been costly.
@@thecaynuck4694
The FO understood the situation, which is why he reminded the captain that they didn't have clearance when he saw the guy going for it.
EXACTLY
Also the Spanish controllers weren’t the best, they used non-standard terminology. PanAm got lost because the controller said turn at the third taxiway... but third from what? Should have given the name of the taxiway instead.
Now they use explicit directives like “Line up and wait”, and not use “Ok” to remove ambiguities.
Long story short: The KLM captain took off before he was given clearance by the ATC. It does not really matter if he was in a hurry or not.
@Dave Mould No, not even remotely correct. Takeoff or landing clearance is absolute. The captain was explicitly and exclusively responsible for the aircraft and all souls on board. He destroyed both responsibilities with his impatience.
@@matthewamendt7530 Agreed he's responsible. What Dave is referring to is why the Dutch authorities are reluctant to admit that the pilot was under pressure and rushing to take off.
He was an arrogant ass, and killed everyone involved.
Long story short PAN AM BLOCKED THE RUNWAY,
RUNWAY INCURSION.
@@KingDevilCharger because he wasn't? have the Americans admitted PAN AM BLOCKED THE RUNWAY?! PAN AM FAILED TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM ATC.
As a Captain myself, those thrust levers don’t move until I hear cleared take off.
As a GA pilot everyone knows being cleared to your waypoint and altitude is NOT clearance to take off.
@@kimchi2780 RT phraseology was a little different back then. Changed after this disaster.
Yes but this is not the 70s when it officially was less clear in terminology
Every time I see this story I consider the KLM Captain knowing he just filled up the fuel tanks and seeing that collision was imminent saving the Pan Am by veering off the runway into the dirt. A horrible decision to have to make and make within a few seconds but would have cut the tragedy in half anyway.
@@austindarrenor What saved the Pan Am was the Pan Am captain going off the runway the KLM hit them straight dead on.
Just because someone appeared to do something in a calm and deliberate manner does not mean they were not rushed. It's a nonsensical argument
Yeah, they could still be behaving on instinct.
@Nick Bruno The KLM captain took off without a clearance in fog. End of story.
@Green Mamba Games Rush: To move forward, progress, or act with haste or eagerness or without preparation. Words can have multiple definitions and/or usages. The claim is that the pilot was trying to avoid going past a time limit. He progressed before preparations were complete (proper clearance for takeoff given).
I agree. We have all heard pilots in very difficult situations maintain calm radio communications. The ability to do that is a necessary part of the professional skills because good communications are required in order to transmit information clearly. So I believe we can read nothing into the tone of voice.
@@Pooneil1984 how manny recording you have from that time?
No wonder everyone uses the Spanish version. The dutch version concludes there's no evidence he was in a hurry to takeoff, then immediately lays out evidence that he was indeed in a hurry to takeoff.
The spanish version however obscures both heterodynes. Yes, this video also doesn't mention it, but there were 2.
The spanish report also neglects to speak of the tower's controller actually speaking very broken english. They simply mention the controller having to repeat a single misunderstanding, even though the truth is; both the pam am and the KLM had trouble understanding the controller half the time.
I agree the dutch report suger coats the hurry van Zanten was in due to airline regulations that could suspend his license.
But the spanish report sugar coats the controller hardly speaking english and not sticking to proper callouts.
@@elwinvanhuissteden7729 it may leave that out while the other blatantly tries to mislead or even lie. The pilot was in a hurry to take off. Even his copilot knew he didn't have clearance. He didn't have an organized thought process. Conclusion? It must be the controllers fault. Why? Because admitting fault can be very expensive.
@@jonslg240 Both the controller and Captain van Zanten were mostly at fault.
Shame only van Zanten was held responsible; KLM took 70% of the blame, tenerife got away with just 15%
@@elwinvanhuissteden7729 The last responsible for accelerating the aircraft is the commander, not the controller, who is not directly in charge of the plane. Even in the event of having communication issues, it is the pilot's responsibility to choose to wait and ensure whatever it needs to be ensured.
@@elwinvanhuissteden7729 it doesn't require excellent English to say "you are cleared for take-off". Did the captain hear this explicitly said? Nope! In fact, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR doesn't lie) showed that the Captain was pushing the throttles immediately after the plane finished backtracking. The FO tried to stop him, and we could clearly hear from the CVR that the FO said to the captain "we don't have ATC clearance". Captain then said "I know, go ahead ask for the clearance", while pushing back on the throttles that he should never have started. Then the ATC cleared them for the flight path, not take-off. The FO read back the flight path clearance. Nowhere in the CVR can we hear the ATC's take-off clearance, also the FO never read back a take-off clearance, because why? He never got one! With his last ditch efforts, he said "we are at take-off". This is not a standard aviation phraseology. On a normal setting, the pilots would need to clearly hear the ATC say "callsign, you are cleared for take-off", and the pilot would then read back "callsign, cleared for take-off", before they push the throttles. Please don't blame the heterodynes, this is common occurrence in radio communications between ATC and pilots. Don't believe me, go listen to ATC communications on YT, it happens all the time. It's the pilot's responsibility to ensure he clearly hears ATC instructions before he takes off. Didn't hear it? Ask ATC again. Imagine if every pilot flies like this KLM captain, my god flying would be so dangerous. Assuming clearance is simply irresponsibility. A pilot knows he/she should never ever push the throttles forward until he/she clearly hears these 5 words, "you are cleared for take-off", and it is mandatory for the pilots to readback these same 5 words.
Whatever versions of report out there, pilots are to follow ICAO's Rules of the Air for take-offs. Link below. When they don't, it's PILOT DEVIATION. Period. Im sick and tired of hearing a bunch of fabricated excuses.
www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Document%20Archive/an02_cons%5B1%5D.pdf
They admitted that he took off without clearance and claimed it wasn't a serious operational issue? I call BS.
No, it's the events leading up to the take-off that were not serious operational issues. The captain wanted to take off before the fog got worse, expected to be cleared as he was already on the runway, and misunderstood the 'okay' as clearance when it wasn't. He was a very experienced pilot, but he made assumptions that should have been checked first before acting upon.
@@SeedlingNL they blame the non stardad phrasology of the ATC,but accept the "OK" as "KLM 8705,you are clear to take off"
Gimme a break, in the few extra seconds to get a proper take-off clearance, the weather isn't suddenly gonna fog up below minimums...
@@alexmollen9339 Of course not, but what if the weather already went worse a few minutes ago and the ATC just now made the decision that the visibility is too poor for take-off and informs the crew right in those few seconds?
Although very unlikely, that CAN happen and considering the amount of flight hours that this captain had, it might have happened to him before and I can imagine that that must be extremely frustrating
@@Peter_Parker361 if ATC just now made the decision that the weather was too bad for take-off, then he simply shouldn't have taken off!
If the KLM heard a heterodyne then they knew they missed 2 transmissions. The heterodyne happens when 2 parties are transmitting at once. That was a big error. Also isn’t everyone on the same frequency? So the KLM was hearing every transmission between the PanAm and the tower? They certainly would have heard the PanAm reporting they were clear. They hadn’t heard that yet. Obviously an over abundance of caution was warranted given the heavy fog, extremely overloaded traffic, backtracking, etc. The KLM was definitely rushing. He started takeoff 6 secs before the 1st officer finished the read back.
In addition to that if you recall Tenerife was one of a few outdated facilities and was known by most pilots as one airport that you needed to keep your eyes on everything because on that day several events led up to this. The Ground Radar System was down, heavy fog with zero visibility poor communication and the fact Tenerife was never designed for that many aircraft the KLM and others were there only because they had been diverted from Paris due to recent bombings and sat there in the planes for hours due to the terminals not having any skywalks or chair trucks to let passengers off. Tensions were high and the Captain was thinking of the passengers and getting "the hell" out of there. Yes he was in fact already in the T/O Roll before the F/O cleared the readback and that was a huge mistake.
The Engineer flagged to that. He asked where’s the Pan Am? But got blown off.
We don't intend to promote the abstract potential that a sublime " culture clash " was underway between the ATC and the Captain however there is a premise for such in the Marine Cruise Industry where there are Captains and First Officers on the bridges of many a floating hotel whereas "If you ain't Dutch then you ain't much".
It happens!
Who can measure that such a mindset was not present at the beginning of the roll in this report?
This horrid incident was human caused.
It was not the first nor the last.
@@HeaanLasai I've never heard that we, the Dutch, were preceived like that, very interesting.
Whatever the Dutch may think the KLM pilot was 100% to blame for this horrific crash
First Principle of flight: If you 'aint 100 per cent sure then you 'aint sure enough. Kept me alive for many years...
Even if you are 100% sure...you only know what you think you know.
@@MrDumile huh , !???? You again ? The taxi driver 😁😃😆😆😆😆😆
Bottom line, the Dutch flight crew never had takeoff clearance.
They thought they did, that's the sad part
@@samuelmatheson9655 The captain of the KLM jumbo jumped the gun. His FO knew they did not have clearance nor were they certain the PanAm jumbo had cleared the runway. Nearly 500 people lost their lives because of the arrogance of 1 man that day!! 😭😭😭
Yep. He was an arrogant twat apparently...
@@samuelmatheson9655 At the least, what I would have expected to hear from the KLM captain was "can you check and confirm the Pan Am is off the run-way"? And until he received a clear and audible confirmation, he should never have taken off. Of course, if he had of done that we wouldn't be discussing this.
@@chrisclermont456 Yes, arrogance. People dispute this, but here's the meaning of arrogant: 'having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities'.
Yep, that sums it up.
It was clear to the first officer that take off clearance was not given. You can couch it any way you want the klm captain is at fault.
Well duh
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE klm captain is at fault.
If you want to see what it looks like when the pilot crossing the runway is at fault, here: th-cam.com/video/oI2rJhdvguc/w-d-xo.html
Both captain and FO were at fault!
But, one issue almost everyone overlooks is that PanAm pilots missed the taxiway...had they taken the taxiway they were supposed to...this still would not have happened.
Also...both PanAm pilots are at fault to even accept clearance to 'taxi-back' on a runway with such low visibility.
Leadership was non-existent!!!
