for real, I think I've watched and rewatched all of Mayday! and I regularly watch all the **other** RU-vid aviation channels, and this is a new one for me, that's rare lmfao
Very well told! I especially liked the mathematical references to how likely or unlikely it is for an engine to fail during a pilot’s lifelong flying career. That really puts it in perspective how rare it is. It’s rather incredible that the failures were not related to each other. I guess this whole incident is full of surprises. The crew survived the breakup of the plane, and impact with a stationary object. True miracles!
@@hsw268 Did you see the pictures? It’s hard to believe anyone survived, but it’s a miracle all of them did! It’s also a miracle there weren’t 300 passengers on the plane.
@@AirspaceVideos Sorry for a late comment, just watched the video and wanted to share what i found regarding the court case by the captain: I found the court case in Florida state court and it appears that the lawsuit was settled in 2015 and that each side paid their own attorneys fees
I'll tell you why I like this channel. All the other aviation channels talk about the same accidents over and over again and it gets really old. I like that you cover lesser know events.
Awesome video as always! Pilots where so unlucky but yet so lucky to make it out alive. The chance of surviving an off-field crash landing with a jumbo jet is really low. It's really sad that the farmer's son did not make it.
Very interesting that you included the probabilities of a pilot suffering different engine failures. I enjoyed that and really puts thinga into perspective
while i don't like Boeing (due to inappropriate automation actions which endangers airplanes) in this particular case i would agree with them, i.e. stick shaker activation points out that pilots too much up the nose of the plane, thus is leading to excess drag (which would slowdown plane even more) and engine stall (so they partially lost working engine), that's why plane was unable to maintain altitude. p.s. in case fully operational engines in full or more thrust it would be ok to exchange that excessive thrust for altitude (so bring plane close to stall, only to immediately gain altitude), but not in this case.
I don’t think anyone could accuse the crew of negligence or not doing their best to avoid a catastrophe.. if anyone was culpable, it was the maintenance worker (depending on how new he was to the work) and the supervisor who didn’t check the work done. RIP the child and his father who died in the farmhouse.
@@jensaugust743 investigators don't blame pilots because it was clear severe malfunction of two engines, and result of more incorrect pilot actions could be far worse, i.e. pilot did good enough job, but they definitely did not do best.
@@sddndsiduae4b-688 true, but they did *their* best. At the end of the day they might not have done as well as someone like - oh Sully for sake of argument - but that is not their fault and there is no indication they missed things their peers would have done. I believe the maintenance people involved should be the ones who have to live with the knowledge that their actions or inactions fell below acceptable standards and led to the deaths of two people, one of whom was a 7 year old child.
Fascinating story. Unlucky to be sure, especially the poor farmer and his son. Almost reminiscent of the early days of the 747 while it was still undergoing test flights where Pratt and Whitney engines routinely failed under high thrust. Funny story about the 747 test pilot who had the president of P & W on one of the test flights and demonstrated the failure of one engine. The president thought it wasn't that serious, so the pilot flamed out another engine. When the pilot asked if he should do it again, the president of P & W said not to and that he would investigate. The source of the failure was corrected soon after. Probably the most disturbing part of this crash was the inability to establish why the aircraft lost altitude in a situation where that shouldn't have happened.
Agreed Commerce USA. If there's anything good for the farmer and his son, it that it was quick. Very tragic of course. Odd how this was not figured out. I agree that the failure to be able to gain altitude was critical. Even at almost 8900 ft.
The chances of multiple engine failures have been described in this vid. But I came away thinking - just what are the chances that there you are living your life in a farmhouse and a 747 ends it all? RIP the farmer and his son. No doubt the aircrew will carry the load of those two lives on their shoulders through absolutely no fault of their own. The one in a million chance came for them that day, they were placed in a truly awful situation. Well told as always and MSFS brings these incidents scarily to life.
Compare this to the crash of the Kalitta 747 at Brussels. Asked to take off from the shorter of two runways, they aborted following an engine failure during the take off run, but overran the end of the short runway, and broke into three pieces. Some criticised the pilot for aborting, saying he could have taken off with just three engines. I'm glad he didn't! (I lived under that runway at the time.)
I had an accident in a BN2A (N851JA) , I suffered a dual engine failure ...the aircraft manual doesn't have a checklist for this particular event, after the investigation the civil aviation authority blamed me ...
