Most of the families probably had their Christmas trees set up with presents for daddy underneath. Daddy's coming home tonight, what a time of joy. And then this happened. Christmas is probably now the worst time of year for them when it should be their happiest. How sad, especially for the little kids. Christmas was such a happy time for me as a kid, I can't even imagine how terrible something like this must have been to them. So heart breaking.
It's basically a conspiracy theory. I bet a lot of people really wanted to believe there was an explosion or a fire. So much so, that facts don't really matter.
Yea, if there had been, and that the paint had come from the plane fuselage, then there should have been bits and pieces of the plane further from the crash site. And something like that was never found.
Many years ago the aviation industry updated the average weight of a person as it was considered far underweight whick is a risk all along. Ice adds weight and more importantly both contributed to disrupts air flow on the wings greatly reducing lift.
They spent 90 minutes in the airport shop buying booze for Christmas plus chocolate for the kids, about 250 people that's up to a ton heavier when leaving that airport, plus the ice😅
Yeah I was pretty sure it was icing and weight...too close after takeoff since they couldn't seem to gain speed and altitude which would have been only mechanical issues.
@@juliemanarin4127 Not to mention we've seen plenty of other accidents that we know were caused by icing, and the flight profiles are almost identical: slow acceleration, late rotation, inability to climb, stall and crash just off the airport.
The dissenters pushing the claim that it was a terrorist bombing despite the lack of any evidence of such chose to play politics with the accident rather than accepting the fact based conclusions of the actual investigation.
And the irony of it is that they did so under the pretense that "it does not advance safety to get the wrong conclusion." It's probably one of the most tragic and common of human failings, to so completely believe in one's own rightness that they blind themselves to the damage they're doing.
@CountYourblessings0 We just watched a 45 minute video that was one-sided in favor of the majority report. Very little time was spent on how the minority report came to their conclusion. Not only was it one sided but they did what they could to make the people supporting the minority report look like conspiracy theorists. Do you really believe they didn't have arterial motives when they decided to include a scene where a colleague from the majority report was having a tantrum at his colleagues from the minority report? Also, fun fact the investigators from the minority report are professional investigators not some backyard conspiracy theorists. They wouldn't make that claim without any science backing it. But hey I'll give this video credit, it did what it was designed to do, It convinced you to accept the majority report without question. For the record, because this video is focused so heavily on the majority report I can't say one way or the other who is right.
Billions of people are fooled by many things, landing on the moon in 1969, living on a spinning planet, gravity, satellites, planes crashed into the world trade tower & Pentagon (yet no response from the military), Y2K, Covid, plastic recycling, coin shortage, global warming, climate change. I'm no aviation expert, but I know there are experts who could make it look like an accident, or the NTSB was paid off to announced that it's an accident. Every government agencies is corrupt these days, can't trust any of them.
The investigators who pushed the minority report "bomb theory" failed to recognize that their idea was comprehensively disproven by the empirical evidence at the scene. Filotas, in his own words (28:59) states that the foundation for the idea was his calculation that all 4 engines must have failed right after liftoff. However, the physical evidence at the scene (wood debris ingested deeply into all 4 engines) definitively proves that all 4 engines were working up until impact with the trees. Plus, there was no sign whatsoever of any debris *from the airplane* being ingested into any of the engines - which is what Filotas claimed caused them to fail - or on the ground below the path of the aircraft's brief flight - which would obviously have happened if a bomb had exploded on board. So Filotas and his colleagues claim the plane was brought down by a bomb, which blasted debris out from the airframe which was ingested into all four engines, causing them to fail and the plane to crash. And yet, there was no sign of any airplane debris inside any engine or on the ground below the plane's flight path, clear empirical evidence that the engines *did not* fail prior to impact, and no clear sign of any explosive residue onboard. My only possible explanation is that Filotas and co. were so utterly convinced that the icing/overweight explanation *couldn't* be the cause that they latched on to the only other explanation they could think of and refused to objectively consider the evidence against it.
@@nightrunnerxm393it basically took three plane crashes with icing problems to finally get the point across. The Dryden episode sealed the demise of the CASB when they couldn’t get the message across again to the FAA/NTSB for the LaGuardia accident.