PanAm pilot were equally incompetent as the KLM pilots!
That taxi clearance came from the tower. Tenerife is not an airport that is used. Las Palmase(sp?) is the main airport.
The KLM-pilot never got a takeoff clearance. That is what readbacks are fore - until you get a clearance, read that clearance back and the other side confirms that you don't have a clearance. Heterodyne or no, they never heard the actual clearance, because they never got it. Doesn't matter what mental picture the pilot, co-pilot or flight engineer had - they broke protocol, and the incident is a direct result of that. The controller not using standard phrasology might have played a role, they might have tried to use the short window they had for takeoff, there might be a hundred other reasons that contributed, but ultimately that STILL doesn't excuse the pilot from taking of without clearance.
..... and if the controller had used non-standard phrasology, al the more reason to question it and make sure you understood correctly, before acting
Devil's Advocate: In 1977 the "cleared for takeoff" clearance did not exist, pilots received clearance of their flight, which KLM had received, the rest was far less standardized. In fact, it was specifically standardized with very clear standard phraseology DUE to this crash. Indeed, all of the communications were standardized after this crash. There was very little standard phraseology for controllers at this time, and controllers didnt even adhere to that.
My biggest problems with ppl judging the KLM crew harshly on their communication, crew management and decision making are doing based on standards and protocols, that did not exist in 1977 and in fact were only implemented in reaction to this crash, and that ppl are still overwhelmingly judging based on the American propaganda version.
My biggest problems with the "Spanish" report, which was actually the American report, as they were the 1s pushing the narrative, was always, that it was heavily relying on the Pan AM co-pilots unsubstantiated claims, despite him as only surviving flight crew having a huge stake in whitewashing his own reputation AND his story changing several times, every time making himself more innocent and making increasingly harsh accusations against the KLM crew, for which there simply were zero corroboration. Additionally, the Americans pushed a behavior by the KLM captain and a series of events/decisions in the KLM cockpit, for which they had zero facts, it was pure speculation invented to fit the narrative to back up the Pan AM pilots claims and divert any blame from the American company.
This does not mean, that I think, the KLM crew didnt make serious mistakes. They did. And they do carry a lot of blame. But the Pan AM crew also made serious mistakes, as did the controllers. The propaganda story of blaming everything solely on the KLM captain based on claimed events in the KLM cockpit, that they simply invented based on no known facts, and on an almost demon like personality ascribed to the KLM captain, which any1, who had ever known him, vociferiously protested was nothing like he really was.... that was never believable.
I guess, my entire long comment can be boiled down to, that I strongly believe, that such investigations should stick to known facts, not go into full blown fiction, which the original Spanish/American report did, tho I do understand the reason, why they were so busy acquitted their own ppl. But as the longtime NTSB leader Greg Feith says, there is no 1 reason for a plane crash, it is always a series of many small events, that individually would not lead to problems. And btw, after Feith retired from the NTSB, he was hired by documentary makers to do a new investigation of this crash, and he came to a much more nuanced and believable conclusion, based solely on actual facts.
@@dfuher968 If anything, the Spanish report's statement that the KLM captain was in a hurry tends to give him an excuse. If he wasn't in a hurry, he's even more to blame for the crash. Taking off without clearance is obviously a major error and could cause a crash in many circumstances even if nothing else wrong happened. Miscounting ramps is not a major error and could not cause a crash by itself.
At most you can argue that the controllers contributed to the problem by using nonstandard terminology. That still contradicts your desire to blame the Americans, though, since the controllers weren't American.
Let's not forget that the Dutch initially tried to disclaim any responsibility, and were only dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that their captain was the problem by the incontrovertible fact that he made a takeoff run without ever being given clearance for takeoff.
@@dfuher968, American propaganda? You’re delusional. Tell this crap to the families of the over 500 people who died because of the KLM captain’s impatience.
Does anyone remember the captains remarks immediately preceding his taxiing into position regarding some other pilots bad parking at the fuel loading station?
When it comes right down to it, no one bought any of this outside KLM.
Yeah, basically. That's why literally every non-dutch retelling of this event cites the Spanish report. To the point that I (and I'm sure many others) didn't even know there WAS an "alternate" interpretation.
At the time, the Dutch government owned nearly 80% of KLM stock so they were covering their own asses.
@@johnking7454 And now they are doing the same with MH17.
I don't know. When KLM asked if they were clear for takeoff, I think a simple "Hold on. Let me look-see if Pan Am is off the runway." instead of the "PAPA two-fiver kilo eight six niner delta eleven three four..." bullshit was in order.
@@psychosneighbor1509 ATC could not see the aircraft on the runway due to the density of the fog. They also did not have an operational ground radar to see aircraft movement around the airfield in reduced visibility.
So many contributing factors to this hideous accident.
Both the tower and the KLM were using unfortunately sloppy terms, and the heterodyne came at a ridiculously bad time. But, the heterodyne means that they by definition missed a message (as it's caused by simultaneous transmission), so not getting a repeat confirmation and just assuming they had clearance without actually having heard that is criminally negligent. And there is no doubt the KLM captain was in a rush, no matter how calmly he rushed the takeoff.
"... no matter how calmly he rushed the takeoff." That made me laugh, thanks.
This is the point I keep getting hung up on! You *know* you missed a message, and you don’t bother to check what it was, especially given all the other crazy things going on at the time: crowded conditions, bad weather, confusing messages from ATC, and other planes using the runway as a taxiway? One would think an excess of caution was warranted. It wouldn’t have taken more than a couple of seconds to get a clarification.
This is exactly what the KLM defenders in this thread do not understand. Leaving a garbled transmission under these circumstances unchecked is negligence. A simple request to the ATC to repeat the last transmission would have prevented everything. The KLM first officer and the engineer were aware about the unclear status of the PanAMs position and voiced their concerns. Van Zanten just did not give a shit.
@@JosieJOK Couldn't agree more. Bad weather, misleading communication, no clarity about the PanAm's position etc. - these are not excuses! These are reasons to be extra careful and to double- or triple-check everything. And ignoring the first officer and the engineer speaks only for Van Zanten hybris and not for his experience.
A simple question to all those who are emphasizing that Dutch pilots should have requested to repeat the “missing message” …
First of all, it should have been known to the Dutch Pilots that they have “missed” something. The message from KLM “we are at take off” was intended for the controllers, not for the PanAm. Controllers were aware of the position of PanAm and they knew it had not then cleared the runway. So controllers could (and they did) reply appropriately to KLM. But PanAm crew interrupted the communication between KLM and Controllers and speak in place of controller “We are still taxiing down the runway”
This interruption caused heterodyne because American pilot used the microphone when it was supposed to be used by the controller (it was his turn). What KLM heard in reply to “we are at take off” was----- “Ok …………pause ………… noise”. ------ Due to heterodyne they never knew what controller said after taking a long pause after the word OK.
While on the other hand, controller precisely instructed the PanAm 747 to follow the KLM, take third exit and then report runway clear. In communication between PanAm and controllers, there was no noise, no interruption and even they reconfirmed about the exit number. Controller reconfirmed “Third exit, one … two … three … third one on you left sir” ---------- why don’t you question PanAm form advancing beyond third exit contrary to the controllers instructions? PanAm cockpit crew made decision at their own and did not take the exit… well, you would argue… “They could not see it through the dense fog” --- Okay, got it… so dense fog is a valid “Excuse” for PanAm crew for overlooking third exit…….. but heterodyne IS NOT VALID EXCUSE FOR KLM to start takeoff even heterodyne did not let them hear standby call from the operators…. And also remember, there was not human intervention for spreading fog (if it was, then blame Spanish authorities for delaying take off operation for more than two hours after the security clearance). But heterodyne was surely caused by human intervention. It was caused due to use of microphone by a “person” when he was not supposed to use the microphone (because controller was supposed to reply KLM, not the PanAm). Did KLM use PanAM call-sign before transmitting “We are at take off”? Never…
In US and Spanish investigation, some valid questions were not asked from PanAm pilots, ground controllers and Spanish Authorities. It was because they had got a suitable “candidate” to blame at and he was not alive to defend himself.
Something that's been overlooked is the fact that this was Van Zanten's first flight in three months due to the fact he had been training other pilots on flight simulators.
This had conditioned him to not listen to ground control...because that isn't part of simulator training.
This was covered in depth in episode 3, season 16 of Air Crash Investigations "Disaster at Tenerife".
This was entirely the fault of Van Zanten...and one of the recommendations was for the Captain to listen and respond to crew objections.
IMHO the decision of ATC to simultaneously use the runway as a taxiway for two aircraft, with one pointing toward the other ,poised for takeoff, and especially after visibility fell to minimums, and with lack of ground radar, was in the broad scheme of things equal to the magnitude of the error made by Van Zanten. I know this goes against the common wisdom, but I don't think it was responsible to put paying passengers in this degraded environment to begin with. Debatable of course.
Human factors, often a deadly element. The captain did not hear and the first officer did not read back the critical words: "Clear for takeoff." As a pilot for nearly 50 years, and an acceptance pilot for 23, you never move the throttles forward until that phrase is received and read back. One problem I found over my career is when a person is not a native English speaker, they often misinterpret words, phrases and subtle nuances often overlooked by those who have English at their primary language. That is why a corresponding read back is essential! The first officer did not speak up and stop the takeoff due to superior pressures. That is why, things have changed since Tenerife. CRM - Cockpit Resource Management was introduced specifically to address issues such as this. While captains may have the final say, any flight deck officer can countermand a PIC order if he deems necessary. The bottom line is that crews today work as a team, not a dictatorship.
No, I do not agree with that report... the first officer said “ Wait a minute we don't have ATC clearance” and the engineer said the same... the person that was in hurry was the Capitan... The Duch report, probably, was done by friends of him. People that know him and respect him... so they try to deny that the blame for the crash was him... But no, he will be the Capitan of the KLM share a higher amount of faults in that crash... But for that reason, KLM agrees to pay all the money to the survivors and victims of that crash.
Not necessarily friends of his, but remember this KLM captain was like the most famous pilot in the entire country. The KLM ads used his picture and he was basically the top-rated pilot in the entire organization. There was no way they were going to let a national treasure be the cause of the worst aircraft accident in history.