@Airspace Sorry for a late comment, just watched the video and wanted to share what i found regarding the court case by the captain: I found the court case in Florida state court and it appears that the lawsuit was settled in 2015 and that each side paid their own attorneys fees
I think this might be the only dual engine failure due to independent causes in an airliner ever. I’ve never heard of another case of unrelated dual engine failure. Can anyone confirm/refute?
It depends on how you define "unrelated". There have been cases where a plane was hit by two birds in the exact right (wrong) spots, causing failures of both engines by very different failure modes. The 1953 crash of Aeroflot Flight 35 is one example: The first bird hit the left engine, causing it to fail (in a way you'd expect from a bird strike). The second bird impacted the cockpit, leading to the failure of an electric switch, which lead to the failure of engine #2. Both birds were part of the same flock, so it's not really an "independent" failure. But then, the crash of Centurion Flight 164 wasn't a truly independent dual engine failure either. The second engine failed while it was in an unusual (and high risk) mode, which it would not have been if the other engine hadn't also failed.
There was a similar one with a 747-100 out of Greece with 2 engines out right after take off. Don’t remember the exact cause but I believe the second one didn’t take the surge of power very well.
1. I flew that airplane at CKS. 2. The video is correct, the plane got slow and wasn't able to return to the required flying speed on two engines and slowly lost altitude. The Captain [MEC chairman at the time] did a good job flying the plane away from populated areas, though he got slow to begin with. 3. We were always told that new JT9 engines could stay together at 50% more than rated thrust, but obviously these were brand new test engines in a controlled environment. 4. Airliners are certified to be able to climb at a 2.6 degree angle after takeoff with ONE engine failed. This is why airlines "lose" your bags; If the calculations say that 2.6 degrees is not possible, they reduce takeoff weight by leaving bags behind first. -Airliners are NOT certified to maintain altitude with two engines out! A twin will fly away at that 2.6 degree angle with half of its engines out because of this rule, but a four engine plane typically will not. A four engine plane of the same weight and total engine thrust is allowed to carry considerably more weight than a twin because of this rule. That is why Airbus built both the A330 and the A340. The plane in this accident should have been able to return to the airport successfully, but only if a certain flying speed is maintained. The 747, once slowed, has a difficult time increasing speed due to its size and weight. That is what got this crew. Great video!
The FE Joe K. and I flew 707s together at Southern and 747s at Evergreen before he went to Kalitta. Great guy and one of the funniest people I have ever met.
Dec. 10, 1999 was flying a Piper Navajo Chieftan. Lost BOTH engines at5000 ft. Crashed into a construction site; walked outwit out injury. This happened at nite.
they had not 2 but 1,5 engines since the third made problems also? Hard to say if it was partly pilot failure from informations given there but it is clear that this plane was not in condition to leave an airport!
Mini Air Crash Investigation just had a story about another Boeing 747 that had great trouble maintaining altitude with 1 engine inop. It barely made it back to a safe landing
Yes it's incredible in more ways than one. Indeed it's even mindblowing that in 2008 they could not explain the accident while having everything: the wreckage, the engines, the black boxes, the crew, everything! Considering what investigators can do with almost nothing, I'm very surprised to say the least. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but: 1- It happened in Bogot (not in Switzerland) and the flight was going to Miami ... 2- An 747 cargo loaded with ... flowers? Apparently quite heavy flowers ... 3- Except for 1 engine, the investigators could not explain anything Very odd. Just my opinion ...
I agree. What kind of person decides to transport *flowers* in a 747?! They’d need to be in strong boxes to stop the bottom ones getting crushed. You’d expect Fedex or DHL to deal with this sort of cargo and it’s a long flight for flowers as I assume the aircraft would be pressurised? Otherwise they’d arrive in a sorry state after their hugely expensive flight. Miami is a strange destination. Flowers grow there too, better than in Bogot. The cargo and the journey make no real sense to me.
@@moiraatkinson They fly flowers in a747 because it is very profitable. These are cut flowers and do not stay good for very long. Old 747's are cheap to buy and can carry a whole lot of them in one flight.
