Boeing 747 on Fire Breaks Up in Mid-Air | Flight from Hell (With Real Audio) 

This accident has been on my mind ever since it happened. It must've been a huge loss to you and your family, to have lost your Dad under such horrible circumstances. I knew a person who knew all the SAA Pilots of those days. This person shared details of what happened from take off to crash, including the 1st fire etc (about 2 hrs into flight ?) and the refusal of Taiwan to allow plane to return, but that the fire was apparently exstinguished. This type of info has been available on the net for a few years now, as a result of all the attempts by lawyers and families trying to get to the truth. Much of the actual truth has seeped out onto the Internet, but because nobody can afford to confirm or deny, the info will always be regarded as a "conspiracy" theory. And yes... it would be bring some closure to this terrible story, if one day someone came clean and TOLD it like it actually happened. This accident was the second aviation "cover-up" at the hands of the late Margo. The first one being the Rietbok in the '60's.

There were unconfirmed rumors that South African passenger aircraft flying overseas smuggled military weaponry as South Africa was still under an international arms embargo under the apartheid years. By the time of the accident South Africa was still fighting a war against Angola; they just couldn't build all the guns and bullets themselves so they buy things clandestinely from other countries, no questions asked. One theory stated that the plane was carrying a rocket system in the cargo hold and that the vibration of unstable chemicals may have caused the cargo to ignite.

I lost a very dear relative decades ago to political infighting and obscure interests. He's still in my thoughts every day. What you imply is both sad and very much probably true.

Hello Marc. I flew with your Dad several times and flew that aeroplane on the same route as well. He was a very nice guy, it was really tough for me to watch this as well. All of us from back then would like to know the truth.

@@endless_song it was the well done. glad you mentioned it.

Yes! May GOD have mercy on their souls ! Requiescat in Pace!

@@metrocustomer7941 awful incident

Especially in the dark

they were just a few minutes away from the stopover on mauritius

There was an ocean right there

Water landing??

@@94balkrishnato far away from land it would take rescuers hour to get there

I suspect all the passengers were dead long before the fire got to them. The smoke would have been very toxic. If nothing else, as soon as the fire broke through the cargo bulkhead, the cabin would have been flooded with toxic smoke.

@@94balkrishna Who knows? If they knew how bad the fire was at the beginning , maybe they would have chosen that. Then maybe a few of them would have survived. I wouldn’t be surprised if all the passengers were long dead before the pilots managed to reach 15,000 feet. Battery fires are nasty things and the smoke is very toxic.

@@Ryarios 😪

My friends nephew had to help recover the body parts floating inthe ocean, heads, arms, legs. He said it was awful and he still has visions of the horror he saw.

💔💔💔😭😭😭😭😭

I am from Mauritius too and heartbreaking accident. 😢

I couldn't agree more. The entire "Combi" idea is ridiculous. Passengers OR cargo; not both at the same time.

While I agree with both comments - and I don't know if combi planes like this still operate with cargo on the passenger deck - either way cargo is still in the cargo deck. It would be nice if someone would tell me which fire is easier to tackle manually or automatically. A fire underneath or behind the passengers. It seems fire and smoke would spread more rapidly on the upper deck. I hope cargo on passenger and freight aircraft undertake stricter inspection now, though I doubt it. Airlines will just believe the paperwork. Also that firewalls and pallets are very fire resistant and extinguishable. This plane burned apart structurally in the air. I suspect with a significant fire the same could happen on a 787 or any modern plane. Most passengers were possibly dead or unconscious before then. Even so, this goes up there in my top three or four worst air disasters for prolonged human suffering and certain death. God rest them all.

@pomerau I absolutely agree!

From what I've seen these "combi" planes are always stuffed to the brim with as much cargo as possible (for obvious reasons why) but there are clearly safety hazards that come along with piling so many things in such a small place.

Speaking as a retired Navy Chief, fire is the most feared casualty on board ships as well.

Ex military Mirage fighter pilot , we have been fighting a bush war called the South African Bush war for almost 30 years against the best the world could have frown at us , our pilots was of the best in the world if not the best in the world at that time , they were firmiliar to handle serious situations while doing combat flying in a war .

