I live in South San Francisco and I clearly remember this day. I thought the pilot was suppose to continue out the gap and out over the water and was not suppose to turn right over San Bruno Mountain. I am a native and the only time I see the planes do a turn over the Southern part of the mountain is immediately after takeoff, this plane was on the Northern part and at the highest point of the mountain. Those three remaining Pratt and Whitney engines were screaming as he flew over and it shook our house really bad and all of the neighbors ran out and you could see him heading straight for the summit. I swear 100 feet is just about what he cleared it at. And the tail was really dragging you could tell he was trying to pull it up quick. Great job Alex on this documentary you are amazing. The best out there you do your research. I can't understand why you would get even one negative.
There was a rural area in VA that had the same problem in the early ‘70s. Eventually one TWA plane didn’t make it. It was snowing, and when they pulled up it was too late. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-g0-3OiIGXpE.html
Hey bill, I’m also from the area and as you know on top of San Bruno mountain are a lot of tall radio towers, they are very lucky they didn’t clip one of those. You’re right, all the large aircraft taking off head directly west and out to the ocean, I’m sure this has a lot to do with noise. The residents in San Bruno just to the west of 101 have triple pane glass installed just to dampen the sound of the jets. Smaller aircraft seem to take off heading east, I often see them flying over Oakland airspace but have already climbed to a safe altitude by that point
@@Maplelust Jealous. Plus, Californians are a million times worse. Why, here is the Republic of Texas, you can’t find a horney toad that wouldn't be welcomin' to anyone who isn't a varmint or a yankee (that’s means Oklahoma). See? As bad as Texan's? Come on... :) Happy New Year to all!
Perfect example of one thing leading to another. Engine failure leading to improper procedure leading to airspeed loss leading to stall leading to near-collision. Good video Allec.
Spenser T most are not 1 condition, but a CHAIN REACTION,WHICH LEADS TO PROBLEMS or CRASH, ONLY something CATASTROPIC , BRINGS 1 DOWN,,,,,,, Cheers from NJ
I'm still having trouble believing that a mighty 747 would suffer the described loss of thrust. Also at slower speeds, such as during takeoff the book tells pilots to use the ailerons instead of the rudder. This because the rudder is far less effective at turning the aircraft at slower speeds. Again the plane's problem appeared to be inadequate thrust coming from the remaining thre engines. It would be helpful to know at what power the engines were set for. In fact a loaded 747 really ought to be about to takeoff on just two engines. San Bruno mountain is not that high. I 've climbed it many times. Can't be much more than a thousand feet. That and the aurcraft could easily have turned to AVOID heading towards the mountain. Instead of climbing over it.
I was a bit emotional hearing this, It was the first time I heard "too low terrain" "too low terrain" not followed by the sound of a crash! TG for the Pilots correcting the First Officer. Thank you Allec for posting "close call " videos, they're just as exciting and nerve-wracking as the crash videos.
I remember this so well. I had a good friend that on occasion would let us fly the sims at a training center. We did both climbs, one with only ailerons and one with rudder compensation. You would hit the top of the peak if you completed with only aileron to compensate for thrust. It was a real stroke of luck to have those two in the back seat.
I remember it very well. Frankly I'm glad it was night and that I was sitting in the middle section of the aircraft and had no idea of our position or altitude. We heard what sounded like machine-gun fire coming from the right side of the aircraft. A short while later, while the seatbelt sign was still on, a flight attendant was running up the aisle, which confirmed to me that something was wrong. Some passengers who were sitting upstairs told me later they could hear someone in the cockpit yelling at someone else to get the aircraft up, which I'm also glad I wasn't aware of. Back in the terminal we formed a long line and the airline started issuing accommodation vouchers for the night. However, that process was interrupted a little later when they announced that they'd found another aircraft for us, which departed a few hours after the original departure time and made it to Sydney without incident. I recall the captain on that second flight telling us we were fortunate the incident happened at SFO where the airline had a spare aircraft ready to fly. (There were empty seats on that second flight where the passengers who managed to get accommodation vouchers had been sitting - perhaps they later regretted being served first.) It wasn't till a year or so later I heard from some United pilot I was chatting to how we'd missed Bruno by 100'. On underqualified United pilots: www.adversity.net/united/1_UAL_incidents.htm.
I'm not a frequent airline passenger, I never flew on a 747, so seeing a flight attendant running and hearing weird noises would be a shit-in-the-pants situation...