This was the second KLM high-ranking senior pilot to commit a major error and cause a crash. In 1948, Koene Dirk Parmentier, pilot of the famous Uiver DC-2, runner-up in the MacRobertson race crashed a Lockheed Constellation while performing a maneuver that he himself had forbidden KLM crews to perform, at Glasgow Prestwick airport.
@@paulcrumley9756 The Wikipedia page for Koene Dirk Parmentier, is in Duch, Deutsch, and Nihongo... I could read a little Japanese but only describe the accident in 1 line. But an accident is just that, an accident... The Tenerife (Rodeos) disaster was for a bunch of mistakes for several people, we can argue about the amount of blame for every person involved in it... but the dead people will not come back... In this channel, we have very interesting aviation accidents, and some of them don't die everybody, I love those... But we have accidents when all the blame is for the Capitan or the pilots like "Liar In The Cockpit" ( th-cam.com/video/AMhbpyteT4s/w-d-xo.html )
@wargent99 Until now I lived in 6 countries, and I travel to more than 15... That you said is the worse thing about the Human race... I could say with more bad words in Spanish to the Spaniards. If the big problem of the Duch is only that, the next time I need to visit Netherlands (I only land at the airport... I travel with KLM several times)
The reason why the 1st officer said "wait a minute, we don't have ATC clearance" was because right after the KLM 747s turnaround on the runway. Captain Van Zanten immediately opened up all throttles to full power for takeoff! After the 1st officers comment, Van Zanten did throttle back, but that was just delaying the inevitable.
there is no controversy, the klm plane tried to take off when the runway was not clear
They didn't know that till the PanAM plane became visible too late.
@@carlcushmanhybels8159 it is the responsibility of the captain of an airliner to ensure the safety. of his passengers and crew it was his job to make sure the runway was clear
@@rcbrannon57 Sure, but he couldn't see far enough and they had reasons to believe they had Clearance. Plus, with the spotty inand out of fog weather, Go clearance should be acted on quickly. Cpn should have double checked he really had Clearance. The ATC were bad, unfamiliar with English, and giving misleading statements, and a key communication was garbled. Most accidents don't just have 1 cause (or there'd be a lot more accidents). Usually several things go wrong, as here, piling on each other.
@@carlcushmanhybels8159 one can not take off unless one knows that the run way is clear
@@rcbrannon57 You do not understand. KLM, as I've stated repeatedly thought -for fairly good reasons - he had Clearance - If he has Clearance (from ATC) that includes that the runway is freee --. See the video, and/or my expls, for why KLM Cap thought he had takeoff Clearance. And for the goofups by ATC and further that created that impression. Pilots have to fly in conditions where visibility is marginal, even non-existent, such as instrument take-offs and landings. Pilots of big aircraft, such as 747's also are on long runways, over 5,000 ft. At that length, even in sort-of clear conditions, objects way down the runway will be invisible.
The KLM took off without a clearence. Period.
The report didn't deny that though.
@@declannewton2556 But they tried to muddy the water even though the bottom line is, no explicit clearance, no go.
Agreed. I am not buying this idea they tried to cut a couple seconds to "hit a weather window for safe take-off". I will admit ATC was not blamed enough though. Having plane 2 follow plane 1 down the runway and turn off half way for plane 1 to take off was a really stupid way to save a couple minutes, especially in that visibility. Also caused a lot of out-of--system communication traffic that pilots were not used to dealing with, and ultimately resulted in the cross-talk which proved fatal. ATC screwed up.
PB - Applying fault or blame will not prevent re-occurrence. Only when you understand how and why people do things can you even start to build in defences. And then you have to ask if a system is safe if one error will result in the deaths of hundreds?
Couldnt agree more! And the KLM crew WAS concerned with violating duty hours.
More than once over the years I have called the tower and asked for confirmation of take off clearance. In thick fog, with lots of ground traffic, and knowing that there is another aircraft taxiing on the runway, - this would have been the right thing to do. Captain van Zanten was guilty of gross negligence. As the chief pilot of KLM he should have known better.
The whole Dutch report was pretty much written defensively. Face it: One of your most experienced captains screwed up
...and an arrogant one at that...well known. In addition, there was his daughter's birthday party which he stated he absolutely did not want to miss.
@dobromeister interesting...I thought they used ICAO standard flight & duty times.
So, what schedule limits DID they apply after scrubbing the earlier international standard ??
@dobromeister Thanx info: so those aircrew and sim currency KLM aircrew were lying in their reporting ?
The KLM Captain executed several unprofessional action/verbal statements. Full stop.
In exhibiting this unprofessional attribute, he is solely responsible - like the Air New Zealand Antarctic crash: parameters are there not to be disobeyed. Full stop.
A captain does not make assumptions: full stop.
As a CP & Line Training Captain, I have flown multi crew with "professional" ATPL holders of all equipment range, including from good carriers, like BA & Cathay - and been gob smacked at their line crossing - some of which would have been fatal to the flight, but for my intervention.
One of most surprising events on CVR, is lack of standards in crew interchange: KLM has a sound reputation.
@dobromeister The air lines putting flight restrictions on there Flight Crews has caused more crashes than are ever listed! there was a Foker 28 Crash in Driden Ontario Canada, Caused because
the captain was told not to shut the engines off for deicing in a snow storm! The Crash was caused by a wing Ice Stall!
The company is also at blame for failing to monitor their employee's work conditions and behavior.
Most of times people in charge are the culprits but no less important, in matter of prevention, is the conditions that they have.
I think the Dutch report suffers from the very same misinterpretations that the KLM Captain suffered. He did NOT have takeoff clearance but he rolled anyway. A key factor to keep in mind is that he had only recently returned to actual flight duties after an extended period as an instructor in the simulator. In the simulator, he was used to being his own takeoff authority and he reverted to that at Tenerife. Yes, the crew WAS rushed... that's why they were still busy with checklists until they reached the runway. Don't forget that he was delayed by a late decision to take fuel to minimize time on the ground at his next destination!
I think you and a lot of other commenters here are missing the point. Of course, KLM captain did not have clearance, but what had led him to believe that he did? When captain checks the engine spin-up and the FO reminds him he doesn't have takeoff clearance, he tells him to ask for it. FO asks for clearance and ATC tells them they are cleared for a flight path. At this moment, in the captain's mental model they have received takeoff clearance, and that means the Pan Am had already cleared the runway, hence the answer to the flight engineer. The FO probably also succumbed to this false belief because he did not do anything once the captain started the takeoff roll. Had the ATC stressed "you do not have takeoff clearance", or had they heard the Pan Am on the radio properly, it would have broken their false mental model.
@@lukfi89 No sir. You are missing the point. He NEVER asked for "takeoff clearance" he asked for "ATC Clearance" which is what to do AFTER takeoff. Takeoff clearance is requested AFTER ATC clearance and he never did that... likely because with his recent experience with simulator training he was used to being his own clearance. This was brought up during the investigation. Because ATC is not part of the simulator training he lost his familiarity with having to ask for it! The formal investigation for everyone but the Dutch underscored that he took off without clearance and that ATC communications were not to blame.
Guys I think there are two ways to look at it. They're both in the same boat because the outcome was the same.
The positive view would obviously be that the KLM captain was right in his own mindset because of training or experience etc etc etc This view is harder for us and easier for the dutch to accept as no one wants to accept their mistakes.
The negative view is that the KLM pilot took out without proper takeoff clearance from the tower. This one is easier for us to accept but harder for the dutch to accept since it's easy to shift the blame off other factors and provide one satisfying conclusion to the crash (blaming the dutch pilot).
Its like a tunnel vision
At the end of the day it's hard for us to understand what actually happened since we weren't there and there are mixed interpretation.
But one thing is for sure, nobody could prepare for a crash as deadly as this.
Although these might seem as a series of unfortunate events, I think that even if one of those factors could be changed, there was still a high probability of the outcome remaining the same (even if one small radio transmission felt like it would seemingly fix it all!). Till the very last second it seemed as if it was meant to happen.
This is all just my view of it, so I hope you guys read and give me your criticism of my interpretation.
Note
The heterodyne thing is common and and so was the engine spinoff making them irrelevant.
@@Abbas2105x There were two primary forces at work that caused the KLM pilot to make the fatal mistake. #1 he was under time pressure to complete his flight within an inflexible timeframe causing him to rush his takeoff. #2 His most recent experience had been doing instruction in a simulator where he fell into the habit of being his own takeoff clearance. One takeaway that should've come from this but apparently didn't is to include ATC interaction in all simulators.
The bottom line is that at a controlled airport, no aircraft is allowed to begin the takeoff roll without expressed clearance from ATC. KLM violated this rule and all the speculation and rationalization in the world won't change that irrefutable fact. BTW, at the time of this accident the Dutch government owned nearly 80% of KLM stock which probably explains why their report was a whitewash!
@@lukfi89 The KLM captain did not check the engine spin-up. It's clear the First Officer was alarmed that the captain advanced the throttles and had to verbally insist they were not cleared for take off. It was clear the KLM captain was willing to break procedure at that point, which is the smoking gun. The FO wasn't offering a reminder when the engines were spooling up, he was alarmed "Wait a minute, we don't have an ATC clearance." That's a huge huge huge red flag.
"A report from an alternate timeline." I love how you called it.
Yeah seems more like alternative facts to me ...
@@nikoweindel1198 I thought the same thing. Biased doesn't even begin to describe this alternative timeline. And I am not even in the camp that want to place the entire blame on the KLM captain. It is interesting to have other perspectives, but the timeline is the timeline just as the facts are the facts.
@@thedawgy1995 Yeah, the KLM pilot screwed up, but his screw-up was understandable human error. The Dutch report, though, is just a straight up attempt to whitewash his mistake. Personally, I find the report much more offensive than the pilot's mistake, because he clearly didn't intend to cause a crash, but the Dutch report was clearly trying to obfuscate the issue.