They were tremendously capable and exceptionally well trained flying maybe the most well maintained aircraft and probably fully expected to land. Also they were most probably from the air force originally.

Like Martin once said "DAMN GINA" CHEEEOW

i always wondered in these type of accidents, wouldnt be better and safer the moment they knew about the fire, to immediately descend and fly much slower near the water? All these talks with ATC and checklists cost so much precious time..

@@Christoss007 No offense but that might make the situation worst, if you descend fast you will encounter speed as you descend, because the aerodynamics of an aircraft work this way, this in turn will put stress on the already damaged air frame (body) of the aircraft, which in this case; is fire. In this situation there is way more chance of the aircraft breaking apart midair while its descend. So technically you can descend fast, but not on a damaged air frame. Even if you get the plane two a low altitude, you will be going very fast, the point where its considered over speed. Now if your'e very lucky and you get the plane to a low altitude and slow speed simultaneously, now comes the challenge to land. most people think that water crashes are less painful, well that's sort of wrong, water has molecules just like solid on ground. and those molecules together make enough force to deform the aircraft body on impact due to its high speed crash, plus the fact that every air frame has its own tension breaking point, so overall its not easy at all. On the other hand, landing on ground has its own issues, you need plain areas to stop a gigantic metal bird speeding up to around 140 knots (260 KM/H). in both cases, air crafts are usually lost, and so are lives most of the times... safe travel ya'll

@@Christoss007 I was thinking that too

I always wonder, what if they all manage to jump out of it with a parachute once its evidently thats going to fail??? like 20 minutes before it happens, they are certain it will crash, so why not just create an emergency room, an emergency door with parachutes under every seat, they can all put on fast????

Hopefully

Enjoy, Numbskull.

Remember: the events of this video happened over 35 years ago, flying has gotten much safer

You’re still safer flying than you are driving.

Flying was awfully safe in 1987, but today it's way safer than that even. You're more at risk going 75 on the local Interstate.

Just don't watch them while flying, and you'll most likely be fine.

Did they recover the plane afterwards?

​@@ultr3n_m4gic46Yes, parts of it despite 3 miles down.

In 1987 they had Halon suppression systems in the lower hold, but not in the main deck cargo compartment. They were later retrofitted to all Combi aircraft but Boeing would soon stop making the 400 Combi as a couple of bad accidents, including this one, put airlines off buying them.

I was wondering about Halon. My only knowledge of it was being shown around or walked through the IT departments of 2 or 3 international banks headquarters in London in the late Eighties and early Nineties by the night boffins. Larger hardware then obviously, but I thought someone there explained they had to get out and the doors would seal before the Halon could be released. I could be wrong; or else they would have to wait before reentering until it dissipated. Therefore I assumed Halon would not be used in a plane. Time to put my google search finger to work: It's production was banned by the US EPA IN 1994, bu "there is still demand for it for specific applications"

@@pomerau we were ordered to re-enter the main deck cargo area after the Halon had been released, protected by oxygen-supplied smoke hoods. Halon is the most effective fire extinguisher agent. That's why it is still allowed and used aboard aircrafts.

@@Schrottkralle I missed your reply. Interesting. Thank you for that. I also missed that you mentioned Halon at the end. I thought krashd brought it up. Certified schmuck here 🙃

Halon was replaced with halotron early 2000’s , more of a clean agent! It was dangerously bad for ozone and cancerous, works amazingly with no residue or mess , pressurized liquid gas would evaporate!! I used too hydro test cylinders as a fire safety tech!

Yes,we miss our old colours of our planes(and flag).Our new ones,spell :disaster...as our 🤬😈govt is the most corrupt ever('new' South Africa 😥)

@@niciv.n.8747 Yes indeed. Our country is slowly being destroyed by a bunch of corrupt incompetent clowns.

@@niciv.n.8747 Why are you still there man, it will only get worse and become like every other African country

@@niciv.n.8747 I bet you also miss apartheid you old racist fuck

@@niciv.n.8747 i love the livery From Saa and the 747

Why didn't they land in the water? Many would have survived.