It's a really difficult situation -- you're about to stall, so you need to point the nose down, but you're heading towards a mountain! You're damned if you do and damned if you don't! As for the pilot -- I can see how that would be an easy mistake to make. The plane is yawing to the right, so naturally you steer it to the left to compensate. Problem is, steering the plane invokes the use of the ailerons. It's not like the pilot purposely chose to use ailerons -- he just steered the plane and the plane automatically uses the ailerons as part of the steering process.
@@Milesco That's incorrect. On the 747 (as with most aircraft), there are two distinct controls for the ailerons and the rudder. It's well-known and taught in basic flight school that the rudder controls yaw, and that you control the rudder with the pedals. Conversely, the ailerons control roll, and you control the ailerons and elevators with the yoke. The major exception to this rule is the Ercoupe, which does not have manual control of the rudder. Instead there is an automatic system which controls the rudder for you. But the Ercoupe is a single-engine aircraft and would never experience asymmetric thrust.
I've been out to that southernmost point of San Bruno Mountain. If a 747 passed 100 feet over my head there it might have scared me, but it would also be the most exciting thing I ever did with my pants on!
@@markmnorcal - many people damn near did. A FO who didn't know how to fly the thing - smfh - it's just a big thank God or whatever you believe in, that they made it.
SantiGomapelaex the climbout from SFX , MANY planes have done the SAME thing except a twin private night flight years ago crashed into it ... Cheers from NJ
I've only been watching these videos for a few months, and have zero flying experience, and even *I* was expecting him to compensate the using the rudder...😅
One wonders if the passengers were aware of how close they were to death? When it's your time, it's your time.... Excellent as always Allec. Greetings from South Africa 🇿🇦
For those who are curious, the Captain was trouble shooting while the First Officer flew. This is not at all unusual and engine out procedures are drilled into every pilot. The aircraft started drifting right due to the thrust imbalance and the First Officer applied aileron to correct. This has the effect of also raising the spoilers on the opposite wing and that is what slowed the aircraft. When the relief pilots noticed the airspeed and the stick shaker went off the Captain took over control. He lowered the nose to gain speed and barely cleared the mountain. After that, everything went pretty much by the book. The reason for the engine failure is immaterial. It is how you fly the airplane when it happens that counts.
To this I might add that the problem of the pilots of large, complex and computerized aircraft losing their basic flying skill has been recognized for quite some time. Things that become instinctive to a light aircraft pilot are forgotten by heavy jet pilots. "Stick and Rudder" skills are lost. This is not a United problem but one that pervades the entire aviation industry.
@@jamesthompson3099 As a guy who has flown both small and large aircraft, I agree completely. In a small plane, you don't have nearly as much cockpit automation as a large one. You have no choice but to fly the plane yourself.......in other words, be an actual pilot.
Thanks James. I asked earlier of two pilots if the captain should have taken over at the outset,, when it was realised the FO hadn't sufficient thrust or altitude, and was clearly headed towards danger, not knowing he had taken over ( did I miss something ,Allec?) . I wonder if he really believed they'd make it and whether it was a claculated bet the'd clear Bruno.Seems he had little option but to go for it rather than stall, which would certainly have ended in disaster...what a dilemma
burt2481 you too do NOT PAY ATTENTION, #3 engines EXHAUST GAS TEMP, WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN AT TAKE OFF POWER, so was idled, Cheers from NJ
@@angilolissimo5331 Why do you wish to know? The EGT exceeded limits and the crew is required to shut it down. Since they now have only three engines the best choice is to land back at SFO. The incident is recorded in the maintenance log after parking. The Captain is probably required to write a Safety Report. The crew probably will never hear another thing about the Incident except in this case they had a close call with the ground. It was a poor performance all around. The F/O in basic flying skills. The Captain and both relief pilots failed to catch that the F/O was screwing up. My guess is that UAL had a published EO procedure at SFO with all the high ground around.I recall at my company it was a radial off of SFO VOR or a heading and radial which would have been briefed to ensure avoidance of the high terrain.
@@georgeconway4360 I believe my comment stemms from one person trying to explain to everyone what happened in the video. It's been 3 years, so I don't really remember. All I recall was people asking why the engine overheated so much and this person just kept telling us what we already knew, which was that the engine overheated and was put to idle because of that. I didn't necessarely want to know, but it would be interesting nonetheless.
Good morning, good morning :) I like when it started with Boeing 747-400, or should I say "Queen of the sky" :) Have a nice day ppl and thanks for the video 🤗
I use to live in the san bruno mountains. There are tons of houses in the departure flight path. I always felt it was just a matter of time before an aircraft goes into the mountain. I am surprised it hasnt happened yet.
3:58 Me:Hello this is citizen Lincoln speaking, warning you THAT A PLANE IS ABOUT TO CRASH! PLEASE TAKE EVASIVE ACTION AND ISSUE AN EAS! Airport staff:Wait WTF?!
