I'm friends with one of the survivors, she lost her entire family that day😢 She suffered horrific burns, which took many many years to recover from. She is now an advocate and campaigner for Burns Survivors. One of the most inspiring people I have ever met🙏
My uncle died in this crash. In a cruel twist of fate, he requested a seat in the front row as he wanted to exit quickly as he was late for a conference. The front row was completely destroyed on impact. Sadly, "Better late than never" was learnt a very hard way that day.
Ok, I'm just a lowly private pilot, single engine with 460 hrs. But when I'm on final my 3 priorities are altitude, airspeed and visual contact with the runway. If any of these don't look right, I know I need to do something. With a visibility of 10 km they would have seen the runway and the VASI or PAPI lights. These pilots simply were not flying the plane. There is no excuse for that.
In my 8000 hours as captain on the Airbus, I've seen many similar situations where the airplane didn't do what I expected. Pilot's are taught in Airbus school to use automation, but the more experienced I got the more I learned the best thing in unusual situations was to turn off the autopilot and autothrottles and hand fly.
@@ActinidesOfficial pehli tip ye hai ki tumhara baap itna ameer ho ki tum 1crore ka course le sako dusra ki ye kisi bacche ka khel nhi hai training krne mein hi 1crore lag jate hai aur upar se job interview mein fail ho gye toh jindagi barbaad itna karja leke mar jaoge
Yeah, I'm just an armchair pilot, but seems like they should have realized that the throttles were at idle and they were too far from the airport and applied power long before it was too late.
Many Airbus pilots are very dependent AND encouraged by Airbus to be dependent on automation... It's in their book. That helps low time pilots and less disciplined crews get away with it. But when s*it hits the fan.. They keep the automation on and fly right into terrain. It doesn't occur to them to disconnect and fly manually. Like that Airbus that flew right into the trees on a low pass.
Not with an Airbus. They do the flying, you go along for the ride. Only when you understand the logic behind the way these things fly are you safe to fly them.
@@R2Bl3nd The plane was flying but to a lower altitude than ground below them so it was handling the thrust for a decent into terrain . As far as I am aware toga altitude was set below ground level so plane set thrust to idle
I recently watched a bunch of your old videos and I am really impressed with how much your delivery has improved. Always looking out for a new video of yours, it's a really great format you got there!
@@smcdonald9991 Court proceedings are initiated because of fatalities and a major aviation accident, and so there is a Judge presiding over the case. However, the judge and court rely on expert advise from accident investigators and the manufacturer to provide domain expertise. Of course the pilots' union/association will do all that it can to absolve the pilots of blame - especially when radically new technologies are incorporated in a plane that they too cannot fully understand!!! Shameful, but that's the union for you.
@@sunnyshukla9477 They shouldn't just try to absolve the pilots of blame otherwise this situation could happen again they should look at how it came about so it never happens again . I blame is pilot training they most likely emphasized the Airbus system would take care of plane but ultimately it only does what pilot commands it to . Command it to fly into terrain and it will while staying within its fly't envelope protection
Push the A320 throttles fully forwards and TOGA power initiates. You get the go around power like any other "conventional" aircraft. Or press the TOGA button and the computer will literally push the throttles forward on your behalf if you are feeling lazy. Fly your flipping aircraft. There is absolutely no excuse for sitting in the cockpit and allowing your plane to hit the ground.
Agreed, but we don't have TOGA buttons on the airbus and we don't have throttle, we have thrust levers for selecting auto thrust modes. Also They don't move by themselves.
I was on duty as a Doctor at the emergency department at Victoria Hospital,Bangalore,where I was doing my MD in Internal Medicine,we got a urgent call from the Hospital Superintendent,saying that a plane had crashed and we should gear up and wait for the accident victims,sadly what we instead saw was dead bodies coming in hordes,and we had to make the wards into morgues,as there was no space in the mortuary.one thing I clearly remember,is a mother who had a small infant on her lap,and both mother and the infant were burnt beyond recognition,It was a sad sight.....
The pilots were negligent, specifically the supervising captain who needed supervising himself by the sounds of it. What a tragic and avoidable incident, if only they'd just flown the plane!!
Not so. These were poorly trained pilots. The Airbus doesn’t have an OFF switch. There is always a nasty little reminder that the “system” is in charge and you have to ask it “nicely” what you would like it to do.