@@DPS31762 There was plenty of blame to spread around. It is a rare case when an accident occurs with a single point of failure. It is also very rare for anyone to set out to cause a crash. I respect there are different views. If I had to assign primary fault, it would be on ATC. But, the KLM Captain clearly had his mind on issues beyond the task at hand. I am absolutely in agreement with your statement that the Dutch report was about muddying the waters. For me though, the most offensive element of this tragedy is that there are still lessons to learn that have not been incorporated into modern ATC systems. Due to other accidents, we spent billions on microburst detection systems. billions on ground proximity warning systems, and billions on traffic collision avoidance systems. But, we didn't do a damn thing to fix the heterodyne problem. The fix for that problem wouldn't have required billions and only needed a low-tech adjustment. For all the people that died that day and those who were forever marked by the horror, I think we have failed in the most critical part of accident investigation. That part being to learn every possible lesson we can so we can avoid it ever happening again. Heterodyne was identified as a contributing factor and yet nothing was done to fix it.
@@DPS31762 YES, YES, YES!!! That's it man. Unfortunately Accidents happen and we must learn from them, but changing facts is untolerable. I also felt worse by reading the Dutch report rather than with a fatal human error, no matter how big it could be.
The fact that the first officer had to say "wait a minute" to the Captain and then the Captain later releasing the brakes while the FO is reading back the clearance to the ATC gives the undeniable impression that there was some impatience in the cockpit. .
The Dutch report is a deflection and an attempt to change the facts. The captain did not have situational awareness and lost his focus and was responsible for this disaster. Because your voice is calm does not mean you are not rushed.
This is a very american approach to the situation. You look for an individual to blame, convinced that if one person hadn't made a mistake this accident wouldn't have happened. However, humans are fallible, they make mistakes. If the system people are operating in cannot tolerate them making mistakes then it's the system that's ultimately responsible for the tragidy. A failure to recognise this has led to many more crashes.
@@asArsenic This is not an American approach it’s a factual approach. The system did not fail but the captain failed the system. Humans will always .make mistakes and when they do they must own their errors. Taking responsibility for our actions both good and bad goes to character which seems to be lacking in today’s world. Blame someone else or it was not me but the committee made the decision..
@@jonassteinberg2177 He's dead, he very much owned his mistake. That didn't prevent hundreds of innocent souls from dying though.
@@asArsenic
Semni,
Agreed
"The captain didn't want to waste time whilst the conditions allowed for a safe takeoff"
Er...
Exactly! As if the weather is suddenly gonna go below minimums in the few seconds that it would take to get a take-off clearance!
So he was in a hurry, and not "calm". Jeez what a load of BS.
"The captain didn't want to waste time whilst the conditions allowed for a safe takeoff... but he was NOT in a rush" 😅
The FO had to remind him that they had no clearance, because the guy was going for it... then he went ahead and rolled without clear confirmation or visibility, if that's not being in a rush, I don't know what is.
@@alexmollen9339 Forget suddenly, it was already so bad (past tense) the PanAm couldn't find the taxiway they wanted.
well......safe takeoff must be defined differently in the KLM Quick Reference Manual
The report says that KLM wasn’t in a hurry, but also says that the captain wanted to takeoff quickly while conditions were good. So which one is it? I think that their explanation of why the KLM captain thought he was clear is absolutely correct, but the notion that it was perfectly understandable and fine is not. One crew member seemed to have some doubt, but didn’t raise those to the captain very seriously. They also should have realized that they missed something with the heterodyne (this could be true if ATC and the other plane as well).
I still think that the crew at the point where the advanced the throttles were in agreement the Pan Am was off the runway.
It does sound more a lime a question the engineer asked with regards to the Pan Am rather than a statement.
@@declannewton2556 It is possible that, unlike the First Officer, the Flight Engineer didn't have enough confidence to challenge the captain directly. Let's look at the transcript:
Flight Engineer: Is he not clear then?
Captain: What do you say?
Flight Engineer: Is he not clear, that Pan American?
Captain: Oh yes.
He even repeats himself when the captain doesn't hear him the first time. In my opinion if he wasn't too concerned, he'd just say "oh, never mind" or something to that effect instead. This exchange very much reads like a non-assertive way of saying "Crap, I don't think the Pan Am is clear" to me.
@Nick Bruno Pan Am failed to follow ATC and blocked the runway.
@@cmulder002 No they didnt, they had ATC permission to be on the runway and to report when clear.
It’s fairly obvious when you get a heterodyne on radio transmission and everyone knows that means the last transmission was garbled. It’s common when that happens on an amateur radio repeater to inform the parties after the heterodyne that there were problems with the previous transmission and ask them to repeat. I don’t see how anyone who was carefully and judiciously flying a plane without being in an apathetic rush would ignore that without expressing some carelessness.
The use of English as the international language of aviation is and has been accepted worldwide since even before ICAO came into being after WWII. However, the meaning of many things said in English is unfortunately misinterpreted by many whose first language is not English, but even among people whose first language IS English (Americans, Canadians, Australians, British, Irish, etc.), and the only solution to this problem is to insist on standardized phraseology in regards to ATC communications. In the USA, we used to say "Taxi into position and hold" but in many other countries it was "Cleared to line up and wait" and there were many other phrases that could easily be misinterpreted. Although this accident was way back in the 1970's, it took a long time to get anything done about these deficiencies. About 12 years ago we started having "English Proficient" being added to our licenses and also changing things to standardize the meanings of phraseology in ATC communications. It was really long overdue, and there are still problems with everyone trying to talk on the frequency at the same time, but it is better than it used to be. And, yes, KLM did attempt to takeoff without any clearance to do so, and I do not believe that the crew was not stressed out. I think they clearly were, and I cannot to this day understand why Captain Jacob Van Zanten attempted to go without making absolutely certain that the Pan American 747 was cleared off of the runway and nobody else was on it and they had a definite takeoff clearance. Even though I know how long the runway is, when visibility is extremely poor, I have nagging concerns of what might be there in the mist that I cannot see! I have made my share of takeoffs in the 747 and other jets when visibility is not there, and I don't much care for it, but I made it to retirement, so that is now in the past for me. Thank God!
So what is the standardized phraseology for declaring an emergency? Like the loss of one engine on a two-engine airplane shortly after take-off when you are at 2000 feet?
@@JanBruunAndersen HOLY SHIT?!!! 😉😂
@@JanBruunAndersen maybe you shouldn’t be flying if you don’t know where to look that up!
I agree that standardized phrases are essential, and entirely possible for standard situations. It's been done before, for example Caterpillar Fundamental English and Simplified Technical English. It's also true that first-language English speakers can misunderstand without realising. "The Captain's pissed" means that they are annoyed in US English, but that they are drunk in UK English. Big difference.
@@JanBruunAndersen Standardized phrases for emergencies are "pan-pan" if it's urgent but not life-threatening, "mayday" if lives are in danger.
The KLM captain was clearly intending to take off prior to receiving the ATC Route clearance. When the F/O pointed this out he said "I know that" and closed the thrust levers. I think he lost face at this point and so to redeem himself he was then eager to take off while the F/O was still reading back the route clearance, which is not a Take off clearance. There were still opportunities to prevent disaster but as is usually the case in accidents, its a series of mistakes which come together which is what followed.
Basically poor radio communcation. If they heard it, one would stop it. IT was meant to happen
If the 1st officer was confused as to whether they had clearance or not, then they should not have taken off. They captain was in a hurry and that's was the final flaw, in a series of difficulties, that led to the crash.
The KLM Captain was also the one that blocked the Pan Am flight from leaving twenty minutes earlier because he was in a rush. His hurry was the first and final flaw.
@@shubzilla755 The blocking of the PanAm was caused by the decision of the KLM captain to take fuel for both the short flight to Las Palmas and further to Amsterdam. To avoid (possible) further delays at Las Palmas.
That has to do with the hierarchy in the cockpit in that era. The captain is always right, the 1st officer and/or flight engineer were not supposed to object the captain. Because of this crash the hierarchy is removed. Another fact is that Klaas Meurs, the 1st officer of the KLM, got his license from captain van Zanten... So apart from the hierarchy there was also the teacher-student relationship between them.
@@marcvanderwee I don't see how giving the basis for his rushing or the reason that he ignored all the warnings from the cockpit, ATC, and the other aircraft contradict the fact that he was rushing.
@dobromeister On the contrary cockpit hierarchy was a secondary factor in the crash of a BEA Trident at Staines near Heathrow in 1972.
The Dutch report is crap. He didn't have clearance. They are trying to blame the Spanish ATC for his "O.K" message, which was confusing to them. The crew should have asked again to verify. It wouldn't have taken a few seconds to ask them to repeat the last message. He was in a hurry.
sorry, no. Under the rules as they were in place at the time van Zanten did nothing wrong.
The problem was a misunderstanding of the clearance given, which at KLMs home base of Schiphol would have been takeoff clearance, but in Spain was mainly clearance to line up.
At Schiphol clearance to enter the runway ALWAYS included clearance to take off unless explicitly given different.
The NTSB also investigated this crash and while yes ATC was a factor it is also well known Tenerife was not an upgraded up-to-date facility, just before all planes had been grounded again due to poor visibility, and lack of proper equipment, the KLM Pilot was annoyed of the long delays with most planes being grounded for hours. KLM was next in line for T/O and according to ATC transcripts the crew was to line up and hold because of traffic leaving runway. The Pilot was known to be arrogant and other crew members including previous F/O's stated they were intimidated by the Captains demeanor and the fact all high ups in the KLM company adored the Captain and was recently pictured on the cover of the companies newsletter. It was stated in transcript that the F/O did question the language of ATC along with the Flight Engineer both questioning the T/O Clearance. The Captain already committed to "Getting the heck out of here finally" it is believed by some the Captain was in his own mind in complete control and knew what he heard.
The Plane began the T/O Roll and some experts believe if it had reached V1 sooner it may have given the plane enough power to climb faster, but to many factors contributed to this disaster. This today is still one of the worst accidents in aviation history and the lives lost on both planes is horrible. KLM received a lot of bad publicity from this but recovered. Thankfully aviation has come a long way and events like this can now be avoided. God Bless all those lost in the Tenerife Accident.