Seriously. I know that there was cloud cover but how could they fly straight to the mountain? Anyone whose ever been to SF via SFO knows that there is a huge mountain between SFO and SF. That pilot steered that plane in a clockwise direction directly to the mountain instead of continuing northwest after takeoff. They would have had to be above the Pacific Ocean to dump fuel anyways.
The FO had no idea how to fly the plane and lost situational awareness of both air speed and terrain. The Captain did an extraordinarily bad job of Crew Resource Management. Loss of an engine is an immediate “My Aircraft” moment.
Graham DeShaz No it’s not unless the FO is procedurally incorrect as was the case here. Most CRM programs now emphasize the Captain dividing workload to meet the needs of the situation, using other crew members and automation as appropriate, and working the issue. Many companies are now preferring the FO to fly the aircraft while the Captain manages the procedures required to meet the emergency. This will require coordination with ATC, Flight Attendants, and (almost always) a PA and company notification though these requirements can be met in a variety of ways. In a situation with lots of time available you’ll end up doing more, in time-critical situations, you’ll do less coordination. The point is that if the FO is flying properly (he was not here, so a change in control would be warranted) he or she is a huge asset and let’s the Captain deal with bigger picture stuff. I’ve done it both ways in the sim and in real life, and though I’ve never had an FO make a fundamental flying error as was made here, it has generally worked better to let the FO keep flying. To claim that the Captain should arbitrarily take the aircraft in an emergency is not necessarily true (though I agree would have been appropriate here).
HEDGE1011 would have been appropriate here means the Captain should have taken over. There are some situations in which the PIC obviously takes over. This is one of them.
Graham DeShaz This is not the same as what you said in your initial post, and that’s all I’m pointing out. Your initial post said “Loss of an engine is an immediate ‘my aircraft’ moment”, which is an all-encompassing and incorrect statement. I was careful to point out that a change of aircraft control WAS warranted here, so I agree with you about that, but a blanket statement that the Captain should always fly with an engine out, which was your initial contention, is not correct, and can be very bad CRM in some circumstances. There are lots of reasons that having the FO fly might be a better call, but every situation is different. Like I say, I’ve done it both ways in the plane and in the sim and it has normally worked better with the FO flying and the Captain doing all the coordination involved. That’s what CRM is all about. Obviously if the FO is not flying well the Captain must take the aircraft, and while it would have been warranted here, it’s fairly uncommon to need to do in the real world.
Loss of an engine is *not* an immediate my aircraft situation. All airline pilots train in power loss/ failure scenarios after V1. As long as the flying pilot has a handle of the situation the Captain will usually handle the coordination aspects if he’s already monitoring.
Thanks for another fine video, Allec. Glory be to God that there were no fatalities or injuries! There have been far too many unnecessary crashes in flight history!
If this pilot hadn't realized that it takes rudder input to counteract adverse yaw produced by an engine failure after logging 9500 hours, no amount of training would have helped him. This is basic multi-engine flying--light twin to jumbo jet.
As a B747 Captain, with almost 12;000 hours total in every model: -100/-200/-300/-SP/-400/-8/-LCF, this was another example of lack of experience allowed, The female FO should have never been in the FO seat during a heavy TO, and by having only a few TO/Landings in a year , speaks volumes. ( note most of these videos give the name and total hours flown of the crews, that was not mentioned) Always excellent reviews on this channel, and I always look forward to seeing more.
You have no idea have close calls there have been at or near SFO. Its not as bad as it was years ago. I've seen one close call personally. About a year or two ago, I was at a park if you can call it that near SFO that gives a good side view of the southern half of runways 28L and 28R and saw a near repeat of the Asiana crash back in 2013. A Virgin American plane was going into too slow and too low and fortunately did a go round before hitting the sea wall.
I don't understand why any pilot would use aileron to correct asymmetrical thrust when ailerons are a roll control but the problem is one of yaw. If anyone can explain that, thanks in advance. BTW, my aircraft mechanic school was near the end of SFO's runway 28R. When there was a strong crosswind (rare) it was interesting to watch aircraft start moving sideways almost as fast as the wind was blowing as soon as their wheels left the ground.
_"I don't understand why any pilot would use aileron to correct asymmetrical thrust when ailerons are a roll control but the problem is one of yaw."_ Those were my thoughts exactly, and I'm not even a pilot!
Hs Hs because the yaw often induces a roll moment. So proper usage of both ailerons (to control the roll) and rudder (to correct the yaw) would seem prudent and a natural response to an engine out during takeoff.