@@titan4110 Double, triple, quadrupole checking would not have saved the day. Once you put the wrong altitude in the window you are screwed. When the ground looks too bloody close the last thing you’ll check is the go-around altitude.
@@Trevor_Austin They seemingly had enough time to double check and go back on course. They didn't crash immediately after the wrong setting it took some time.
@@titan4110 It will do. Don’t forget, lateral navigation is easy. This was a vertical nav problem. At 700/800 fpm rate of descent the time available is very short and when you go around altitude is less than you current altitude not much happens.
I know I've seen this video before but holy craps, sitting and diagnosing autopilot issues whilst they are skimming the trees when all they should have done is just added power.
With the thrust levers in the detent the thrust is “managed”. Pressing the TOGA triggers will deliver go around power to your selected altitude. If that’s beneath you then you have a problem as you don’t add thrust to go down.
@@stevegiboney4493 actually, an Airbus cannot be flown completely manually. Every input has to go through a computer, and if the computer doesn't like it, it flies the plane for you.
Unbelievable. CFIT in broad daylight, VFR conditions, in a perfectly-functioning aircraft, with no pilot incapacitation, stalls or other complicating circumstances, or untimely acts of God. They just calmly watched as their plane slowly flew into the ground.
I appreciate that when you realized that you made a mistake, you didn’t deny that you were wrong, you corrected your mistake and updated your video… thanks for being honest!
I love how humble this guy is - he’s got no airs about him and I’m liking his videos more and more 😊. He doesn’t seem to realise just how good his content really is.
Every single mode change in this plane has to be checked on the PFD and verbalized by the PF and checkedby the PM. A big mistake is always make changes in the auto pilot panel and only that. I talked to a trainer capitain that was used to turn of the displays on the auto pilot panel forcing new pilots to look into the PFD instead. When you ask -700 V/S you check on the PFD and you call "vertical speed -700 blue" the pilot monitoring looks at his own PFD and calls "checked". When you got 4 reds you push the thrust levers forward to the toga detent. There is no argument about fly by wire, computers, fadec or whatever. The pilots association has no argument. Following the manufacturer's operating manual and a good Crew training as well as a solid company's SOPs makes the difference between a safe and unsafe airlines.
The Pilots Association will always take the pilots' side, its literally their job. That doesnt mean, that they are wrong, but they will always be biased in favor of the pilots. In this case as presented, there seems to be no evidence pointing to their explanation of design flaws. And while the investigators were not able to prove, what happened, they did have several examples of pilots making such mistakes, whereas there have been no examples of design flaws leading to this scenario. So I, not being a pilot, am going with the investigators on this one. Also, regardless of how they came to be in this situation, too low, too far from the airport, as it was a clear day with plenty of visibility, there can be no excuse for the pilots flying their plane into the ground.
I would say, if multiple pilots make a mistake, that is a design flaw. Still no excuse for dicking around while your plane flies itself into the ground.
@@stevegiboney4493 This one was 99% decision making. There was nothing at all wrong with the TOGA switch. Press it and go around. Or you simply push fully forward on the throttles (like any other airplane) and the engines spool up and you go around. This is more like using cruise control and allowing your car to drive into a wall.
@@andrewsmall6568 , not if they think the throttles are being managed by the computers, clearly they misunderstood the automation. I contend it was a factor, not the sole cause, but a factor. First officer has 70 hours , captain has 200 hours in type? It was their expectation of computer intervention to keep them flying that set the stage for the mistakes that followed in my opinion and clearly the pilots union’s as well.
One should believe the investigators as they are fairly neutral in this situation. The Pilots Association is very much biased and was just working basic damage control.
Bro they are the Airline Pilots Association it's literally their job to take the side of their pilots. 2nd the cockpit design was indeed confusing which is why Airbus changed it. The delay theory also made sense because they could've at least not crashed into a wall if that delay wasn't there.
I do not see any VALID pilot excuses here. I can certainly understand and appreciate the stress with "your are being thorougly reviewed today" but ANY pilot can see they were WAY too low. TO/GA, at a minimum - troubleshoot it later. There was another incident with Air India (sorry I cannot find it just now) where there was a near-accident and the investigation concluded the pilots did not understand the Airbus autopilot modes of operation. The Boeing AP model is simpler, to be sure, but I would sincerely hope that any Airbus pilot would understand their AP "very well" or better.