Something that I've seen mentioned in multiple reports and incidents in icing conditions is that no one 'saw' the ice. This makes no sense to me, because I come from a cold climate, we have words for multiple types of snow and ice based on it's density, viscosity, etc; heck our indigenous population have even more. The point is, one of these types genuinely is, borderline invisible. If you do not have contrast beneath it, by which I mean, if the surface it has formed on is only 1 continuous color, like that of flat stones used to make paths, new asphalt, or god forbid, the white surface of an aircraft; you will not see it. The only way to detect this ice is by touching it. Visual inspections of ice are based on the assumption that clumping ice (which is easier to spot) is the only type that interferes with flight because of how it affect airflow; but this is erroneous. Also, ice formation can be surprisingly subtle. I have seen 4 different types form on the ground within a single city block. Just because ice does not form on one side of the street, does not mean it can't on the other; you cannot assume because one aircraft had no icing issues that another therefore won't either.
i think this is a fact that only known by ppl who live in cold region, and it happened in 1985 so its safe to say there are icy weather that is dangerous for flight to take off. the accident happened as soon as take off so its true that the engines unable to gain speed and lift for the aircraft. . the false claim on sabotage can be debunked with simple logic that if any timed bomb is planted, it will be detonated after they gone somewhere far from the airport . initial explosion by bomb would show debris a bit far before they are down
Procedures at that time (1985) did not require pilots to physically touch the wing with their bare hand to determine if there was ice and for planes with under 30 seats the pilots would brush snow off the wings with brooms after all the passengers were onboard and then takeoff likely with some ice on the wings. If the pilots believed they had ice on the wings they determined it would only affect performance slightly on takeoff as it wasn’t snowing and they had been on the ground for less than an hour. They were dead wrong on that.
Gander is not a small airport lol, but is in a "rural" airport in a fantastic town with only 6,000 residents. I moved to Newfoundland from Boston in 2013.
9 дней назад
I visited the crash site a few years ago . . . it's a dreary place, despite the memorial and maintenance.
It wasnt terrorist, it was being overweight and icing. Airlines average the weight of people and baggage, thats fine for a regular traverler. But when you fly military they have double and triple the weight for their equipment. This was not figured by the company nor the flight crew. So between the extra weight and icing conditions, this plane never had a chance of taking off. I was there a few years after this, during the summer, and even then the conditions at Gander airport can be challenging. The take off speed should have been higher and deicing should have been done closer to takeoff. This did change how companies figured weight on flights carrying all military personnel. But this was not a terrorist attack, just a sad preventable accident.
@@Helpline5815 different conditions in middle east.. ice adds weight to the plane and stops the plane from getting lift which lift keeps plane fly fly.
I looked into the demise of the CASB, and everything made me absolutely furious. Some of the board members were meddling in many investigations (one in particular was shouting at them at the crash site bossing them around, even though that wasn't his job). Filotas was in that group of people, and should never have a platform to relay his thoughts. It should be emphasized that board members are *not* investigators. They weren't hired to be investigators, they were appointed to create recommendations from the investigation's findings and to review the investigation. They are not supposed to investigate. However, the law that made the CASB didn't actually define the role of a board member, so this became an grey area (even though the only person that could boss people around is the Director of Investigations, who has an investigator-in-charge to lead each investigation on their behalf). It should be pointed out that Norm Bobbitt and Les Filotas, two of the dissenting board members, applied to be investigators and got rejected. However, Filotas in particular was a university friend of a person in the Cabinet of the Mulroney government of the time, which helped him become a board member. Though he was an aeronautical engineer, he didn't have any investigative experience, and he was so focused on his calculations that he didn't believe what the investigators told him, despite the fact that these investigators was very experienced and were trusted by other investigators around the world. Filotas also didn't become a board member until December 1986, a full year after the accident. His appointment was the beginning of the end for the CASB. His demand to the chairman on his first day of work that things should change made him likeable to board members that didn't like the role board members were given, and the board ended up being split into two groups: one that thinks that board members are merely reviewing the findings and asking questions for mere clarification, and one that thinks that board members should be much more hands-on in the investigation and be more in charge of its direction (despite lacking experience in the field). The dissenters group verbally abused the investigators by basically intensely interrogating them, to the point where several senior members just quit. They also sent letters to the loved ones of the dead (particularly the widow of the pilot) about their thoughts, and it became a whole mess. When the final report was released in December 1988, it was backed by every investigator that investigated the accident, and the sane group of board members of the CASB. The expectation for them was that Transport Canada were immediately release a bulletin that would urge pilots to be absolutely certain that their wings were free of ice. Instead, due to the rough relationship between the organizations, Transport Canada made an internal report that basically stated that the final report had insufficient evidence (even though the report was based on the evidence they had plus studies on the effect of ice). The bulletin wasn't released to major airlines until March 1st, 1989. Air Ontario was not a major airline, so they got it on March 15th. Air Ontario flight 1363 crashed on March 10th.