@@Heart2HeartBooks xatcly even the cold but gullibaly warm h20 could’ve engulfed & swallowed off all the blazing fires flames all by itself demselves near rear back cabin anywayz KZJ instead yoy bud I’m guessing by the intimacy uf everything else kay, it was by pure intrusion intrusive,y INTSTRUMENTAL chance things occurred & hppnd they way they all turned out in tha very end |mfaO.

Yeah thats what I don't understand..why did they not just put it in the water. Even if they made it to land, the moment the touched down that fuselage was guaranteed to crack in half causing a horrific crash and fireball. They should have laid it down in the water. I don't understand people's decision making process...

​@@GoofysBanditImagine landing in pitch black with no instruments. This is not the hudson, its one of the deepest oceans in the world hundreds of miles away from civilization.

@@fz7091 Also, adding to your point, that was the 1980s when pilots were not even trained for performing such actions, the first ditching happening in 1996 (as far as I'm concerned).

true but i think by the time they realised, the fire was too fierce to be tamed

Out of curiosity did you fly the Combi before or after this incident? I believe SAL295 prompted a total overhaul of safety procedures on these aircraft

I wonder if it was crew trying to inform the pilots about what was going on when they ignored that ding from the cabin that said that someone wanted to talk to them. with four people in the cockpit, someone should have answered

Definitely should have sent one of the crew back to assess the situation. Sitting in the cabin guessing the situation is only going to end one way.

The captain seemed to be suffering from oxygen deprivation already what with the many "ehh ehh" his mind was getting foggy.

Allegedly they did, but the individual either fled, or was incapacitated and never discharged the extinguisher. I feel like I would have send a 2nd person as a follow up after a few minutes of no news.

Of course, we don't know what happened on the plane, and I'm sure feel a tremendous sympathy for what they faced. But, listening to the audio you don't get a sense, this is an emergency, NOW, seconds will decide if you live or die

Exactly what I was thinking

It's not funny

What a lucky baggage fail!

Nothing funny about the 159 dead passengers now is there?

@@Heart2HeartBooks If they got on it would have been 161.....

if you depressurize at a height that's that cold the passengers and crew will die. oxygen masks only last for approx the time it takes to get the plane down to a height with breathable air, so, you'd need to begin that descent almost immediately if you depressurized the cabin. all the way down to the safe height for flying depressurized aircraft the oxygen levels in the air are increasing , this rising level of oxygen would lead to a quite rapid increase in the size and intensity of any onboard fire not 100% extinguished.

@@noneofyourbizness It´s just a question to choose between shit and deep shit. To choose between sure death or having a minimal remote chance to survive. At 35´000 feet the fire would extinguish inmediately and instant smoke vent occures. The passenger oxygen generator cartridges supply 30 minutes oxygen, so also crew oxygen bottles. The only problem is the cold outside temp.

You can briefly survive that temperature, long enough to exhaust the fire of air. You can't survive thousands of degrees Fahrenheit, chemical fumes, or a full speed plunge into the ocean.

@@wysoft Yes, that´s what i answered to somebody, choose between shit or deep shit. Or better saying, sure death or a minimal chance to survive.

Failure by the pilots to respond immediately to a fire is usually a major contributing factor in these types of incidents/crashes.

Just being curious here, do you guys think it is necessary for the aircraft to land immediately or ditch if flying above waters?

What is the science behind coming down, as soon as fire alarms ? I thought, being above 20k feet , and opening the cargo doors are safer options. Lack of oxygen ,will itself take care fire then. Imo

Nobody is going to survive ditching a plane into the open ocean 145 NM from the airport.

@@mallninja9805 just because you are 145 miles from an airport doesn't mean you are 145 miles from land. Planes have life vests it gives you a chance to be picked up by boats. I'd rather take my chances in the water than I would in a fire

If I may ask, do you think the official cause is to be believed?

@@sergiosaunier no, is the short answer. I don't think there's obvious evidence that it cannot be believed, but I'm convinced one day the truth will be revealed. Maybe not in my lifetime.