@@titan4110 They didn't change it though. These planes still fly in the original form. They just enhance pilot training so they have an understanding of the vessel they are controlling.
The pilots forgot: Aviate, navigate, communicate. These guys remind me of the Eastern Airlines pilots who stopped flying their plane to focus on a light bulb. They ignored the slow descent, and crashed a plane in the Everglades All due to 2 pilots and an engineer discussing a burned out landing gear light bulb, and not thinking "Ah, who is flying?"
Wasn’t quite as cut and dry as that, Marc. Although the crash was ultimately caused by pilot error, the light bulb in question was to indicate whether or not the gear was down (the nose gear if I’m not mistaken), with the light not giving them confirmation of that, they couldn’t land with their fingers crossed hoping it was down! They needed to be sure. I believe in the subsequent kafuffle in the cockpit during the go-around, the yoke was accidentally knocked, disengaging the auto-pilot and putting the aircraft on a slight descent- so slight nobody noticed. Problem back then was there wasn’t much of an alarm to indicate the AP had been disengaged and all three pilots missed it….something that’s since been corrected. Add into the mix the dark conditions and lack of ground lighting it was a bit of a recipe for disaster, which I wouldn’t put down to COMPLETE gross negligence on the pilots behalf.
The CVR recorded all 3 arguing about that light. Meaning they were all looking down at the light and not once looking at their other instruments. Crazy stuff. In the end, would it have been too much trouble to fly a go around and let the tower check visually? RIP EA 401, the 'Ghost Plane'.
I’ve been watching your channel since the beginning, and I really enjoy seeing the progression in quality in your videos. I’m so proud of what you’ve done with your channel, and I love watching it grow. Keep up the awesome work, can’t wait to see where you take it next.
Indian Airlines was so weird. Growing up, I used to have to fly on it when visiting India from the States. The last time was like 11-12 years ago, on a rickety old Airbus puddle-jumper from Bombay to Hyderabad. I don’t think it’s even an hour-long flight, but bizarrely, they served what was BY FAR the best meal I’ve ever had on a flight. Like, it was a legitimately tasty, satisfying lunch, and that’s coming from a notoriously picky eater. But the flight itself was pretty nerve-wracking, as the plane felt like it was being held together with duct tape. It’s as if the airline spent its entire budget on food. Then again, if you think you might kill your passengers, I suppose the least you can do is to serve them a nice meal first.
well, governments are not good at operating airlines. Indian Airlines or Air India never had a say... they acted the way the ministers and politicians wanted them to
@@antaripbiswas3783 Depends on the government, really. Lufthansa always used to be excellent, while Alitalia was a total disaster. And the middle eastern airlines are more or less exclusively government owned.
I have a phrase written in the front of my log book, it says, "Always remember to fly the place first!" My first flight instructor put it there, he was a very wise man with decades of flight experience. These two pilots failed something very basic.
how do you cope with ear popping, I'm an enthusiast but I have a fear of the pain in my ear before landing and the fact that when I apply for a Job in the future, It may affect my performance and cause me unwanted pain for a while plus also when it takes time on the ground to adjust the the pressure
There is no glide slope with a VOR/DME approach. Instead, there is a descent profile to fly, with specific height restrictions at specific distances from the threshold. This is classified as a non precision approach which is more demanding than the usual precision approaches (ILS) flown by airline crews. This is relevant here, because the flight crew were VERY inexperienced operating this complex aircraft.
Screw the "Open Descent Mode" .....once the ground started getting closer the pilot should have clicked OFF any automation and increase POWER. What the X is wrong with them that they would fly a perfectly good airplane into the ground in clear weather? Un-freaking-believable.
I've got a friend and all the installation crews use either the German or the English instructions, never the French. There was a rather expensive piece of equipment to draw power from fossil fuels and they noticed the German version said to turn the switches to the right, and the French to the left.
@@lawrencetaylor4101 you still can search for the rate of fatal accidents there are in France and compare with other countries, you'll see it is obviously showing that the trainings are ok.
"If things went right, they'd be on the ground in a few minutes..." I believe they'd be on the ground in a few minutes, maybe especially, if things *didn't* go right
I think that Airbus did seem to have a lot of ergonomic issues when the A320 was first released, but if you look at the safety record of the aircraft, nearly all of the accidents are caused by pilots failing to monitor their decent.