It actually still stands as the Worst Accident in Aviation History. Most of the fault lies with the KLM Captain. He started his takeoff roll before communications had finished, without knowing where the Pan Am plane was, despite knowing it was or had been on the runway, and without sufficient visibility to make the take off. He abandoned all safety and common sense in his rush to get in the air. We’ve seen this a lot. Most often in accident involving a failure to deice. Tenerife bears some responsibility for not having sufficient emergency procedures in place. Once they were overwhelmed by the mass diversion of much too large planes for their facilities they should have taken stronger executive actions instead of trying to clear the backlog via normal ATC/GTC operations. In hindsight given how congested the airport was, and that the taxiways were blocked by parked oversized planes they should have only allowed 1 plane in motion at a time, and had ground vehicles guiding them out. The tower had no idea what was happening on his tarmac. He couldn’t see. He had no radar. His access ways were blocked. By planes and pilots that had not been to his airport and should not be there. It needed something more than normal control procedures to untangle the knot.
wrong. KLM had what at their home base would have been takeoff clearance.
The fault here lies squarely with the lack of standardisation in radio messages at the time between countries and even individual airports.
The KLM crew, nor the American crew, were familiar with the airport, both were diverted there from other airports because of terrorist activity in Spain at the time.
The American crew utterly ignored ATC instructions as to where to vacate the runway and didn't even say they were ignoring it, ATC believed they had vacated the runway, and the rest followed from that.
ATC also were unattentive, being more interested in following the football match playing live on the radio in the control tower (when was that ever ok?) than in controlling traffic.
@@jwenting Thats right Spain not Paris not sure why I said Paris. Poor ATC for sure but the full documentary on Smithosian Channel went more in depth on the Captains ego and reports of previous F/O's that said he was intimidating and stuck to his guns. I do believe you are correct though language barriers plays a big role in a lot of accidents and this is still one of the worst accidents. Such a shame and sad for all lives lost.
@@jwenting Are you trolling? ATC knew exactly where the Pan Am plane was. They were working through ground navigation with them in the low visibility. They knew the runway was not clear yet. The KLM Captain had firewalled the throttles to takeoff speed before the FO and ATC were finished with the radio communication. He was in motion before the FO had even started on the readback. To his crews horror. He had zero visibility down that runway and should not have attempted it for that reason alone. You’re conflating two different similar accidents. The one with the lost plane wandering the runway that missed his turns was the 1990 Wayne County crash near Detroit. In Tenerife, if anyone got confused while taxi’ing it was the KLM, which missed the turnoff and got sent down the full length of the runway to pull a 180 at the end. The Pan Am was not at fault in any way. ATC communications were not great, but the KLM Captain was acting without standard communication and confirmation with his own crew. The FO was getting his flight clearances out of the way while waiting for takeoff clearance. The Captain heard “Cleared to” and gunned it. Murdering 500 people in his impatience.
@@jwenting No, "captain", you are WRONG. As a captain you should know the difference between an ATC (departure route) clearence that is issued as a consequence of a filed operational flight plan, and a Take-Off clearence which is issued with the words. "(Flight Number) runway (RWY-ID) (wind direction and speed) YOU ARE CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF" Also in Amsterdam the ATC clearence and the Take-Off clearence are two distinctively different things. Capain Van Zanten HAD NO TAKE-OFF CLEARENCE
I used to use this crash to teach communication and my recall is PA101 was cleared to backtrack the runway to a high speed turn off. There was uncertainty by PA101 crew of position due visibility so taxying was slow.
Crew duty time was an issue for KLM as was cockpit culture which I likened to the BEA crash at Staines.
One comment in this thread suggests clearance to the VOR radial implied take-off clearance. It does NOT, ever.
Bottom line is KL Captain acted outside ATC instructions and had lost situational awareness. He had tunnel vision and was not registering the rest of the conversation and clues.
Actually, it was Pan Am 1736, the KLM was 4805.
@@mustangflyer6878 Thanks for update. Don't know why I used PA101 as I think that was a westbound Europe to US flight.
I’m Dutch. I can clearly recall the moment that I heard the tragic news. I was just taking a shower and listened to the news on the radio in the bathroom. Through the noise of the falling water I heard vaguely about a plane accident involving two big planes. One KLM operated. I immediately turned off the shower to listen what this was all about. I was in shock. I really was.
Respectfully asking how it was reported/interpreted in your media at the time, do you recall?
@@thatsaniceboulder1483 I cannot clearly recall since I did not follow this closely in the media back then. But what I vaguely remember is that at first they blamed it on people in the control tower. Miscommunication and some sort of a Spanish / English language thing that the Dutch captain misunderstood. That he thought that het got clearance to take off. Nothing about impatience whatsoever. The Spanish were to blame.
I’m Dutch as well. I know my country tried to bend around the truth but I also know that that’s just something countries do when they’re in such a position, doesn’t make it right tho
That picture of the man who was wondering around in shock haunts me to this day. How anyone survived is amazing, and if the KLM hadn’t refueled they may have been able to clear the pan am, it was a lot of small things that coincided to create this awful accident. God bless all those who perished and there families. Again a great job on this video, and the great plane landings and take-offs
A lot of small things plus one big thing: the KLM captain taking off without clearance.
@@psychohist absolutely you know they tried to blame the US crew for it, but everyone knows he (the klm captain) caused it
If only there had been a one-second difference between ATC and PanAm's messages, so as not to cause a heterodyne...
If only the airport had had ground radar to detect that the PanAm was still on the runway...
If only they had been able to take off before the fog rolled in...
If only terrorists hadn't bombed the destination airport and caused the flights to be diverted...
@@danielbishop1863 i agree bro a lot of little mistakes
I think it's called chain of events. all the little things that happen and lead to normal operation, close calls, or disaster.
I remember hearing that the KLM captain was anxious to roll because his time was limited before he had to cancel the flight because the crew would have been on duty too long and would have to have a rest break.
That's the focus of the Spanish report.
At the time of this accident I was but a humble gliding instructor, long before my ATPL and command of an airliner. Whilst the accident was in no way the Pan Am first officer's fault I decided that if ever I was unhappy with a situation I could hear on the radio to the extent that I felt it necessary to transmit a warning about it, I would go on asking the question until I got a suitable reply.
Twenty five years later when I heard another aircraft take a wrong descent clearance, I had to question ATC what was going on four times before anyone took me seriously. I made a nuisance of myself and you could hear in the controller's voice that he thought so. I was thinking of Tenerife at the time.
I got an air safety award and no-one was hurt.
Good call Captain!
The Pan Am plane lingered on an active runway for too long. They should've told the tower repeatedly what they were doing.
@@dougmasters4579 Not sure where you are going with this. Taxying a very big airliner at an unfamiliar, foggy airfield with closed taxiways and you are complaining that they were not going fast enough? Perhaps the KLM crew should have done a bit more "lingering".
@@SuperHeatherMorris The Pan Am was told to take the third exit, inexplicably they took the 4th exit without telling the tower. Lingering for so long on an active runway like that was crazy, just insane. It's too easy to blame the KLM like everyone else on here does. The ATC was criminally negligent, listening to a soccer match and completely inept overall, and the Pan Am was disobeying clear instructions to get off the runway.
@@dougmasters4579 "inexplicably they took the 4th exit", the explanation is that it was foggy and it was a strange airfield. A very minor mistake compared with the KLM captain's decision to take off without clearance.
It has always struck me that a disproportionate number of major accidents and incidents involve management captains. The KLM captain was a manager, as was Captain Parmentier at Prestwick, E.J. Smith on the Titanic and the very close run thing with Walpole in a Concorde at Heathrow. There are many more examples. The command distance between captain and crew becomes too great, the lack of recent experience of the commander (many management pilots fly only once every 28 days) and responsibilities outside the cockpit mean that some very poor decisions are sometimes made.
This accident was very sad.
That whole report is nonsense. There's no way to have absolute conviction of clearance to takeoff and less you're given a clearance to takeoff. And they were not. These were not amateurs. They just wanted to go. At least the captain did.
Just think about what you're saying there... are you suggesting that they took off knowing that they _didn't_ have clearance and that there was still another plane on the runway? Clearly Van Zhaantan at least thought they did, for all his faults, he wasn't suicidal. The question is about why he thought he did have clearance which to be honest the Spanish report never addresses (at least not in any explanation I have heard). I know it's annoying that the Dutch are so adamant that the crew weren't at all affected by time pressures, but simply saying that the accident happened because one guy was in a hurry, is extremely simplistic and is clearly not brought out by the fact that they did change the standard phraseology after the accident.
@@Musikur I doubt many will agree with your analysis. The simple truth is that this senior KLM pilot thought he had clearance when none in fact was given. This disconnect between his perception and reality, coupled with bad weather conditions, poor radio communications, human error and haste, and non standard aviation language led to this disaster. The Dutch report is simply a cya exercise because they couldn't believe that one of their most senior pilots could have made this horrendous and deadly error. RIP all souls involved.
@@Musikur
FO had to remind the captain that they weren't cleared for takeoff, because he saw that the guy was going for it without clearance...at least one of them understood the situation.
If the FO had been in control, the accident wouldn't have happened, since he wasn't working on assumptions, unlike the captain.
This is a very american approach to the situation. You look for an individual to blame, convinced that if one person hadn't made a mistake this accident wouldn't have happened. However, humans are fallible, they make mistakes. If the system people are operating in cannot tolerate them making mistakes then it's the system that's ultimately responsible for the tragidy. A failure to recognise this has led to many more crashes.
@@asArsenic what nonsense, the systems developed over the decades for improving systems have mostly been developed in the United States. And, it was that pilots fault. If he hadn't done what he did, no crash. That's why you train people to do complicated things
The issue with this was CRM, as the captain was very experienced the rest of the crew did not question his decision making
Yes, you are 100% correct.
@@sorgfaeltig
I concur;
Keep in mind that CRM came out of the Tenerife crash. At least as a formal concept, it didn't exist at that time (though I'm sure to some degree, any good captain would listen to inputs of their crew, of course).
Crew didn't say much because they knew he was Pissed-off
@@mikediamond353 Yes , you are right, this accident spurred Boeing to start developing CRM. The Captain was reported as being very agitated that day. He was KLM’s Senior pilot, Cockpits in those days were often very much a caste system , the Captain was the boss period. The communications between the aircraft & the tower were interrupted by the Pan Am plane. Now the FO can override him and is encouraged to do so. There was a Trident crash in the UK & the crew did not extend the leading edge slats, because of the Autocratic behaviour of the Captain. He should never have attempted a take off without knowing where the Pan Am plane was exactly.