I was confused by the use of aileron to compensate for the thrust differential as well. And as a private pilot, I am required to have made 3 take offs and landings within the previous 90 days in order to carry passengers. I was shocked to learn in this video that Airline pilots were under no such restriction.
@Malabanias I’ve been out of aviation for over 10 years, but I believe the FAR says you can’t be PIC carrying passengers without 3 take offs and landings in 90 days or whatever the number is. Perhaps the distinction here is that the FO was the flying pilot but the captain was the PIC. Also, I believe landings in the simulator count too.
As a non pilot I would have assumed that the gigantic rudder would cause more drag than ailerons. There are some cases where I don't understand why ailerons were NOT used. For example there was one flight that lost elevator control and could not pitch down properly. Why not just go into a turn using the ailerons, which would naturally force the nose down?
I used to work there in the 80s at a retail store in a strip mall. That area is typical suburbia highly dense with houses and local strip malls. And from our store parking lot you can see the runways down at SFO because of the uphill elevation. Everyone I guess who works and lives there is used to the loud noise and roar of planes taking off some are so close to the ground as they climb you can really see the fine details of the aircraft. During breaks my co workers and I would hang out in he parking lot and we would have to stop talking when a plane is climbing because it is that loud. The area is also notorious during the winter when the fog rolls in from the other side of the mountain which is the Pacific Ocean.
Same exact plane, same exact airport, same exact destination: Huh, oddly enough, this same exact plane experienced engine problems just last year, almost a year ago... Reports of flames coming out of one of the left side engines right after takeoff. Emergency landing back at SFO. As with this flight, both were overweight, (this recent event had 295 passengers on board, 7 more than this video) and had to dump fuel before landing.
Dave Casserly HAD THID BEEN AN AIRBUS OF CERTAIN MODELS, they would have to fly for HOURS, as they did NOT HAVE A MEANS TO DUMP FUEL, , now the idiots have now started to utilisev such a system, .
@@flybyairplane3528 Lack of fuel dumping equipment is not limited to Airbus. Boeing 737 and 757 do not have the ability to dump fuel...same for DC-9/MD-80/717. Many 767 models do not either.
Flyby Airplane What are you talking about? All aircraft are certified to land at MGTOW if it’s needed to meet an emergency. There will be an inspection required after the flight. MLW is not a player if an emergency aircraft needs to land.
I don't think you can understate just how serious this incident was, how narrowly the crew avoided disaster and the potential consequences had the plane hit the mountain...it does not bear thinking about
Thank goodness for landing safely !!! Had that plane hit the mountain it could have been the worst domestic crash in US history, possibly surpassing the AA flight 191 crash in 1979 depending on how many survivors there were, if any.
- 911, how can I help you? - We can't sleep! There's a huge plane coming right at us! could you ask the plane to stop its engines, bank left or go higher? Thank you ~
100 feet is absolutely nothing. Pure luck that thing didn't plow into the mountain. Allec -- what was the cause of the engine failure? Was it a blown tire sending debris into it or an internal failure?
Captain Quirk pilots ARE NOT A& P mechanics, so you do what was the correct thing IDLE THAT ENGINE, do you KNOW ? The pilots have no god damned idea why. Cheers from NJ
@@flybyairplane3528 : Yeah, I don't expect the pilots to have known at the time why the engine was running hot, but presumably there was an investigation conducted afterwards that determined what was happening with that engine.
I would literally shit myself if I heard a 747 clearing my house by only 100 feet. Because unless you live right next to an airport, then you can only assume it’s about to crash...
I always take comfort in the way major airlines will take strong measures, in this case training, to insure that incidents like these are not repeated. I have been watching these videos for over 6 months and haven’t flown in that time. My next flight is in February. I’m curious if I’ll suddenly get nervous as we pull away from the terminal!
Great video. However, what caused the initial engine problem? I live in the Bay Area and I have hiked up San Bruno Mountain. It isn't particularly tall as mountains go (roughly 1,300 feet) -- so this plane was flying very low.
Chris M #3 engines EXHAUST GAS TEMP EXCEEDED WHAT IT WOULD BE ON TAKE OFF,,, SO WAS IDLED, but with this going their attention was diverted, but the FO was flying, & he used flaps to compensate RATHER THAN RUDDER so it WAS NOT CLINBING AS IT SHOULD HAVE , SO TCAS CALLED OUT TERRAIN , FULL.POWER ON 3 ENGINES WAS ENOUGH,,BUT IT DID NOT CLIMB CHEERS from NJ
I don't even want to begin to think about the people that were in their houses realizing a plane was flying too damn low above their house. I've had one too many nightmares of seeing 747's fly horrifyingly low above my house. Two Blue Angels one time flew over my house. The sound of the engines was getting louder and louder, the sound not letting up like it would once they pass over, I legitimately thought they were going to crash in my neighborhood. Scared the shit out of me. It didn't help much that it happened on September 10th of that year. 😞
United Airlines still uses Flight 863 for their San Francisco to Sydney leg to this day, though this terrifying incident happened 23 years ago. If UA Flight 863 became a tragic air disaster, then the airline would’ve retired that flight number. I’m pretty sure United now flies the 787-9 for that leg since they retired their 747 fleet in 2017.