Well done for the correction. Just a tip for the future. If it’s an ILS approach (I think also GLS/SLS approach) then it’s glide slope. Any other it’s glide path. And the autopilot panel on the A320 is the FCU and MCP on a Boeing
An example of pilots who forgot how to fly because they’re too reliant on the autopilot. The autopilot started doing things the pilots didnt want it to do, the speed started bleeding off and they didnt notice. Lesson here is, always know everything your plane is doing, and if it starts getting away from you, kill the autopilot and fly it yourself, sort it out when you’ve got altitude to spare.
@@tomstravels520 The auto pilot was in control of the auto throttles. So the auto pilot was not completely out of the situation. The pilot flying was relying on the auto pilot to keep his speed under control.
@@bobkile9734 Stay alert stay alive troop, attention. At 7:38 the Aircraft went into open Dissent mode, The pilots were in control of the speed. Remember open dissent mode, the automation doesn’t manage your speed for you.
@@halojump123 and that’s what I’m referring to. They didn’t know that the auto pilot changed modes, so they were relying on it to monitor their speed for them while they sit there fat, dumb, and happy.
@@halojump123 and that’s what I’m referring to. They didn’t know that the auto pilot changed modes, so they were relying on it to monitor their speed for them while they sit there fat, dumb, and happy. And when the plane started doing things that they didn’t wanted to do, they were trying to troubleshoot instead of flying out of the situation
Yet another sad example of two pilots who lacked the basic skill of being able to hand fly their aircraft. The airlines need to hire pilots that can actually fly and not just monitor and manipulate the automation. These guys struggled with it all the way down to impact. The passengers deserve better.
those two pilots are captains with more than 10 000 hours of flight. I think they have the basic skills to fly. Don't forget that even the investigators don't really know what is the cause of this accident. they have only hypothesis. it's easy for us to blame others while sitting on our couch....
@@Boubson Ten thousand hours of doing what? It certainly didn't help them in this case, did it? I would bet almost anything that neither of these guys had ever even hand flown their airplanes at cruise altitude. Hours and hours of monitoring with little or no hands on experience. Sorry, sticking with my opinion but I do appreciate yours.
The pilots should have noticed earlier. Literally all they had to do was open their eyes and see that they were to far from the runway at 400ft. Complete joke. If In any doubt you add power and go around.
@@SwedePotato314 judging by the other comments I’m not the only one who thinks this. I do completely understand that they could have been confused not knowing what the auto pilot was up to etc… but they forgot to just fly the plane. That’s basic flight school stuff. Could have easily been avoided. Yes a slight design issue contributed to this but pilot error makes up the majority of it for me.
Noticing earlier would have doing nothing. The killer was the go-around altitude. As the tree tops are flicking your arse the last thing you’ll look for is the go-around altitude.
If that is SOP it should be clear if they broke it when they were outside the limitations. But automation is mind boggling in it's complexity and latency is the bane of modern life. If this was flown without automation, I doubt the accident would have happened.
In my opinion I think it was the pilots at fault, regardless of the fact that they were just getting used to the A320... They would have been OK if they initiated a go around when they reached decision altitude and the runway was not in sight.
I live in banglore. I asked my father what he knew. he was in his final year of college. What happened according to him is, when they increased the rate of change of descent, and were aligned with the glide slope, the pilot decreased the descent but the computer takes a lil bit amount of time to accept the input. Before it could take the input it crashed
@@bibekyt8276 Of course Airbus was at fault. They made a really grotesque error in their user interface. It astonished and disgusts me how many times pilots (drivers/operators/etc) get blamed for accidents when the root problem is systemic and results from crappy design and inadequate analysis of the problem domain. (Former designer of UIs, SOPs, and training materials.)
The fact that very experienced pilots made mistakes does point to some design considerations. The fact that very experienced pilots dicked around with esoteric controls while watching their plane fly itself into the ground points to not very good pilots.
This is more like gross negligence. The knob is shape different so just by touching it without even looking that should have already alerted them that it is a wrong knob. Also there is a display right above the knob telling them exactly what they are turning so they didn’t even bother to look at it. Then there is the indication which autopilot mode they are in right in front of them on their primary display so they didn’t look at that either. And turning the VS knob to 700 would only required them to turn 7 clicks but since they are turning the ALT knob that would have been a lot more than 7 clicks, maybe 15-20 clicks to reach 700. Again, they totally ignored it. I don’t think this is design flaw. If they add another design safety feature, it probably just going to get ignored again by these dipshits flying the plane anyway. They need to have crew selection/ review process to prevent these braindead people from entering the cockpit.