The Dutch report does not hold up. It seems very obvious that the Dutch Captain was ultimately responsible for the crash with the heterodyne, the non-standard terminology, and the odd direction that the Pan Am flight was asked to leave the runway contributing.
This is a very american approach to the situation. You look for an individual to blame, convinced that if one person hadn't made a mistake this accident wouldn't have happened. However, humans are fallible, they make mistakes. If the system people are operating in cannot tolerate them making mistakes then it's the system that's ultimately responsible for the tragidy. A failure to recognise this has led to many more crashes.
@@asArsenic You copy this comment once and again. So, same answer for the same question. Yes, if Captain in KLM did NOT roll, the crash would NOT have happened.
But I think that is understood by the majority. The controversy lies, frim my point of view in KLM actions. Not only they blame on every other party (Spanish ATC, Spanish Authorities. American crew, etc, but also on Dutch Captain. In their report they admit that Captain was in a hurry, but they reject that the pressure of rigid KLM rules had something to do with it.
In a more simple way : ATC guilty, Spaniards guilty, American Crew guilty, Dutch pilot guilty, KLM NOT guilty. Why did they pay the bill if they were so innocent?
@@javierfernandezdeprado2520 If any number of things hadn't been done then this accident wouldn't have happened. Just pointing to one of them is overly myopic.
In my previous job I worked almost daily with a Dutch customer.
When we were first introduced to them we had the full-on presentation about their qualifications (all Ph.D qualified and one was a former professor at a Dutch university) and how they were going to run things exactly on time with no delays and no mistakes. For the next 3 1/2 years they proceeded, calmly and deliberately, to commit an almost unbelievable litany of mistakes, including pissing nearly a million euros up the wall on machines we told them would never work, and tripling the amount of reports we had to write for them (in the end, equivalent in length to three Ph.D theses) while their reports (for the same time period) usually amounted to a couple of pages of badly fractured English.
When I left the project was basically incapable of producing anything so the revised team (at our end) no longer includes anyone with technical knowledge (denying a problem = solving a problem). The reaction of the people bankrolling the project will be interesting - when they realise what they've been stiffed for.
If you'd heard that story without the word 'Dutch', you'd guess he was a Brit. (Probably including the part about 'badly fractured English'.)
That’s very anecdotal. You’re blaming the mistakes on the Dutch background. You think the US government isn’t capable of bending around the truth and struggling with taking responsibility
Enjoyed the vid, however what you & the Dutch report failed to include, was that the KLM pilots NEEDED TO TAKE OFF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, because they were at risk of going over their operational time limit that they're permitted to fly. The KLM crew absolutely rushed the takeoff. They even discussed this while waiting at Tenerife. The captain was concerned because if they didn't take off soon, KLM would've been forced to fly in another crew, or, if they DID go over the permitted hours, the entire crew risked not only being fired, but having their licenses suspended or even revoked. Taking that into account, there is no longer a que as to whether they rushed the takeoff...they HAD TO.
I think I cover this in a bit more detail in my other Tenerife video
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation oh ok...I haven't gotten around to watching that yet. 😉👍👍
Umm, fuck no. Criminally negligent. They damn well could have waited for another aircrew to be flown in, if the timing rules were so rigidly enforced. That would have been far better than the air crash this impatient plane captain caused. They died stupid in an accident that ultimately was caused by the captain's own impatience, and it's a real tragedy that he took so many people with them.
How was it they were near to their operational time limit? Surely they had rested prior to this takeoff time
@@winchesterwings8795 they were not supposed to land at Tenerife, but a bomb threat at their intended arrival airport made them divert. Then there was weather delays which made things worse. If they had been able to take the planned route, which didn't involve Tenerife at all, they would have been well within their OTL.
They discussed duty times, to my understanding. They were in a hurry and a senior Dutch pilot killed over 500 people.
arrogant twat took on fuel in the line up etc ,well done ,poster boy,hey,they were only,scared,trusting passengers.lesson to all.r.i.p.
As they say, speed kills.
well now he is REALLY late
Arrogant complacent pilot killed 500 people.
TRUTH
600.
As a Dutchman I’m proud of my national airline - KLM. But I find this report of our own investigation board disgusting.
@dobromeister Well I tend to agree, but do we know for a fact he wasn't arrogant?
That was a very sad and terrifying incident. Thanks for sharing this video!
As a retired attorney, I still find the KLM negligent and the direct cause of this accident. Weather conditions were bad and KLM rushed to take off. That seems obviously clear. The Dutch can paint it as many ways as they want, but yes, hindsight is 20/20 and their pilot screwed up resulting in the death of over 500 people.
It seems to me you either hsve clearance to tske off or you don't
Whether or not the Dutch Captain was entirely to blame, it’s vital to consider ALL the aspects of what happened. He was not a deliberate murderer. At the very worst, he made a stupid mistake. And neither he nor anyone else got away with it. Being vindictive won’t undo what happened. Discussing and remembering what happened should go towards avoiding any repetitions of what happened. And underscoring the importance of correct pro-words.
Absolutely, but he is 100% to blame, there is little question. Without culpability KLM would not have paid.
I really like how you broke this up into 2 episodes based on the two different reports. In future, if there is a controversy you should do more like this. It really helps to distinguish what each group meant in their individual reports.
The Dutch Captain did it!
Thank you!
This is a very american approach to the situation. You look for an individual to blame, convinced that if one person hadn't made a mistake this accident wouldn't have happened. However, humans are fallible, they make mistakes. If the system people are operating in cannot tolerate them making mistakes then it's the system that's ultimately responsible for the tragidy. A failure to recognise this has led to many more crashes.
Clicked on this video first, went to watch the first video. Really great job detailing the accident from both sides! Well done.
The senior pilot of KLM thought he couldn't make a mistake. He was wrong.
You watched only biased documentaries and did not analyze the facts. Everybody made mistakes ... KLM started takeoff, PanAm did not use the third exit, Spanish controller did not perform well either and used a bad strategy at an airport which did not have ground radar, Spanish authorities delayed takeoff operation at Tenerife unnecessarily for 2-3 hours otherwise all planes could takeoff before dense fog was spread.
@@yousafzaiaa7453 Nope, he made a huge mistake.
I don’t know how they do it in Tenerife, but here in the United States, when I receive “runway 30 cleared for takeoff,” I reply “cleared for takeoff runway 30”, i.e., I confirm my clearance. That way, of course, if I misunderstood, the tower can say “negative, hold short runway 30”. I would have assumed that’s standard worldwide though. “OK” can never mean “cleared.” Phraseology is standard for a reason and the most senior pilot at KLM was responsible to know it (and I’m sure he did) and adhere to it (which he obviously didn’t). Nothing I’ve heard does anything to exonerate KLM.
The Dutch did not want to fully admit Van Zanten was 100% at fault. They wanted the control tower to take some of the blame. This disaster falls at the hands of captain Van Zanten. Even the flight engineer knew something was wrong because he was paying attention to Pan Am's last transmission, Van Zanten was not. Van Zanten was careless and it resulted in the biggest tragedy in aviation history and he is 100% to blame for it.
Two items stand out for me that raises questions as to the validity of this report. 1) The fact that the pilots could not take time to accept their clearance earilier due to their unfinished check lists indicates to me that they were rushed for some reason. 2) None standard words are used all the time, but that is exactly why the standard words are used.
The captain did not wait for his takeoff clearance, and if he did not understand a direction it is his responcibility to question the clearence. In this situation the captain failed in all respects. Therefore, in my opinion there is no other side to be stated. The captain was 100% the cause of the tradigy and the report is just trying to wrongly save face for KLM.
An overwhelming amount of commenters are pushing the straw man that the report shifts the ultimate blame. It doesn't do that. But if you take the report as a basis on what to put in place to prevent a reoccurance, the Dutch report adds a useful dimension to the Spanish report.
The essence of the Dutch interpretation is:
The frivolous usage of the word "CLEARED" in standard radio communications.
Which is actually part of the common clearance protocol.
e.g.
First you get a route description in the form of:
"You are CLEARED to VIA ......
CLIMB AND MAINTAIN EXPECT IN 10 MINUTES
SQUAWK
CONTACT ON FREQUENCY "
To be followed by:
"You are CLEARED FOR TAKE-OFF".
On this occasion,
Tenerife Tower makes an minor adjustment to the route clearance and re-uses the phrase "YOU ARE CLEARED ............ " again.
It is crucial to understand the 2 different meanings of the word "CLEARED".
Point is:
that in this fatal case Captain Van Zanten mis-interprets a mere route clearance for the actual take-off clearance.
If the death of 500 people isn't enough to rethink and adjust standard phraseology.
Then we are only waiting for another Tenerife to happen in the future.
The obvious solution is to reserve the phrase "CLEARED" for use with Take-off, Landing, Approach and To-cross only.
Good to hear the other report with your usual objectivity and analysis. Thanks.
Good example for "guess in aviation costs lives". I was taught in my army service to ask again if something was blocked or unreadable up to perfect clear information exchange. Similar to aviation - in army misunderstanding cost lives.
This is a very american approach to the situation. You look for an individual to blame, convinced that if one person hadn't made a mistake this accident wouldn't have happened. However, humans are fallible, they make mistakes. If the system people are operating in cannot tolerate them making mistakes then it's the system that's ultimately responsible for the tragidy. A failure to recognise this has led to many more crashes.
@@asArsenic That is very important to create "error proof" environment for essential and risky tasks. Errors are imminent to human actions, so must be catched before creating disaster.
@@adamw.8579 If you create a system that will kill people when humans make mistakes then your system will kill people.
@@asArsenic Perfect system not exist, that is important to learn continuously and make this system better.
@@adamw.8579 Creating error-tolerant systems is how you save lives.
The KLM pilot was impatient and in a hurry to get off the ground. I watched a show called "Mayday" about this crash and they played the cockpit and radio recordings and its OBVIOUS the KLM pilot was at fault.
