Plane catches FIRE over London | BA 762 

Love your work. Non-emotive, no ridiculously dramatic music and just the facts. Told with enough information as to help us understand the aeroplane and how and why things happened the way they did. Good stuff.

Just subscribed to your channel a few days ago. As far as the illustrated flight accident and disaster channels have gone I haven't really found one, until yours, that I could really get into. I think, what was missing in the ones I've seen before wasn't, necessarily, the slick, highly produced, reenactments that you see on other channels and shows...it was a GOOD story teller/narrator. Either they would use a computerized voice (which I really hate) or, the narrator was too boring...monotone and/or getting too bogged down in highly technical concepts. You do a fantastic job. Love the channel.

@@annakeye Thanks! Glad you’re enjoying the videos :)

@@jodycarrithers6160 Thank you 🙏🏼

​@@GreenDotAviation excellent video as always... You from Ireland btw?

clearly didn't want any chance of another Airtours situation, where the wind could feed the fire and make it worse

My thought exactly.

Exactly. This definitely slowed down the spreading of the fire to the main fuselage!

More importantly than that, the Captain had the sense to ask the RFF whether to evacuate or not. They have the better view and can advise based on the size and intensity of the fire plus if they thing they will be able to put it out quickly or not. Staying in the plane can be safer that evacuating, in certain conditions.

@Ed Oeuna yeah that's true as well! That happened after them parking in the wind. Both those things, as well as the flight, show great airmanship from them. Everything here points to a highly competent crew. These are my favorite stories.

we have cars that tell us when our doors are not closed properly I rest my case

The AAIB report into this incident recommended that Airbus install a *reliable* method of detecting the state of the cowl doors. This was because there were numerous (nearly 40) incidents of aircraft departing with unlatched doors, mostly because checking them was awkward and prone to error. EASA duly issued Airbus with a safety notice.

@@johnconnolly2474 Cowl door sensors were initially rejected because Airbus found a high level of false positives. After this incident, Airbus was commanded to develop a reliable method of detecting the door state and fit it on all engines built thereafter.

Thanks, I feel safer now ❤

neo engines are prone to premature failures due to which airlines are losing money on grounded aircraft.

one of the reasons why i love documentaries or non fiction more than plot movies. it keeps me of the edge of my seat not knowing what would really take place. as opposed to a plot movie, i keep clinging onto the mindset that the protagonist wins, which they do most of the times, making the plot predictable.

There's a lot of episodes of MAYDAY: Air Disaster on this site and I've watched a lot of them. It's always a relief when they cut to first hand accounts early on so I at least know there's going to be survivors if not a complete recovery. There are pilots who have pulled off miracles and it's a great counter-balance to tragedy.

On this site? Green Dot Aviation website?

Idiots at work. They should be fired immediately and should not touch any plane for lifetime.

british ppl and their tea time delusions

@@ingulari3977 Exactly that thing had happened to them twice in the previous week.

Read the AAIB report - their worksheets made it difficult to identify the target aircraft and the registration on the aircraft itself was not easily visible in conditions of darkness. Working on the wrong aircraft was quite common, but normally caused no problems.

@@hb1338 doesnt make it right

Appreciate this insight! Thanks for the correction

Hi, I’m not a pilot. My role has been operational in the oil and gas industry so I am familiar with pressurised systems and hydraulics. What I don’t understand from your explanatory comment is “the systems don’t share fluid”,therefore my question is what was the point of shutting in the PTU? If the systems are completely independent, and don’t share fluid how could the green system pressurise the yellow system via the PTU, so on that basis, what would be the point of carrying out the action?

@@malcolmwhite6588 - the three systems are totally independent. With the loss of hydraulics from one system you turn off the associated hydraulic pumps. I’m assuming that the PTU is turned off to prevent it from trying to pressurise an empty system.

Okay cool, thanks for that - that makes sense. I couldn’t figure otherwise LOL because I understood the three systems were as you say independent

​Sorry I still don't understand 🤔

Love to hear this, glad you’re enjoying the videos 🙏🏼

*DITTO!* thanks for the explanations & added details:… KEPT ME *RIVETED UNtiL we landed…!!* !...ER… I mean, THEY landed!