I was once attending a party hosted by a former IA maintenance engineer and attended by some of his pilot friends. They recounted their early days of flying the A320 after mostly flying 737-200s. The A320 was too alien for them. I distinctly remember one story of a frustrated captain yelling 'the aircraft is not taking my command!'. Perhaps fly by wire was too advanced for them back in the day. The IA fleet consisted of B737-200s, a few Airbus A300s and the rest were Dorniers. IA was the only domestic airline and wasn't much industry knowledge from the outside world. Those were the days of state monopolies in all sectors 'aka socialism'. Things have changed for the better since then.
@@gargoyle7863 I did not know of the HAL - Dornier tie up - interesting. But they never flew with Indian Airlines. What was also not mentioned were IA's Caravelles
@@KuvDabGib it didn’t. The pilot dived it into the hill because they were loosing speed and all the pilot did was try and pull up without adding any power. As you loose speed you loose lift and the pilots didn’t realise the autothrust was in the idle mode due to them activating open descent mode. But that doesn’t mean it was the autopilot that crashed the plane. The commands are sent to the FMGC which decide what mode the thrust should be in depending what the pilot asked for in terms of vertical mode
@@tomstravels520 Which is why he should cut the fiddling with instrumentation and automatics and fly the plane down manually. Dont bother explaining the details i got them explained to me 30 years ago.
@@KuvDabGib if you had the details explained you’ve clearly forgotten or you’d know the connection between the AP/FD and the FMGC. Again….the plane was flown MANUALLY!!! The inputs into the FMGC and adjust the FD’s were just to help guide the pilot on the glide path (still done today) until they got closer and could go visual where they would turn off the FD’s
This is a very well put together video! The crash of the plane is just absolutely horrific!! Thank you for creating, uploading and sharing...keep up the great work!!! 😊✈
Very good commentary. Open descent mode has caught out more than a few unwary pilots. The term 'mode confusion' entered pilots' vocabulary. I was just reading about open descent and critically it rolls back the engines to flight idle.
Because that wouldn’t be true. The higher ranking captain received training for this specific craft in France, had 250 hours in it. It’s in the video..
Because they did. The pilot was trained, extensively. What he did was inexplicable, maybe he thought he could rescue the landing and pushed it too far. Anyway, he's not alive to explain his side of the story.
I watched both versions of this video and can't tell the difference, but I think it's a mark of your professionalism that you remade the video, rather than just leaving a pinned comment explaining the mistake.
10:00 Surely if you select an altitude that is in fact underground, there is something in the automation that prevents this? Why would you have automation that allows you to select TBM - Tunnel Boring Mode?
1) Aircraft didn’t know what the elevation below them was until EGPWS came about. 2) The elevation below you might be higher than where you want to descend to.
I've noticed in recent years that the crashes tend to be caused by software issues or lack of understanding of new planes by the crews. It used to be that most crashes were due to some mechanical defect or a maintenance problem. Being a programmer by trade, I find it terrifying that an unexpected flaw in your code could bring a plane down. Personally, I wouldn't write the software for an autopilot - I know how many bugs my code has.
Bugs in your code won't make an aircraft crash. Even if the autopilot fails, the pilots have the option of completely disengaging it and fully controlling the aircraft.
@@lone5463 True - but - I have seen so many cases where pilots have misunderstood what the aircraft was doing or not realized that anything was wrong because of something the autopilot stopped doing. I'd go nuts trying to work out every possibility.
@@doggonemess1 There are also many examples where if the pilots had simply trusted the autopilot everyone would have been fine like Aerolot Flight 593 or the 2002 Uberlingen Mid-Air collision. The software might be problematic but it's not as problematic as people.
When I was a kid my dad's best friend flew 727's for United. When they got 747's he bid on one and took their route to Hawaii. He flew it for one bid cycle and moved back to his 727. He said he hated the damn thing because it was like flying a building with a computer attached.