Faulted to doom,...that's bound to happen
Sounds to me like the Dutch was just trying to cover up there airline...
Dutch always cover up for their own... like that Martinair DC-10... they just can‘t be trusted.
National pride too
@wargent99 Americans have mastered that approach!
Sounds to me you would have caused worse with your level of English.👍
Never heard this side. While it is a highly sugar coated interpretation of the disaster, this was their understandable face saving memorial to their Captain. What a tragedy that crash was.
Sugar coated indeed. But who can blame them after the insane propaganda report by the Spanish pushed by the Americans, who did a hit job on KLM and their captain based on little to no facts and a lot of inventive narrative. Indeed, much of what is believed about this crash to this day is not based in actual facts, but on the invented narrative of the Spanish/American report, for which they had no evidence, only speculation, but which funny-not-funny completely exonerated the American Pan AM (and held them free of liability) and the Spanish controllers of any wrongdoing.
The only believable report, Ive ever seen of this crash, was the 1 by Greg Feith of the NTSB, after he retired and was hired to do a new independent investigation.
The Dutch initially tried to claim that the KLM flight actually got clearance for takeoff, so even this highly sugar coated interpretation constituted the Dutch backing off toward the truth.
Not mentioned is the fact the KLM pilot had been working as a training pilot for months before this flight. As a trainer, he would give the pilot he was training takeoff clearance. It has been speculated since he had become use to giving the clearance he was in the mindset that he was good to go.
I would think that the KLM Captain not hearing the entire conversation should have stayed still. As a retired railroad engineer the rule is if you don't totally understand the move or can't see what is going on in front of you, you don't move. I would think that would apply 3 fold for an airliner.
Btw great job on these vids. I enjoy your analysis. There is still info to be gleaned from these crashes.
I call BS on the Dutch version. This was classic 'environmental capture'. You're on the runway, you;re usually cleared for T/O now, so off you go. Its been done hundreds of times and prudent pilots are always watching out for it.
This is really good, keep up the good work
Thank you!
I remember from an article years ago that the KLM captain was also their chief pilot, top PI, hot shot, boss cocky, etc etc etc. His word was law among pilots at KLM. He even graced the cover of the KLM in-flight magazine - and that magazine was still found in aircraft months after the accident! In effect, he was Exhibit A for why something like CRM needed to be developed.
@@vtauoyctynwbrooylm6008 Well, the brusque "wi gaan" (we're going) when the FO uncertainly queried whether they were really clear and whether there was another aircraft not yet clear of the runway, is public record, captured on the CVR. Really no way to spin that positively.
Thank you for doing a follow up vid. I’m not Spanish, Dutch, or American..... but I hate it when a tragedy of this magnitude is blamed on 1 person.... yes the KLM captain holds the vast majority of responsibility, but others must share some too. The ATC staff appeared to be overwhelmed - what support were they given by their supervisors before ?. We must judge this remembering it was MANY years ago, technology has improved and Tenerife even got a new airport on another part of the island where fog was less likely. Result remains a shocking event for those involved and their families.
Nope hate it all you want. The worst 747 pilot who ever existed is 100.percent at fault. I hope his flight engineer punched him in the back of the head as they were barreling towards Pan Am
@dobromeister your favorite captain is 100 percent responsible for the worst aviation accident in history. The worst pilot who ever lived. He was in a hurry to get to his grave.
@@dml5583 Just some food for thought: PanAm fucked up here because they were on a runway where they weren't supposed to be in the first place. The conditions seem to be of such that it is actually questionable why ATC allowed any operations in the first place given that visibility was 0, center lights did not work, and the perimeter was filled up with huge ass planes for which they had no capacity nor experience handling. Yes KLM fucked up here for sure, but to me it seems that ATC was not in control over the runway and couldn't make good judgements here. Could be me, but it doesn't seem like it is completely normal to allow for operations in such conditions...
But maybe try to think about the situation in this way: reading the transcript, ATC replies back to the F/O with "OK" and that could have been interpreted as confirmation for take off. Now for sure, they were already rolling too early and they should have asked for clarification here, but let's argue as a thought experiment that it was actually a confirmation, it would not have altered the outcome. Because this is a factor: in principle, ATC had no apparent reason to not give clearance as they weren't aware yet that Pan Am was on the runway. It was expected that they would reply with clearance (as it seems this is custom). They already replied to the F/O with "OK" and followed that up with some message that they will call back. Right at that time, Pan Am mentions something, these messages clash, and it takes some 13 seconds before KLM's FE starts to get confused about what he just heard on the radio. From the transcript, I'm not sure if it is that clear that the crew knew they didn't had clearance after the F/E replied back to ATC because the message that ATC would call back was actually not received, giving the beep. In other words, lets say that they started rolling after "OK" and start to focus on the take-off (on a runway with no visible markings as the lights were broken), it's 12 seconds after Pan Am mentions they are not off the runway which the FE asks if he understood correctly that Pan Am is on the runway. They would probably still have crashed heads on into Pan Am here as they needed 25-27 seconds to get to the point to pitch up and leave ground. So at 14-16 seconds they would still be fully on ground but probably at a speed where they could not break or do anything, given that they saw each other within a 700 meter range.
As the F/E pointed out earlier that they didn't had clearance before he contacted ATC but didn't point it out later, it seems therefor unclear from the transcripts if the crew knew for fact they weren't cleared. If they indeed understood "OK" as clearance and started rolling from that moment on (instead of earlier) they would still crash into Pan Am. One outcome could have been that either the damage was less with less victims, or that even the current survivors would not have survived as it could potentially have caused maybe even more damage. So, starting to roll after OK maybe doesn't seem to matter much for the outcome. What would have altered the course of events more is if KLM was not rolling and asked ATC to clarify their message. That last aspect seems more crucial than that they started rolling earlier which constitutes as taking off.
That said, there have been reports of ATC also being tuned in to a soccer match (Spain - Hungary) because it is believed to be heard in the background on the recordings as well as eye witness accounts. Yes, KLM crew botched this one up but I agree with Scott here that blaming a single person here seems too easy of a conclusion given that many other factors were at play which were not in direct control of the KLM crew.
@@dml5583 ... and take 500 others to the grave too !
@@dml5583 Couldn’t you blame literally everything at the time? Blame Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten for obvious reasons, blame the ATC for using unclear terminology. You could also blame the Pan Am and the ATC for sending their transmissions at the same time in a crucial moment. Blame the weather for being bad? Blame the terrorists at the other airport for causing such a diversion to Tenerife? Hell, you could even blame Fransisco Franco for causing the political turmoil which made the terrorists bomb the other airport!
In around 30k hours of flying including 25k in heavy jets, there were many things we never, EVER took for granted : a take off clearance or a landing clearance were probably top of the list (though there were many more).
In unfamiliar airports, and dealing with those whose primary language is not English, a whole extra level of caution is absolutely warranted. Throw in fog, a diversion, and some time pressure and I will then just slow things down even further! How hard is it to ask “ Please Confirm XYZ” if there is the slightest bit of doubt about anything at all.
The Dutch Captain was in a hurry, and wasn’t going to stop for anyone including his FO and/or engineer who should have both been more assertive.
No doubt in my mind whatsoever: the Dutch crew, especially the captain, were entirely at fault. The other factors were just extra holes in the Swiss cheese.
Sad!
Thanks. This makes the horrific accident far more understandable. The Dutch report shows how they thought they had Clearance: 1.ATC's wrongly-timed description of what to do after take-off lead the Captain to think/assume they were about to have Clearance. = The usual timing for "What to do after takeoff" is usually part of the Takeoff clearance. 2. Following the Readback, They heard "OK" from ATC, believing that to be confirmation of Clearance. (It was actually bad ATC linguistics and the only un-garbled part of a talk-over transmission that tragically blocked the PANAM's clarification 'We're still on the runway.') = KLMers thought they had Clearance.
You NEVER take off Without 100% knowing having clearance
The crew knew about it
This Dutch report doesn't pass the smell test 💩👃
Why did they allow two jumbo jets taxiing down an active runway at the same time in the first place? Why not have one taxi, line-up and take-off before sending the next one into the fog? Hope also air traffic control has learned from this.
Because they didn't think one would takoff without permission maybe!
@@jimbax1 It’s called redundancy. Minimize the risk by not having one laps of judgement cause an enormous disaster.
I guess you should probably watch a video of the entire incident. There was a terrorist incident and a major airport. All the planes headed there had to land at this tiny airport on a small island. There was not enough room for them. They were parked on the taxiway. So for the planes to takeoff they had to travel down the runway turn around and then takeoff. The Pan Am plane was taxiing down the runway to get to the takeoff position. KLM had just completed that procedure.
Additionally it was foggy so that you could not see down the runway to see if it was clear.
So it was not normal operations for that airport on that day.
My god, this is truly the age of alternative facts and history revisionism.
Now they're doing the same with MH17
The captain's attitude makes me think of the phrase 'familiarity breeds contempt'. Experience can work against you in unprecedented circumstances.
The KLM captain is at fault. 100%
I disagree with about 40% of your statement.
@@Ticklestein which 60% do you agree with, sir?
100% KLM error. It sounds like Dutch investigators were covering for the pilot. As their report was focused on this as opposed to objectively analyzing the conversation
@@jacobs2162 Given the audio of the VCR that I have heard, and seeing the way my fellow Dutch aviators talk/converse with eachother, I'd say the Dutch investigators hit the nail on the head interpreting the mood in cockpit.
Van Zanten's rep was a major factor, true. Hence the revolution in crew resource management it lead to.
@@therelaxingandmeditationmu3487 The percentage, mostly.
The weather conditions with the heavy fog meant that it was a special circumstance where the aircraft could not see one another and the controller could not see the aircraft on the runway. The entire mental picture for everyone therefore depended on the verbal communication between the controller and the pilots. The controller therefore should have treated the entire situation differently to any normal situation by making absolutely sure that he knew where the planes were and what they were doing and that the pilots were clear about it also. In any normal circumstance , even at night, the pilots would have been able to see one another and this accident would never have happened. Fog was apparently quite common at this airport so the controllers may have come to treat the situation as 'normal' instead of a situation that required a different more precise approach to communication.