As a former Passenger Service Officer at Travis AFB,CA during '67-'68 Vietnam War we were scrupulous about taking down the passenger's individual WEIGHT as well as baggage checked for the long flight across the Pacific. Stretch DC-8s were usually configured for 219 passengers. No guns or munitions EVER ACCOMPANIED passengers on these flights but were positioned there on arrival. All check-in processing was done by trained Air Force personnel of the Military Airlift Command. But once the war ended and these smaller operations were conducted by contracted or untrained people obviously things got sloppy AND MAY HAVE CONTINUED THROUGH IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. If it can happen it WILL HAPPEN. Had this happened under US jurisdiction it likely would have been COVERED UP and no one held accountable.
I live in St. John’s, drove up and did flight school in gander, GFT, and I learned that the atc controllers have a crash button in the tower, and sometimes they have to lift it, sometimes they get close to pushing it, and sometimes they have pushed it, opening the fire doors across from the tower in the water bomber hangar. This is one of those times it was definitely pushed.
This completely breaks my heart! 💔 It always pains me to see military members serve in a foreign country and survive only to come back and die in a freak accident, either at home or elsewhere. 😭 RIP. I also haven't heard of this one. I've watched so many air crash investigations but I don't think I've seen this one.
If there was a bomb that went off, you'd see the type of damage that befell Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988: outward bending of metal and residue of the chemicals from the explosion (C-4, Semtex and other plastique explosives leave a distinct chemical residue from the explosion). The fact we didn't see the chemical residue from a missile warhead detonating proves that TWA Flight 800 was most likely not brought down by a surface-to-air missile.
Well the fact that the FBI confiscated any and all evidence that could have proved it was a SAM, kind of hints at the fact that it was a SAM that took down TWA 800.
Back in February 1973, I was part of a troop rotation from the u k to Belize, we flew out on a r a f brittania, first stop gander newfoundland, it was severely cold and windy, I was wearing trilby hat, that flew of my head, I was shocked when I heard about the crash on gander, I could understand the way happen
Not necessarily to a significant degree, since the crash was at a fairly low altitude. That said, they would certainly have found traces of the blast in the rubble, both in the form of surviving traces of explosive, soot, etc, and in terms of, well, you'd be able to see the shockwave's effects on some of the parts of the plane.
Considering the whole idea of that explosion idea is that debris from the supposed explosion was ingested into all four engines, causing them to fail, then yes, there should/would have been substantial debris on the ground below the flight path if that had happened. The fact that no such debris was ever found prior to the impact point speaks volumes.
Ooh this ones a bit personal (I'm from Gander) and my dad loves this one. My grandfather was actually one of the firefighters sent to take care of this incident. There is also a walking trail where this went down and you can still go find some pieces they left around too
By that logic all planes without deicing before take off crashes. Must be a cover-up to save deicing cost then, hiding all those wrecks and silencing families to the victims.
@@MartinsnI mean it took 3 plane crashes to get the point across. All of them have icing contaminants. And some planes are more susceptible to performance degradation. The Dryden episode is a good follow up and lead to changes on deicing procedures.
@@Armor23OnPatrol oh, like that. But still, if it was something that would happen if deicing was not added, it would be many more, like hundreds. The real learning from this experiences was how dangerous such a thing invisible layer can be, which can occur under certain conditions. And this can happen fast, so just a 20 min delay can be enough. Saving money is part of the game, but here it is about knowing the risk under these conditions and use better deicing and checking better on middle of the wing. But yeah, it was a part of the accidents that made them understand those risks
My heart broke for the families of those servicemen who were on board the flight. Christmas will never be the same for them again. Most of the families probably had their Christmas trees up and waiting for their loved one to come home ❤
this is the flight that started the militay's DNA database. the soldiers were handed their medical records to take to their next assignment and when the plane crashed they were destroyed. I worked for the military's DNA laboratory right as it was gearing up in the 90s and we were all shown the slides on this story and told why it was so important.