Haven't dropped in for a while, your delivery and pacing has improved a lot, feels a lot more natural and less hurried. Well done man! Aside from any design flaw with the Open Descent mode, being able to set a desired altitude lower than ground level seems like a weird oversight in itself. I'm sure there's probably some technical reason why this is so, but I'd have thought that the radar altimeter/GCWS equipment would be linked to the autopilot to prevent it. I also wonder if these kinds of CFIT accidents are sometimes caused by nothing more complicated than the pilot/s not wanting to admit that they screwed up the approach.
Terrain radar and EGPWS didn’t exist in 1990. And the ground below you may be much higher than the airport so not being able to set the altitude you want may cause you to forget to adjust it later
What stands out above all else here - You were alerted to a mistake you made and not only did you fix it... but you admitted the mistake, THANKED the person who caught it and admitted that you may make more in the future, but that you hope not. May seem like a common sense reaction when you think about it logically but it's no where near common. BIG ATTABOY!
"Oh wow those callouts shouldn't be happening, we're way too low" "Should I push the throttles to TO/GA so we can stop descending?" "Nah, I've been wanting to do some golfing. This'll just get us there sooner"
Awesome video man ❤️❤️❤️...I am very happy that you are covering each and every air crashes...Cheers man 🙄..I belong to Madras state which you mentioned in the video 👍👍
It is interesting how the pilot's association usually seems to side with the pilots and almost always seems to blame the automation instead. Obviously if this plane has been working perfectly before on other flights and the very same automation works on similar models around the world then the fault is with the pilots not understanding or not handling the automation correctly. It is as simple as that.
@@heinzriemann3213 It is that simple if there are no electrical faults or software bugs with the automation. What reason could there be to blame the automation rather than the pilot's handling of it?
14:24 the computer determines if the command will be accepted (my wording.) This is regardless of autopilot engagement, I believe. So a computer programmer determines what is safe and does not include events never before anticipated (ie a malfunctioning sensor, yet the fix, 737Max, was to install the optional 2nd sensor. So I ask, what if both sensors get clogged by flying ash?) I'm not a pilot. Don't waste your time on me, but I was a computer programmer, and a darn good one. I agree with U MM3K. Another fix is maybe those 2 knobs shouldn't have the same shape.
@@cliffontheroad In the Airbus A320 pilot commands usually always override the autopilot, although the autopilot will try to stabilise the aircraft and keep it in the air (unless counteracted by the pilot). Which means that some pilots have still managed to stall these aircraft.
Thanks, MiniAir! I know NOTHING about flying a plane and don't possess a STEMy mind, but I understand you every time. You have a great way of making the incredibly complicated intuitive. And you sound like you're smiling, too, which is welcoming. Waiting for your next upload! 🖖🐢👣
Besides visual instruments in front of them there is a reason for having front windows/windshield. I can’t understand why they waited so long when seeing the ground coming up very fast.
10:57 haha you can see "ulsoor lake" down there, its my homebase lake and VOBG (old bangalore airport) is quite near to where i live, btw amazing video mate!
I always believe that for take off and landing pilots should have full control of the aircraft, don’t rely too much on computers and tech. If the model is new, train more.
The whole reason we got computers to do the work for us it because people are terrible at it. Relying on computers is much better than relying on people.
Less than two years after the crash of Flight 605, the A320 suffered another fatal accident when Air Inter Flight 148 crashed in France killing 87 people. The cause was also a CFIT like 605. The investigation of Flight 148 harshly criticized the Airbus A320's cockpit design. In response, changes were made to the Flight Control Unit panel display; the French aviation safety authority issued 34 recommendations.
I recall this accident vividly. The most plausible theory in the aftermath of the incident was that the pilots, despite their realisation of a potential threat, in the last crucial minutes before touchdown, were unable to initiate a TOGA in this uber-ultra-modern A320 for a (certain unforgivable) reason. It being........the computer managed flts inputs. The manual intervention to power up the engines were unresponsive as the craft was obeying the other 'Digital Master'! Even the over-ride option wen opted, wud not kick-in within reasonable time, as there was considerable time-lag and this lag made the difference to life/death. The CVR had clearly confirmd the desperate calls by the pilots to pull-up, alas in vain ! Their throttle input was totally ignored by the Computerised flt. protocol. Its a case of Man-machine compatibility!
The ad agency my sis worked in, her colleague's relatives were in this plane. This lady had applied for leave to visit her relatives in Mumbai, was denied leave. So her relatives decided to pay her a surprise visit in blore.