*_ Ben, who was the purser on that flight ços my mom said it was the boy that escaped death in the flight that my father was piloting (Cessna 150) and crashed on the field runway at VanRyns Dorp which killed him and the front passenger. In the back seat, the father of the boy and the little girl all survived. _*

@@liongod1000 he was N. M van Schalwyk, the senior cabin controller. I didn't know him personally very well. I seem to think it was Nick or Nico, I'm really not sure.

@@bensteyn1974 Thanks for getting back ..... Yep, it was him then.... twist of fate that he escaped death as a kid then only to die much later in an aircraft... sad

Think about it...by the time the back of the plane finally fell off, there was no one left alive on that jet...the smoke and heat would have killed everyone before it destroyed the plane.

....and actually,that 'hel' on the plane's side(written),is standing for:Helderberg...one of our most beautiful mountains in Cape Town.😥

when Captain Uys shouted "close the bloody door" in Afrikaans, that was an indication that the doors actually had been opened in flight, but unfortunately, it appeared to be of no use

They wouldnt have burned to death, but they would have choked on the smoke

The small non rechargeable batteries on desktop computers, which simply retain date and time are not a fire risk. However, the rechargeable batteries on portable computers have plenty of energy to cause a fire. Even without a fault, if the computer switches on while packaged, it will soon overheat and cause a fire. Ideally, the battery pack should not be connected to the computer prior to being set up by the user, but this is not always the case. One distinct possibility was that during the customs inspection, the computers were incorrectly repacked. Something as simple as one of the boxes being upside down, could have easily have resulted in the weight or vibration activating the on switch on one of the machines to activate. Determining which one, would be almost impossible, but at the same time fairly pointless. Transit crates containing either fire risk or combustible cargo, should be of a sealed fireproof design. When ANY batteries are involved, they should be even stronger, since once alight, batteries can produce their own oxygen.

My guess? Lithium batteries in the computers.

My guess? Lithium batteries in the computers.

they probably all passed out tbh

Nice

I suppose the only solace is they probaly would have been overcome by fumes pretty quickly. Still, the moments before that would be terrifying.

god is not real

Even if the pilots landed safely everyone on board would have been dead by then

True fire on a plane can be very very dangerous

Back in the day, naked battery packs were used in computer UPS, while shipping. Now the law is strengthened. A fully discharged battery or protected battery can only be shipped via cargo. As they say , aviation laws are written on blood. Rip those poor souls.

i think not just about money (money ofc the first thing comes to mind) , making the cargo hold resist burning will make it unnecessarily heavier than normal which plane manufacture need to re-design many things to accomodate it. but the cargo container nowadays are made from materials that can resist burning much better than in the past. also theres at least many regulation in place now to prevent any kind of ignition in the first place, safer alternatives than trying to put down fire

its more expensive to pay back the victims families...

@@PaulTC777 I disagree. It's significantly more expensive to retrofit every airliner with such a system then it is to compensate the rare occurrence of this happening. Corporations have these risks figured out by actuaries to save money. Profits over people, as usual.

@@PaulTC777 if that happen often then yes. but even in the past its still rare compared to numbers of uneventful flights

Indeed, five flight crew members and none of them could answer the call from the cabin?

Excellent point.

Ditch in the water. NO WAY THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE it to airport.

@@Heart2HeartBooks At night time with no electronics, in the middle of the ocean

I love watching those little robot people.

But they didn't show you how it happened, just the end result. How did the fire start?

@@krashd It is said that the cargo where the fire started contained computers. Were they laptops with batteries? That's the only thing I can think of.

@@Marchant2 No laptops in the 1980s!

@@chendaforest there were laptops, but they were not as efficient as today.