Green Dot has an amazing voice. Should do voice overs

Should have listened to his FO

Absolutely. Really impressive CRM and great use of ANC (Aviate/Navigate/Communicate).

Putting a burning engine or fuel leak downwind was a lesson learned from the British Airtours flight 28M incident at Manchester in 1985.

Not shutting down the right engine in response to the fuel leak wasn’t the best idea and fully contributed to the fire. At this point, according to what I saw in the video, only the right engine was reported damaged by the cabin crew and also only the right engine was suffering from secondary system failures like the hydraulic leak and fuel leak. Unless I missed something or it wasn’t covered in this video, the left engine appears to be working perfectly, albeit without its engine cover.

@@EdOeuna The AAIB report clearly states that the captain's reasoning and decision were both sound. He had little information on what damage the aircraft had suffered and he sensibly decided that making the plane reliant on an engine of unknown status was not the best option.

@@hb1338 - the AIIB had to come up with something positive following the diabolical actions of everyone else seemingly involved with this aircraft.

​@@EdOeuna alright Top Gun, calm down....

I totally agree👏👏👏

I second that

By far

And that includes Ohio, USA 🇺🇸

For Sure! He Needs More Subscribers

Ooooh, thanks for the Mentour mention. I'm with you, both here and DB, I watch both, as each will explain a part to me that I may not have understood on either alone... DB gets technical, this channel explains it fully, so I watch both. This channel though, is amazing to nod off to sleep to. His voice, not the content. For qheb I want a break from true crime and nightmares 😊😀🤣

I don’t really like Mentour. I like this guys Graphics and animations better.

I also like mini air crash investigation just for how straightforward everything is

I agree and these were my exact thoughts. Mentour Pilot, Chloe on Disaster Breakdown and Green Dot, here, are superb. Thank you.

@@Antwonn83 not a fan of mentour

Thanks very much for the kind words! More videos on the way ✈️

Thanks so much, it’s a team effort at this point 🙏🏼

Yea, but the biggest problem is he puts waaay to much adds

@@crohr1000if you dont like ads don’t watch, people gotta eat somehow

Thank you! Delighted you get value from it 😄

This incident reminded me of QF32. Obviously that had more pilots and loss of several control systems, but experienced pilots implementing their assessment and decision making in either case saved many lives in an emergency situation with a high workload and multiple failures.

Absolutely, will cover that at some point

One of which was correct orientation of the aircraft when there is a ground fire, which the captain did.

Thank you! Many more on the way ✈️

@@GreenDotAviationIm glad more will come out. 👍

Isn’t that a bit much?? 35 hours a week is a job

@@potato1084 thats somedays its 2 hours in the week and weekend 4-5

Thanks

It's training

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it 🙏

I prefer Mentour Pilot. Sorry

Thank you! 🙏🏼

Maybe you can come back whenever you dont work for the airline anymore and talk about it here

You will find that it takes a large number of things to go wrong before an aircraft falls out of the sky - that thought is quite reassuring !

@@hb1338not really. No one can reassure you it won’t go wrong on your flight.

Engine failure, return to airport is an absolutely standard drill - pilots perform it least three times a year in the simulator.

I agree. That was full of suspense and uncertainty. I almost felt I was sitting in the FO seat guiding to landing. A story well told by Green Dot.

I read about that in the Irish Times last week! Definitely will have to cover it at some point, great story.

Thanks! 🙏🏼

Imagine the use of having a screen in the cockpit that displays a live camera view of the plane. Some planes like the A380 have this - but only the passengers can see what the camera is capturing from the POV of the tail

*A lot. Alot is not a word. Just FYI.

I'm glad the titles are different. "Maintenence left the doors open. This is what happened to the engine.'

I really like Chubbyemu’s videos, appreciate this comparison :)

Now that you say that I actually think that’s a good title format 🤔

Fuel-emia

That literally was my first thought when I saw his vid for the first time

No he doesn’t he was a rude prick who didn’t even speak to his team on board, ignored them and didn’t answer them. He thought he was more important than the flight attendants. Cabin crew were left isolated with no communication for too long. He was a scumbag.