It’s good to hear the Dutch perspective, just so you can form an objective view of the incident. Personally though, I feel the Dutch report is all about trying to excuse the inexcusable. It’s right to point out the role of ATC in the lead up to the mistake, but ultimately there is no getting away from the fact that the captain took off without explicit takeoff clearance. All parties agree that he would not have purposefully done so, but sadly you can only conclude that he recklessly did so. The psychological reasons for an experienced training captain making such an error are explored in many accounts, but these include his lack of line duty time in the immediate weeks leading up to the crash, and the cognitive bias and haste created by his worry of running out of duty time.
Van Zanten was not only KLM's most experienced senior instructor pilot, he was also KLM's "poster boy" for their advertisements. It was Van Zanten's face that stared out of their magazine ads. In fact, Van Zanten was so prestigious at KLM, that they attempted to locate him and ask that he take part in the collision investigation also. Obviously, this was before KLM found out that Van Zanten was the one who had caused the collision and was killed, therefore rendering him unavailable.
@@mustangflyer6878 Yes, I know - and what you wrote there is a very close copy of the commentary for the channel 4 'Black Box' series episode 'Blaming the Pilot'. For anyone interested, you can watch here: th-cam.com/video/Z5jRo6oIXi8/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=EmmaZeila - from 28:05
I feel bad for the KLM captain. He thought he had clearance to take off. The Spanish controller was inept, and the Pan Am plane inexplicably took the fourth runway exit instead of the third like they had been told.
@@dougmasters4579 It was very explicable. The third exit required an incredibly tight double-135º turn which was almost physically impossible for the 747, shortly before a much more logical exit at the fourth, making them hesitant and question their course of action, which meant they were also on the runway longer than expected too.
@@ofs82 They said that the turn at the third exit was still possible, and also that the KLM plane would've been able to clear the Pan Am had it still been on the runway at the third exit.
This is a hell of a case study. So many lessons can be learned from this. I can't help think that none of this would have happened if the 747's never collided.
Great videos, love your channel!!
HE HAD NO TAKEOFF CLEARANCE. PERIOD.
There was that heterodyne at a key moment preventing the Dutch crew from hearing that bit of info, but they should have gotten absolute confirmation that the Pan Am plane was clear of the runway before taking off. In a thick fog like that one can't assume anything. Don't forget what had preceded this was the KLM Captain deciding to refuel against the advice of his crew and blocking the Pan Am plane from entering the runway for 20 minutes. This put them further behind schedule. The Captain was antsy to take off and almost did without clearance. When he thought ATC gave clearance he made some aside like "oh, yeah". The navigator expressed apprehension about the PanAm plane being clear. This Captain was not interested in discussing it. Tenerife ATC shares some of the blame for not being more in control of matters, but bottom line was KLM Captain started down the runway blinded by fog and with unresolved ambiguity about position of Pan Am plane. And if they weren't weighted down with all that fuel they had just taken on, they might possibly been able to clear the other plane.
Yeah. It amazes me that he blocked the PanAm and lost time itself and then, he does not want to wait. It is like.. Everybody-get-out-of-my-way, I'm coming!!
@@javierfernandezdeprado2520 - from a Captain who was literally the face of KLM appearing in their advertisements. He also trained pilots. And he was 100% at fault in this horrific and avoidable catastrophe because he decided to proceed with take-off not knowing if the Pan Am plane was clear of the runway. Unbelievable. Is this what male menopause does to otherwise competent individuals?
Bottom line.......they didn't have clearance to take off. I don't care what KLM says. There is NO excuse for that. None. KLM is 100% at fault.
Agreed, you never commence take off without specific clearance to do so AND you acknowledge that clearance.
This is why it’s important to allow third-party investigators to participate in the post-crash investigations. The Dutch government clearly sought to defend their airline’s reputation, because the truth of the matter is that the captain acted irresponsibly, and no amount of “justifying” will change that fact. That’s not to say that the ATC was faultless either, but the captain failed on multiple occasions to safeguard his crew and passengers. The Dutch were embarrassed that their most senior captain acted so irresponsibly that they understandably tried to pin the blame elsewhere. But thankfully we don’t just have to take their word from it. And thankfully they learned from this disaster and now KLM has an excellent safety record.
It always did have an excellent safety record.
Hello, n 1971, I was working approach control in Tokyo (yokota) afb) about 7 PM when a 747 landed , I handed him to tower, and turned to the controller on my left to say; I wonder how long it will be until 2 of these 747s collide?" When Tenerife occurred, that moment and memory from 1971hit me like a brick.
and yet it only happened once in that 50 year period
You just don't assume that you're cleared for take off. YOU WAIT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY RECEIVE CLEARANCE FROM THE TOWER PERIOD! Specially since the weather was so bad because of the fog and you're taxing to the end of the runway and there are more places behind you
There is no such thing as a “version” of an event, there is the truth and there is denial.
I was just rewatching the first video when you uploaded this one!!! Perfect timing.
Did they seriously argue that the captain wasn't hurried while also arguing that he couldn't wait for a readback to complete before taking off (because the weather permitted a window right that moment)?
If I understand the situation correctly, the KLM crew had backtracked along the runway, which was necessary to bypass a section of taxiway which could not support the weight of a Boeing 747. They knew the Pan Am aircraft would have to do the same. The KLM captain commenced his take-off roll on a fog-shrouded runway without being cleared for takeoff and without checking with air traffic control so as to be absolutely sure there was no aircraft backtracking. That is just like hurtling through a stop sign without looking.
If you mean KLM deliberately ignored the take off requirements, that's highly doubtful.
I read a lot of the comments here and I notice that a lot of you haven't paid attention to the other video mentioned at the start of this video. In the other video it was stated that the Pan-Am plane wasn't in the location it was given. while the Pan-Am plane was taxiing it went across the runway in a different place than it was assigned. The message that they were crossing the runway anyway was missed by the dutch crew because of the heterodyne.
There was a clear mistake by the controller. First by using non-standard language and second by not contacting the KLM plane when it was taking off until it got confirmation the message was received. Please note that the dutch crew heard "OK" when ready for takeoff and at a time where a cleared for takeoff was expected. At that point the only plane who wasn't at their assigned spot was in fact the Pan-Am plane.
Technically it is right to say that the cleared for takeoff was not given but according to the crew it was. The heterodyne blocked everything else out. Perhaps it is because I'm somewhat older that I can remember how radio communication in the late seventies / early 80's was. The technology barely functioned and if one could only do things after everything was 100% received and confirmed it would have been impossible to get something done. The routines made it possible to get things done in a timely fashion. It doesn't feel right to me to give the blame to solely the KLM plane while they and every other flight crew did what they do every single day.
If you look at what has changed after the accident it is not more time given to pilots before take-off or a "destressing" program for pilots. The thing that changed was clear and better communication protocols. That leads me to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the lack of rigid protocols in the aviation culture at the time. It simply was a different world back than.
I don't think most are forgetting about the circumstances in place here. Yes, this was a clear case of miscommunication and lack of readouts. The ATC was overwhelmed, the airport was cramped... But ultimately, it came down to one captain and his decision to take off without explicit clearance. The Pan-Am out of place, the fog, the small airport... All of these are factors in the crash... But not the direct cause.
In any case, it was a terrible event for the Dutch to try to whitewash it
The airport was a small one with no experience handling jumbo jets. With limited facilities, they could probably be under pressure when big planes suddenly had to land there the first time. They weren't prepared for such emergency.
Pilots should be aware of the many limitations of small airports. I don't know whether those pilots were aware the airport had only one runaway. Visibility was poor. If I were the pilot, I'd have much doubt to taxi/take off before double triple confirming with traffic controller.
They were given instructions to turn off at 3, because a turn there was virtually impossible they were still on the runaway and let it be known.
The Pan Am was were it was supposed to be BACKTRACKING the active runway not crossing it.
Correct ATC procedures have changed very little over the years.
There is a comparatively cheap technical fix to stop hetrodyn but obviously not here.
"Blocked" transmissions are common and normally result in a "say again" request. .
If you have not received and acknowledged a clearance to take off you do not go.
In fact KLM had only just copied their ATC clearance. .
The was no take off clearance given.
As such ATC expected the KLM to not take off...
BUT they did...........
I have been a private pilot for 25 years and this accident has always interested me. I too had never heard of this "version" of events but regardless, ALL pilots know to NEVER take off (or land) without explicit clearance. I would think that the pilot of the KLM would have been even more diligent to make sure he had clearance given the poor visibility at the time but based on his actions he WAS in a hurry, regardless of seeming calm. I can tell you I have NEVER started down a runway EXPECTING clearance before actually receiving it.
It doesn't matter which report you prefer, the KLM 747 took off without ever hearing 'cleared for take off' and that's on the flight crew
The worst mistake the KLM captain made (not mention taking off without clearance) was to assume, that the PanAm had cleared the runaway. He just assumed! It's unbelievable.
My uncle was late that day and lost the flight.
However the Dutch wish to spin it, Cpt. Jacob Louis Veldhuyzen van Zanten erred and thanks to a perfect storm of other factors, providence was not on his side this time. My guess is that he wasn't stressed but in fact...complacent. I mean, imagine taking off in those conditions without making absolutely sure you had clearance to do so! Btw, good reporting and the KLM x-wind landing shots are excellent.
The KGB should hire the Dutch to teach them how to write disinformation.
The Iraqi Information Minister would be proud.
Those extenuating circumstances is why there's a man on the plane called the captain to ensure procedures are rigorously applied: 'Good is the delay that makes sure.'
I like that You add more situational clips, but please... do more of it. Your videos are great and full of informations, some of them I did't heard before. The only thing is that in some cases it is not clear what happened with only speaking. Maybe make some clips with google earth, it will focus where the aircraft was etc... I mean not only this film but on many others.
It's old news, but there's no doubt that KLM did not have a T/O clearance. Knowing that the runway had a back taxi procedure in effect, any pilot worth his wings would be dead certain that they were cleared before pushing the throttles. Reminds me of Egypt trying to fiddle the facts when the F/O flew an Egyptair 767 into the Atlantic.