If anyone might be wondering, the most people to die in a single plane incident was the Tenerife runway collision in 1977. 583 people were killed. Every one in one plane died, and almost all the people died in the other. One plane was parking and the other was taxying down the runway to take off in a crowded and foggy airport where miscommunication also played a factor. Adding to the horror of it all is the fact that most people died by being burned alive, not from the impact of the collision itself.
Well, the KLM tried to take off while the Pan Am was still on the runway. But it’s a lot more complicated than just that. Tenerife transcends just aviation to be a widely-used textbook example of something known as the Swiss cheese model of disaster analysis, just because of the sheer number of factors that went into it.
Well, that wasn't a single-plane accident, as you say, it was a collision. The most people to die in a single plane was JAL 123, with 4 out of something like 520 people being killed after the tail blew off from a failure of the aft pressure bulkhead.
When another plane crashes seconds after takeoff with the same winter conditions and been are very similar then someone with common sense would realize that the airplane was overloaded and had small amounts of ice causing it to stall and crash! That bearded man with the glasses is just trying to force his opinion that had no scientific evidence whatsoever. The fact that he still stands by his theory tells us that his pride is more important than what the truth really points to. ✈️🤦🏼
From my own side research I agree with the majority conclusion and find the dissidents reasoning suspicious. The two sides couldn’t agree on how the investigation should be run…….
Super thin "evidence" of terrorists. Ice problems that have been the cause of other crashes in later years and analyzed with better tools than was on hand in '85 have shown how critical thin and virtually invisible icing can take a bit toll on air worthiness.
Yeah at my school we can de ice our aircraft 1 time and if theres any frost that reforms its an immediate cancellation, we have an 11000 ft runway thats very wide (forget rn) however its not worth the risk… though thats only if the pic obeys the rules, i know i do cause i dont wanna tempt fate. All it takes is a few holes in the model for the accident to occur
my late grandpa was with the 13th Airborne in WW2....they're a special breed alright....he was in a glider infantry regiment :) and yeah this is so tragic....that Christmas became a time of sorrow :(
It's interesting that civilian avg weight for guys is heaps less than army guys avg weight, but makes sense because army guys are usually all fit, muscles and bulked up.
33:37 Lets get real here with how this plane crashed the unfortunate likelihood of people surviving was high, I can only hope they died of Co2 poisioning and not the insuing fire that destroyed the plane. The independent investgators job was to find anything to make Arrow not responsible not to find the truth. The plane was slightly iced & definitely overweight it proably only got off the ground due to ground effect and stalled when they tried to go higher. Assuming it was shown correctly here the fuel weight alone was off by 2,000 - 9,000 pounds depending on weight/gallon measure (6.67 vs 7.2lbs/US Gal.)
One of the groups that initially supported the bomb theory was the airline itself, possibly to distract from the numerous maintenance issues the plane had (which didn't lead to the accident, but nevertheless was very troubling).
Is there ary possibility that the airplane was overwight because the pilot figured the fuel weight in terms of gallons instead of measuring it in terms of liters, the Canadian standard measurement?
Very good job dudes and nicely well done!! Congratulations 992.2% yo throughout the 1st sizzling patriotic hot week of said outstanding October y'all. Never seen this one before! At first I believed the terrorist theory but by the end I believed it was just ice and weight very tragic. 😥
It was ice, by and large. I can understand the anger and confusion, but the weather in Newfoundland, at that time of year especially, can be very nasty. And the weather was nasty that year. I was in Newfoundland. There has never been evidence of an explosion. It was tragic, but not caused by intentional human involvement.
I just finished a chapter by a coroner who did the autopsy on the bodies. He said that dead bodies can't breath in carbon monoxide unless the plane was on fire before the crash. They destroyed the evidence and refused to reopen the case, and they moved the bodies immediately rather than investigating on site. And Arrow Air was involved in either bringing back hostages or smuggling missiles to Iran for hostages, but the deal fell through when the missiles were found to be useless and Iran wanted revenge. Also, the FBI released a report and did clandestine investigating at Arrow Air HQ asking questions about where you can put explosives on their planes, where you can smuggle people and arms, and if people can survive in the hold, where they can hide. And the ground crew at Gander was independently interviewed and said they looked for ice and found none.