@@handsoffmycactus2958 Do you think he was just there twiddling his thumbs and not bothering to answer the intercom. A primary rule in aviation relates to priorities: aviate, navigate, communicate. The captain was absolutely correct to adhere to that order of precedence.

@@handsoffmycactus2958but that is protocol. If he did what you say, he would be questioned by officials why he didn’t prioritise navigating the plane until landing.

@@handsoffmycactus2958 you absolute bell-whiff

The Captain had type ratings on B737, B757 and A320 family; the FO had type ratings on B737 and A320 family.

Even a routine Take-off is a BUSY BUSY time in the cockpit. If there isn't an obnoxious noise or vibration felt up there during the take-off climb, the pilots aren't about to invent more work immediately... AND frankly, rightly so. It's dangerous to stack a bunch of "what if" check-lists on top of everything that's already designed to get the plane up to a designated "safe altitude"... ADD to that the "101 Stuff" that a plane is MOST vulnerable of all parts of flight whenever it's still off the ground but below minimum flight path altitudes. On a commercial jet, that's any time you're below 5000 feet. You're just traveling too fast for a dip or other maneuver to avoid the risk of CFIT... THE most deadly and frequent source of disasters in aviation through history... Much better to get the plane up to safer altitudes and THEN start diagnosing while keeping with the flight path, even if you're already convinced "something bad happened"... At most, you can call into ATC for a "holding pattern" to put the plane on while you "sort it out" whether it's safe to go on to your destination, or how safe it's going to be to turn back and land... BUT in this case, they just didn't have any time for holding patterns... and it quickly deteriorated to "do or die". Over-all, the Pilots handled "Crisis Mode" the best they could have with the information they had at the time. There's a degree of luck, but much of any deviations in their methods, and they probably wouldn't have made it, even including declaring a mayday as soon as they heard about the debris. I'd recommend you look up the Air Safety Institute's videos on "The Impossible Turn". They're a little more oriented to "General Aviation", but a lot of the principles in Cessna piloting DO still carry over to Commercial Flight, only the numbers (scale) really change. ;o)

@@gnarthdarkanen7464 Gotcha, thanks. You can tell I've never set foot in a cockpit, much less during a takeoff.

What this channel does not do unlike some others, is telling you how long have been flying. Did the pilot finally turnaround after 6 minutes or was it within 3?

@@gnarthdarkanen7464 - what absolute rubbish. They have a report of debris from the aircraft, then they lose a hydraulic system and the AFDS plays up. That’s more than enough to declare an emergency and initiate a return to land. As for the climb to a safe altitude, they should know that the 25nm MSA is 2100ft, so 3000ft is all they have to climb to to be clear of terrain.

@@oneworldawakening Always welcome. Frankly, I'm glad there are channels like this one, and the Air Safety Institute (among others) to help folks kind of get a fair idea of what regulations are for as much as the activities involved in piloting... I've been privileged to sit through take-offs and landings, and in more than the military flights I've been on... BUT with the likes of YT, that kind of information (even if not quite the experience) is available for just about anyone interested, even only casually or "in passing"... In any case, I just hope it helps out. ;o)

Nowadays BA only takes pilots below a certain age (used to be 25) - the huge cost of training and the early retirement age means they want to get maximum life out of their drivers !

Thanks so much! 🙏🏼

Thanks!

Read the AAIB report. The engineers left work on the aircraft incomplete because they needed special tools which weren't to hand. They failed to leave a warning sign in the cockpit. Some time later, after working on other aircraft, they fetched the tools and went back to the original aircraft. At that point they went to another (wrong) aircraft, saw the closed doors, but did not realise that they were at the wrong aircraft. If they had left the warning sign in the cockpit, the flight crew would have known to check the doors thoroughly.

I used MSFS for this one, that must be the difference

They just (mostly) followed the standard procedures.

So what ? Humans make mistakes.

@@wellisaythat what? 🤔