@@Flies2FLL OK that’s fair enough, you sound as if you know what you’re talking about. I guess they’re heavy because they’d need strong boxes and wet material around the stems, to stop them drying out or getting crushed. Perhaps the 747 wasn’t full. It’s just mind boggling to try and think why the cargo of cut flowers were going to a country which could have grown more their own. Had there been a recent disaster with a lot of flowers needed for funerals? Had a head of state died and people were leaving piles of them in a designated place? But I agree, I don’t think conspiracies take place just because someone dreams up what could have happened. Stanley Lord having a cargo of sweaters helped fuel the theory that the Titanic was swapped with the Oceanic, the accident planned so the badly damaged ship could be written off, rather than White Star having to pay for extensive repairs. The theory further stated that Stanley Lord and the Titanic didn’t get near enough to each other as planned to rescue the passengers, (presumably clothing them in sweaters) apparently caused the disaster. What a load of rubbish! One of the less believable stories from the beginning, was finally disproved when the Titanic was found and serial numbers checked. So I’m not going to hang everything on a 747 cargo hold full of flowers! But it is odd ……
@@moiraatkinson The other big crop flown in from South America by the plane load is asparagus. You need to take a drive down 36th street in Miami, the road just north of the airport. Along this road are about a dozen hangars servicing the planes of many small cargo airlines that specialize in bringing freight in from South America. They call this area "corrosion corner". Trivia: In 1972, George Lucas was stuck in Miami after his flight was cancelled and had to go to a cheap hotel along 36th street. He found a hole in the wall bar near the hotel in Miami Springs that was full of mechanics and pilots from the various corrosion corner airlines. He based the famous "cantina scene" in Star Wars upon that visit to that bar, which is still in existence, Bryson's Irish Bar.
@@Flies2FLL Corrosion corner? Maybe it partly seems strange to me because I’m from the UK. I would love to take a walk down 36th street in Miami, but at the moment I can’t afford it. Maybe one day I’ll fly over to the US (but I don’t think I’ll go in a 747 with a cargo of flowers)!
These sorts of videos always make me worry about the day we'll see a double engine failure of a twin over an ocean. Highly improbable, but not impossible.
I believe this is the second 747 crash owned by Kallita Air Cargo. Again, the pilots were able to walk away. Engine failure was a causal factor. I’m not sure who maintains their 747’s, but I would definitely be looking for a new team of mechanics. Too bad about the people in the farmhouse.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall mention of the flap setting at the failure of the number four engine and/or whether or not flap setting was altered at any point. Airspeed would have been nice to know also. I think all things considered, they're pretty damned lucky to walk away. You also said 747-200, 400s started coming out in early 89, so how old was the accident aircraft?
why did they not use landing gear? is there any regulation/checklist thing or is it just they didn't think of it? you might end up not slowing down as fast, but you increase the chance of crew/passenger (if this was a commercial flight) survival right?
It sounds to me as though the fuel was *contaminated* - there are other incidents where fuel has become contaminated resulting in multiple engine problems or even multiple engine failure. Was this possibility investigated..? If not, why not?
Would you consider doing the Hudson river plane crash in 2009? I don't really know much about the details surrounding the accident so I figured id ask. Thanks!
Oh, I wanted to ask you if you could investigate the Bombadier Dash 8 Q400 problems with landing gear collapsing. Apparently this is a problem with the model. The plane has always fascinated me, as the location of the landing gear and height gives it a characteristic look as it comes in to land - like a long-legged bird. I always thought it seemed weird looking, and then read several accounts of these collapsing. I was a bit disappointed, given I like the plane, but sometimes a design is popular because IT WORKS BETTER I guess. 🤣 (By which I mean shorter landing gear)
My Spanish isnt very good, bit this bit of the report, clearly says that the aircraft wouldn't be able to sustain flight in its current configuration, with 2 engines. "Alrededor de 20 segund os después de la aplicación de la sobrepotencia, el motor NO.I perd ió su potencia. Subsecuentemente a la pérdida del motor No. l, el avión, tal como estaba configurado, no se sostendría en vuelo."