We do. And we're supposed to carry that training on for our entire careers. Apparently, the FO forgot to use mainly rudder to compensate for asymmetrical thrust. This is one of the first things you're trained to do during an engine failure.
That was a close call. I would have thought that the Captain would have taken over at the point where the engine failure occurred. And why didn't any of the other crew members question the first officer's use of aileron instead of rudder to compensate for the imbalance of thrust after the loss of the # 3 engine? Seems like you had an awful lot of experience in that cockpit , that error should have been noticed immediately. Well, glad it worked out, another lesson learned. Great job Alec as always 👍!
That is not the bottom line. Because that happens thousands upon thousands of times per day. The bottom line is what does not happen every day - an experienced pilot screwed up big time and almost ran a plane into a mountain.
@Mark S Are you a moron? All souls on board were safe, no injuries, and the plane was not damaged in any way. That IS the bottom line. Of course the pilot screwed up and probably should be fired. But lives are the most important issue of the incident.
@@watershed44 Your "bottom line" comment is "what the heck I'm talking about". As Mark S alluded to, this was a near catastrophe, and a complete failure of even basic airmanship. Just because everyone walked away does not mean this wasn't a colossal disaster in the making.
How in holy hell can someone log 9500 hours and not understand that rudder input is required to correct adverse yaw produced by an engine failure?? What was the captain doing?? First action item on any malfunction: FLY THE AIRPLANE! Second item: FLY THE AIRPLANE!
The real question should be how many flight hours each has,> flying the 747 itself, not the total hours the pilots have done over the years to determine experience. Ditto.
I flew back in the ''80-mid 90's". AFAIK, it was a requirement that whole time period for 3 takeoffs and landing every 90 day or trip to the simulator to do the same.
I live in the Bay Area and was not aware of any coverage of this incident in the local media at the time. I didn't hear about it until over a year later when my father told me about it, he had read about it somewhere. I assume United did its best to hide the incident from the media.
Not for the people who are standing under the flight path. Seeing a plane that low would cause them to die of fright. I once had a very rude awaking at 2 or 3 in the morning by a UPS MD-11 flying into Oakland ( which is across the bay from SFO) that was flying way too low (like 1000, 2000 ft) for the distance it was from Oakland (I live in the south bay, at least a half hour drive by freeway away from Oakland).
Brandon Amaro I was being sarcastic. I live and work close to a major airport. I once was at a building just across from the runway. The planes take off just 200-300 feet above it. Freaked me out at first!
I know that the temperature on engine 3 was higher than normal, but why was this? How is it possible for an engine to be at a higher temperature than normal?
As a retired Continental Airlines Captain, we most always considered United Pilots "farmers"....this doesn't surprise me. They loved to hide behind their ALPA legal team, rarely used any courtesy with ATC etc. There were exceptions, I flew B747's out of HNL and those guys would offer us their higher altitudes if we needed it going mostly to Sydney (Continental 1) on the South pac routes....and we reciprocated (step climbing due to weight)..and sure enough, those guys had a cargo door blowout...I think it was United 811...and that Captain flew the bitch...to hell with dumping down to landing weight..he put her down on the reef runway, we found this all out later..and he saved the day....he won my respect. The "whale" was what we called the 747 and getting slow after shucking an engine was a "no no"...we practiced losing both engines on one side in training (we called it batting practice...one failure after another...over/over...) and the only way to survive at gross weight (always at gross)..was to DIVE to the rooftops to gain speed...cranking the rudder down (took 60lbs of pressure to hold it)..and we could make it...as long as we could get the speed. (V2). We could dump fuel before we even got off the runway (after V1) knowing we had to get down to landing weight...sometimes it could take over an hour.
I wonder if they applied more power to the remaining 3 engines? I think their lack of maintaining air speed observation was the biggest issue even thought the co pilot used the wrong control surface to maintain direction, please note using the rudder would have also added drag.
Qusin111 Using the rudder is correct, provides for a coordinated aircraft, and minimizes drag; using ailerons is not only incorrect and uncoordinated, in short order they bring out spoilers on the wing being lowered which adds significantly to drag.