@@krashd probably a terrorist 🤦‍♂️

Some battery chemistries contain their own oxidisers and will continue to burn in oxygen-depleted environment and sometimes *even under water*. This is what makes modern Lithium-ion batteries dangerous and why there are restrictions for carrying batteries inside aircraft today. A fitted sprinkler system would have likely made no difference in this particular case and would incur a significant weight penalty. It also may not reach nooks and crannies where a fire might burn (eg. behind panels) and might also be damaged when loading or unloading cargo. There would also be the question of whether an inoperative fire suppression system would need to be on the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) for the aircraft and whether dispatch would not be possible if the system was inoperative. Portable extinguishers can be directed more accurately towards the seat of a fire and can be quickly replaced if they are found to be faulty. *If* there were batteries on the pallete and *if* those batteries had oxidisers as part of their battery chemistry, then the fire would be unstoppable. The only way to save the aircraft and its passengers and crew would be to land and evacuate. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, headed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, determined that it was highly likely that armaments or their components were being smuggled on board SAA flights, 295 being the one that paid the ultimate price. If this was in fact true, then the fire may have been burning an incendiary (or a precursor) and would have been disastrously intense and unstoppable. The Commission's report is worth reading for further information on this point, including reports that Captain Uys initially refused to carry the cargo, but was threatened and eventually agreed. If the contents of the cargo were illegal, fitting additional fire protections beyond those commonly fitted to 747s may have alerted ground handling and maintenance crews that there were unusual risks being taken with the aircraft and its cargo. The South African government would not want to have been discovered in this way, hence such equipment would not have been fitted. In relation to the bean-counting aspect of your comment, elements of actuarial analyses (eg. the "Value of a Statistical Life") are used to weigh up risks vs. risk treatments. As risks become known, treatments are put into place to mitigate or eliminate those risks based on their impact and likelihood. These become part of the overall risk management system used within aviation, which is highly risk averse. Service Bulletins, Alert Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives, aircrew training and operating standards all work together to make aviation the poster child for managing the delicate balance between operating cost and safety. Airlines generally have a "safety first" culture, although there are exceptions. There are always improvements to be made to any human activity and they will be made as and when the risks become known. Its unfortunate that the passengers and crew of SAA 295 paid the ultimate price, even more so if the root cause was flouting of international law and threats and intimidation of the aircrew...

agreed i think their is some possible indication that there was sabatoge or terrorist activity involved here. what strikes me odd is they never did any back checking on anybody aboard this flight that im aware of other then the routine stuff. and there is new evidence that indicates mh370 was pilot terrorist downed.

Maybe he sabotaged the plane?

For anyone interested in this angle, there's additional information on the Mail & Guardian's website. Search for "Key Helderberg evidence uncovered" to venture down this rabbit-hole... The truth of this is unlikely to ever be uncovered.

Many ppl believes that the aircraft was carrying something fishy based on the political situation of South Africa at that time. There are conspiracy that the plane might be carrying firearms or missile components. So that officer might knows what the actual cargo was and came to escort it?

@@a098012070417 Some battery chemistries contain their own oxidisers and will continue to burn in oxygen-depleted environment and sometimes *even under water*. This is what makes modern Lithium-ion batteries dangerous and why there are restrictions for carrying batteries inside aircraft today. A fitted sprinkler system would have likely made no difference in this particular case and would incur a significant weight penalty. It also may not reach nooks and crannies where a fire might burn (eg. behind panels) and might also be damaged when loading or unloading cargo. There would also be the question of whether an inoperative fire suppression system would need to be on the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) for the aircraft and whether dispatch would not be possible if the system was inoperative. Portable extinguishers can be directed more accurately towards the seat of a fire and can be quickly replaced if they are found to be faulty. *If* there were batteries on the pallete and *if* those batteries had oxidisers as part of their battery chemistry, then the fire would be unstoppable. The only way to save the aircraft and its passengers and crew would be to land and evacuate. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, headed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, determined that it was highly likely that armaments or their components were being smuggled on board SAA flights, 295 being the one that paid the ultimate price. If this was in fact true, then the fire may have been burning an incendiary (or a precursor) and would have been disastrously intense and unstoppable. The Commission's report is worth reading for further information on this point, including reports that Captain Uys initially refused to carry the cargo, but was threatened and eventually agreed. If the contents of the cargo were illegal, fitting additional fire protections beyond those commonly fitted to 747s may have alerted ground handling and maintenance crews that there were unusual risks being taken with the aircraft and its cargo. The South African government would not want to have been discovered in this way, hence such equipment would not have been fitted. In relation to the bean-counting aspect of your comment, elements of actuarial analyses (eg. the "Value of a Statistical Life") are used to weigh up risks vs. risk treatments. As risks become known, treatments are put into place to mitigate or eliminate those risks based on their impact and likelihood. These become part of the overall risk management system used within aviation, which is highly risk averse. Service Bulletins, Alert Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives, aircrew training and operating standards all work together to make aviation the poster child for managing the delicate balance between operating cost and safety. Airlines generally have a "safety first" culture, although there are exceptions. There are always improvements to be made to any human activity and they will be made as and when the risks become known. Its unfortunate that the passengers and crew of SAA 295 paid the ultimate price, even more so if the root cause was flouting of international law and threats and intimidation of the aircrew...