De-icing is VITAL. I was once setting off for work on a frosty morning in my car. It was so frozen I could barely see out of the windshield. As I was late, as usual, I didn't have time to wait for full defrosting and full vision. As I pulled out of my friends drive, half blind, I heard a squish. I ran over my dear friends favourite chicken! I was gutted. So was the chicken. I cleaned up the mess, felt terrible and still havnt told her to this day. I can't. It was years ago now. Let sleeping chickens lye, isn't it. Airplanes? Now that's a different matter! Ps. Andre, I hope you don't read this. If you do, I really am sorry!!!!!! And only 2 days after your pet duck disappeared! What a week. I promise I had nothing to do with the duck. 😁❤️👍
I think you will find the pilot requested a de-ice procedure, but Dryden requires a full shutdown of the aircraft for this procedure, but due to the APU malfunction, and Dryden not having anyway to restart the aircraft, the de-icing was not an option.
It was the patch for the UN peace keeping force assigned Sinai duty. They were 6 month rotations. This particular one was the flight detachment of the peacekeeping Force
In the sense that they're nowadays pretty old, maybe. If you actually look at the stats, though, DC planes were generally about as likely as other planes of their era to crash, though. As it turns out, flying used to be rather less safe than it is nowadays.
I stayed with an air traffic controller while going to trade school in Gander. He was working the evening of that crash. He told me the cause of the crash was because the plane when it got to Gander already being fully loaded took on crates from the military as ordered to do so. This is mentioned in this video by crates not manifested (it was artillery). Icing was not a factor in this crash. Weight alone was. The mushroom cloud spotted was it detonating when the plane did crash prior to exploding on fire. They were gag ordered not to speak about it
@@johnhenry8424 That type of cloud happens all the time when planes crash, due to the fuel. Go watch the episode on Air France Flight 296Q (the one that crashed after the low flyover at the airshow). The episode includes an actual video of the crash (not just the reenactment), which has a similar flight profile to this one. Sure enough, there's a large mushroom cloud from the fuel exploding - and in that case, everyone on board survived the impact (3 people were trapped onboard and died from smoke inhalation after impact). Just visually seeing a mushroom cloud says nothing about explosives on board, or the cause of the crash. And that A320 just making a brief airshow flight would obviously have had much less fuel onboard than the freshly-refueled DC-8 doing long-haul in this case.
@@johnhenry8424 Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable, as any type of investigator would tell you. They can be useful, but they have to be backed up by physical evidence. The physical evidence in this case is that there was no debris ejected from the plane prior to impact with the trees (as an explosion would have done), no aircraft debris inside any of the engines (as Filotas and co. claim caused them to fail), and wood debris from the trees ingested into all four engines (clearly proving they did not fail prior to impact). *Those* are the real facts that cannot be ignored, and they clearly show there was no pre-impact explosion. There was a post-impact explosion from the fuel, the exact timing of which is exactly the sort of thing that eyewitnesses frequently get wrong.
This is beyond tragic. I remember Reagan speaking about this. Kinda creepy that this one should be uploaded 3 days ago, with the whole Hezbollah ...thing playing out.
Well, how do you explain the other evidence of explosion, the physical evidence? Why did they not explore the engines being a problem, because they and the flight controls could have caused the accident. Why did a bigger plane not crash on take off? I'm with Filotis, it was not ice on the wings that caused this, and this investigation was done piss poor.
They did look at the engines, and 3 of the 4 were confirmed to have been perfectly fine. Engine 4 may have been a bit wonky, but a complete loss of one engine should not crash the plane. The only people that disagreed with the investigation were the dissenting group of board members, who had no investigative experience (and two had their applications to be an investigator rejected, one of which was Filotas).
This is an old video. Since we have vastly improved aviation standards and systems are more computerized, we don't have as many crashes as existed before 2006ish, so there aren't many new episodes. Every other day a "new" video is posted from their 21+ seasons. Not sure what you are going on about.