I find this incident rather strange.... it seems there is still no real explanation (i.e. a satisfactory one) as to why the plane could not continue on 2 engines. By wihch I mean, I don't personally find the proferred ones enitrely satisfying. Cargo companies do seem a bit slap dash with maintenance though??? I can't imagine how it must feel to be trying to fly as usual and get no response from the plane. That must be an awful feeling as you continue to sink closer to the ground. 😖
Even if the Pilots make a mistake, isn't it the responsibility of the operator & the manufacturer to make sure the errors don't happen. Had it been a passenger flight, it could've been a catastrophe...When somebody dies or gets injured as a consequence of fulfilling their duty, it must be the responsibility of the employer to compensate for the loss of lives or livelihood,..There should be no need to go to court. I don't know about the west, but in my country, a loss of life, limb or livelihood during the course of duty is to be compensated by the employer. This also includes the commute between home and office.... Developed World??? If the consequence of development is
good shit as usual 🥰 when that second engine went I cannot imagine how that must have felt, lol. the sinking feeling they must have had. just a small note that will likely get me called named by some weirdo or something, but as a wheelchair user, I'm really not a fan of the phrase "confined to a wheelchair," and most other wheelchair users don't rly like it either -- yeah it sucks I got put in this situation and I can't walk or whatever, but it's not a death sentence, and I'm not confined to it, it's kinda the opposite, if it weren't for my chair, I would be unable to do much of anything! it's kinda the opposite of being confined. like. sucks I can't fly a plane bc my legs are broke, but hey lol, I'm alive and I got this thing that lets me go places. idk how the injured crew feel but I would wager that -- at least after dealing with the initial shock of it -- they prolly feel similarly? idk. just for future reference, no harm done and my feelings were not hurt.
@@AirspaceVideos oh I didn't take any disrespect from it, no worries and absolutely no apologies necessary at ALL! it's not something most people know, or think about! I just wanted to let you know since you make such good content and, idk, it's nice when content creators I like with audiences know about that sort of thing just for the future reference 😇 thank you for your excellent work!
“Confined to a wheelchair” to me means that a person needs a wheelchair to get around. It’s not a judgement of his or her physical abilities. It’s just a description of what I’m observing. How else would I need to express it, when somebody needs a wheelchair to get around?
@@californiahiker9616 it's a shitty way to put it and it legit makes me, and many other disabled people, feel bad. that should be enough reason for anyone to not want to use it, and not want to make an argument about how well ackshyually, grammatically, it's pretty much the same. it's accurate to say "hiking" is just "walking" but you'd probably be pretty pissed off if I said "oh, you went on a walk?" after you went on a long and arduous hike. it's pretty simple compassion.
WoW I totally missed hearing about this incident that took place on Monday 07th July 2008 at 03.52hrs local time. It's scary when the accident investigators are left scratching their heads as to probable cause ! Even on what the accident investigators were able to establish, what are the mathematical odds that this could all possibly happen within seconds on the same aircraft ? My initial thought on reading what transpired, when, was of fuel quality ... dirty fuel or perhaps considering this was an elderly aircraft with an early morning flight prior to sunrise, had water condensation somehow built up enough to contaminate the fuel, causing engine 4 to splutter and backfire at takeoff thrust .... did this violence / mini-explosions cause something else to fail, causing the engine fire and rendering the engine useless ? Then, following standard operational procedures, fire extinguishers were applied to engine 4, and maximum thrust was applied to engines 1, 2, and 3 in order to climb. Then upon initiating a turn, engine 1 appears to have suffered the same fate as engine 4, but without fire. With various alarms and warnings going off in the cockpit, and priority being given to climb, altitude was noted at only 750 feet and noted as still slowly descending. Next ( not mentioned in the report the instrument panel display would have shown engine 2 not operating at maximum but .... ) It was noted that engine 2 was suffering from a series of mini-explosions, but unlike engines 4 and 1, it managed to recover thrust in-between the spluttering / series of mini-explosions. Also, it should be mentioned that knowing all was lost ( no possibily to reach the airport - no visible safe spot / area to land ) the Captain decided to guide his doomed aircraft into the darkest area in front of him, in the hope he would avoid any inhabited dwellings / buildings. It was for this last minute action that he received a medal of honour, as a thank you for the hundreds of lives saved on the ground from the townsfolk, presented by the mayor. It was a tragedy that 2 lives were lost on the ground and an absolute miracle that somehow the town AND all those onboard the aircraft survived. ( This is the first time I have ever heard of an airliner commencing the jettisoning of fuel at altitude 750 feet and descending !!! I believe the minimum altitude at which you can dump fuel is 6000 feet, and that is conditional to you NOT being over a populated area. I'm surprised that there were no consequences or repercussions.
I thought that but you'd think the investigators would have checked it out. Also if it was loaded with flowers, doesn't seem like the heaviest of cargo. So probably not.