We do it this way at my local airport because it's such a small regional with only a handful of flights a day. As an aviation enthusiast it's peak joy to be so close to a jet at ground level and inspect it. I'm in Southeast Asia.

Just remember how safe flying is. And that fact that everyone brings up but is still true, you’re more likely to be struck by lightning or killed driving to the airport than die in an aircraft accident. Around 100k flights take off and land successfully every day.

It's weird, I'm exactly opposite. I am terrified of flying, but every single video like this is a problem that I know won't happen again.

Best thing is to feel safer that every issue that causes a crash in the past is addressed and protocol so it never occurs again

@@PhsykoOmen True, and that is a very good thing indeed

@@OfficialSamuelC but if you're on the one plane that crashes, however infrequently it may happen, it's a 100% for you. No choice, no escaping. Hopefully I'd die of a heart attack before too much time passes while this catastrophe is ongoing. Also I would feel so guilty having invited a family member to accompany me. Guess the guilt would only last as long as I am conscious. I have flown across the Atlantic numerous times but I am still scared sh*tless every time I must do it. I get anxious just approaching the airport. While sitting in the departure area, I've often looked around and thought "oh, so that's the people I'm going to die with". Awful feeling. My kids and my ex rode a tourist helicopter. I stayed on the ground. There are no strings holding us up in the air... not my cup of tea. If my destination is within the continent, North and Central America or Europe, I will drive no matter how long it takes.

it was the fucking 1980's.

@@DavidMoviez don't get mad

@@DavidMoviez - What they didnt have water or sprinklers in the 1980s

@@nicknico4121 I'm not mad. I'm amazed that you just comment without doing a little bit of research.

@@nicknico4121 It's like, saying... 'why didn't they kill hitler in 1914 so he wouldn't start world war 2 in 1939?" ...

What did they try?

Agreed

@afterburner I agree I would have ditched in this case ASAP.

But even if they did ditch, there is gonna be causalities but yet again. Ditching is still an option and only way out

@@Interdictiondeltawing Even > 90% causalities is still better than a total loss

@@CynicalOldDwarf This, I never understand why so many people posting say that ditching with even a few survivors is considered worse than crashing trying to find a landing site with NO survivors....weird.

We can only hope in an odd sort of way that they passed out due to smoke inhalation, and didn't have to endure the spiral into the ocean from several miles above. Very, very sad.

Flew a combi out of Alaska just a few years ago. Crazy to think about all the shite in the cargo hold!

End of combi flights for SAA maybe. Flew in a Lufthansa combi back in 1996 which coincidentally stopped over in Johannesburg from Harare before going Northbound to Frankfurt.

@@taridean A 747 combi?

@@MrCrystalcranium Yes a Lufthansa 747-400 combi. I sat near the back where you see the wall between the cabin and cargo area.

@@taridean OK I don't remember where I heard that but I stand corrected! Thank you!

Ya. They started in the mid-90s, I think. No biggy though.

@@soujrnr Actually he's using a flight simulator to recreate this, so he can only use the skins/objects in the game. THa'ts why it's like that.

I think the only chance they had was ditching immediately. It seems they underestimated the severity of the situation until it was too late.

Too calm.

Actually, an impact with water has very low survivability unless it is expertly controlled, at low speed. Considering the circumstances here, there was no chance for a water ditch.

0% chance of any survival. 150 miles from land in the middle of the night. Poor bastards had one option and they did their best.