This sounds exactly like my first flight with the A320 neo in MFS 2020. The only difference is my Glidescope didn't catch for some reason so I turned off the autopilot at around 2000- 3000 ft. and landed it manually. Idk if it's a glitch or something but Glidescope sometimes tend to mess up my landing by going too high on the approach for some reason and I usually have to go around or land it manually by decreasing my altitude very quickly. Now I don't care about the Glidescopes at all and just use localiser and manual inputs for landing.
I am a recently retired flight attendant with 51yrs with a USA based legacy airline. One of my determining factors in my decision to apply with one airline in particular was their outstanding safety record. The pilot and flight attendant training/annual Recurrent training were in the same facility. I overheard numerous pilots talking about the strange configuration of the cockpit instrument panels and other quirks. Since my focus was to be as safe as possible so I could continue to support and care for my disabled parents I opted to never bid any trips that included an Airbus. Thankfully my seniority allowed that to happen.
Although it is obvious today of what these pilots should've done, we have to remember one thing. the Airbus glass cockpit and fly by wire technology in the 80s was like a UFO technology for analog/cable friendly pilots of that era. I can imagine how confused they were by looking at those jam-packed screens and digital numbers. I think they went both so deep into understanding how to recover the situation that they completely lost sight of their speed and altitude. Great video thank you
The A 320 and it’s modes really have to be understood by the crews before getting to fly this thing. Maybe developing countries should stay with the competition. Anyway, activate TOGA mode in time I guess.
You ignore the fact that both pilots have over a thousand hrs under their collective belts. Indians are not the only pilots who make mistakes (and I make NO excuse for their lack of cockpit management, or lack of instinct - shameful, in fact), but your flippant and condescending observation that "Maybe developing countries should stay with the competition" implies that you believe Indians and others of their ilk are intellectually inferior. That's racist, ignorant and full of horseshit. Indians have a stellar track record of expertise in science and technology. By the way, If they had the time and presence for TOGA, they could also have exercised simpler options to secure the approach.
What nonsense. This has nothing to do with the economic state of the nation, and everything to do with pilot error. Does the US not have plane crashes ever? By your logic, all advanced aircraft piloted by Indians should have crashed.
Assuming you mean TAWS or GPWS. Not at that time because the terrain was only detectable based on what was beneath you. The plane didn’t know what the terrain was like ahead
I guess ground level probably changes quite a bit between what level the plane’s at and what level it needs to target to meet the runway. In which case it may actually need to be targeting 8 ft below ground - the ground it’s currently flying over.
This is very typical of teaching new technology to seasoned pilots and professionals in general. They were too befuddled with the new technology, each wanting to be the one that fixes the problem with their “new machine” training instead in focusing on the basics. They forgot about their responsibility to their passengers and crew and got too caught up in trying to get the technology to work for them.
On the other hand, if you have two knobs and two numbers for two distinct functions, wouldn't you at least make them different colors? (Both knobs and numbers?) It's hard to assign blame, but at least some of it lies in the poor "UX" of the airplane, as confirmed in the report by other pilots having made a similar mistake.
@@markozagar I had a look at a stock photograph of an A320 Flight Deck, the two control knobs appear to have been designed to have a different "tactile feel". Maybe one or both were changed as a result of this and other incidents?
@@ryanfrisby7389 a Garuda DC9 had had problems with the volcanic Ash before the BA009 incident. Why didn't indonesian authorities close the airspace above the volcano immediately?
Mr. MACI, I wanted to let you know that I am really enjoying your Channel and have been for approximately a year or so now. I do not have an aviation background and neither does my family. However I have an interest in it and your Channel is very informative. It's obvious you work hard to do your research and ensuring that your facts correct. Thank you for the time and energy you invest and I look forward to more posts from M.A.C.I.
Thank you for this report, I was booked on this flight but had to cancel my booking few hours before the flight, I did see you some of the rescue work on the next day.
This is why my father said he would not fly Airliners, You are really not in control and the tasks are all electronic and flying is just a small part of your job. His fellow F-4 Phantom squadron members went to work for United and lost their pensions in 1995 to a scam with a telecom firm that stole every ones money but corrupt United Execs. just were in on it.
I’m not a pilot and also not familiar with the technicalities of flying. But, common sense says, pilots should have undergone thorough training and assessments before flying a plane full of passengers. Indian Airlines had a dubious reputation when it came to service and standards. This was sadly a manifestation of this.
