When Pilots STOP TRUSTING the Aircraft! | Royal Air Maroc 780S 

Finally a non propaganda video.. so refreshing.. RU-vid channels need to stop this, talking about politics, which they have no capacity of understanding.. That would be like me, a graduate with a degree in politics, giving my opinion to you on piloting 🤦‍♂️

Moulton college n r connected in Oxford university not sure how

........

@@vvac201 🤣 You get what you pay for.

7:43 why don't those logbook have red papers on corners so captain or first officer get direct attention on the paper which actually having fault reported.... As you said they are not going to check whole log book, but if someone see that this particular aircraft having many more red flags in log book they might get interest to check those errors happened 6 or 8 months ago

Omg such weire coincidence hhhh i was searching in the comments section for morrocan people hhhh wasnt expecting to find a morrocan passenger

Glad you are safe. Hi from Texas.

@@danielaramburo7648 🙏

Hi there Zakaria, I'm glad that you are in the land of the living - things could have been so much worse.

@@johannahunderwood4596 thank you Johannah

For one covered, another accident is in the works.

Just looking at the top 25 countries with the most fatal air crashes since 1945 he'd have to do 3,370 videos. And that's without doing videos on all the non-fatal crashes, near misses, incidents etc. At 1 video per week it would take 200 years, if all air accidents and incidents ceased from today.

So damn true.

@@daverussell457 you have too much time on your hands

@@daverussell457 nice

Nah just means I can pretend the problem doesn't exist until someone else is on call 🤣

As an engineer too, problems that fix themselves scares the shit out of me since it means something critical is acting randomly; so I expect more problems that on the surface dont relate to each other. You feel like someone on paroll one mistake and you're back to jail lol

@@MrTsatia as a programmer, I share this fear. Granted, a malfunction on my part means that my shitty game will crash, not a fucking plane, but if something "sorts itself out" you know shit is giga fucked

@@RealRaven6229 what engine are you using for making games?

@@shahriarhakim6673 processing. I can't recommend it.

it's because of Boeing who try at every problem to blame the crew to preserve it reputation, the new 737 (what Morocco was one of the buyers) had a serious software problem in that time till it was stopped flighting by the majority of companies who own it (including Morocco), what escalade to a huge problem even with the US GOV VS Boeing!!

Hello ! May Allah protect and guide you to his light and happiness in this life and the hereafter, God bless, Ameen. Excuse me for giving a little presentation of Islam, because it is very misunderstood nowadays, especially on those « Antichrist's » times, where media and politics are mixed to distort history and truth. And terrorists (puppets of the Antichrist) who misinterpret verses, out of ignorance and political motivations, and take them out of historical context (just like radical atheists do by the way) don't help either. Thank you very much for your time. First of all, if you have any questions regarding Islam and yourself, just open the Quran randomly, and you will find the answer in front of you, like a miracle and a sign from God. Islam is an arabic word that means the Surrender to the One and Only God, our Creator, Protector, Provider, who gives us life and all that we have, we are safe and sound by his will and grace, we are His and to Him we return, and we have to thank him in this trial life by submitting to him by our free will, or later in the Day of judgment when it's too late to save our own skin. Islam was the original Religion descended to earth from heaven with Adam and Eve (peace and blessing be upon them) in the beginning of humanity. and was passed to people with the succession of the 124 000 prophets and 315 messengers of God to all nations and civilizations since, passing by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ismaël, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon and Jesus (Peace and blessing be upon them) during the history of mankind, the last replaces and completes the previous, until the succession of the last messenger of God fourteen centuries ago, Muhammad (Peace and blessing be upon him) to complete the noble morals of all mankind, to bring humans and jinns out of darkness into light, and to purify people's religion and belief from corruption and polytheism, and return it to purity and true monotheism, like it was in the times of the prophets (Peace and blessing be upon them). Many Religions that we know nowadays, at their beginning were true and under Islam, initiated by one of the prophets of God, but their original teachings, history and scriptures have been corrupted over time with falsification and polytheism, or lost and replaced with false ones. That's why Islam is the only Religion accepted by God nowadays, which consists in bearing witness that there is no god besides Allah (God in Aramaic, the original language of Jesus and the Gospel), and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger, just like Jesus and Moses and others are His servants and messengers. Never a messenger of God said he was God or literally son of God, it was the people after him who changed the words of God and corrupted the Religion. God is unique and absolute, He does not need to have a family and sons or to associate anyone else with His kingdom, He can simply create whatever He wants, everything belongs to Him, and to Him everything will return. Allah said in Surah Al-Mu’minun : “God has never begotten a son, nor is there any god besides Him. Otherwise, each god would have taken away what it has created, and some of them would have gained supremacy over others. Glory be to God, far beyond what they describe. The Knower of the hidden and the manifest. He is exalted, far above what they associate. (91-92 / Translated by ITANI). Allah means the one and only God, the God of all prophets and creatures, the creator of the universe and mankind, and the Master of the Day of judgment, where our destiny, Hell or Paradise, is decided based on our faith and deeds in this trial life, and above all, Allah's mercy. Allah said in Surah Al-Ikhlas : In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful. Say, “He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable to Him.” (1-4 / Translated by ITANI). Allah said in Surah An-Nisa : O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. Never did the Christ feel too proud to be God's servant, nor do the angels who are near unto Him. And those who feel too proud to serve Him and glory in their arrogance [should know that on Judgment Day] He will gather them all unto Himself: (171-172 / Translated by Muhammad Asad). Allah the Most Merciful said in Surah Ali-Imran : Behold, the only [true] religion in the sight of God is [man's] self-surrender unto Him; and those who were vouchsafed revelation aforetime took, out of mutual jealousy, to divergent views [on this point] only after knowledge [thereof] had come unto them. But as for him who denies the truth of God's messages - behold, God is swift in reckoning! Thus, [O Prophet,] if they argue with thee, say, "I have surrendered my whole being unto God, and [so have] all who follow me!" - and ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, "Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him?" And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away - behold, thy duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures. Verily, as for those who deny the truth of God's messages, and slay the prophets against all right, and slay people who enjoin equity - announce unto them a grievous chastisement. It is they whose works shall come to nought both in this world and in the life to come; and they shall have none to succour them. (19-22 / Translated by Muhammad Asad).. God said : Say, “We believe in Allah, and in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. And to Him, we surrender.” (2:136 / Translated by Community) Salam (Peace)

There’s an old adage: “the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations which may require his superior flying skills…” This ended well, but had several severe flight path excursions which could have resulted in a full crash. With all hell breaking-loose, but the aircraft still flyable, the Captain has to pull back and assess the problems and come up with the best course of action. He didn’t…

@@tonyledsham2810I can’t remember the fine details on this nightmare flight as it was some time ago I watched it, but just because there’s an “old saying” doesn’t mean it fits every occasion. Whatever the circumstances, I don’t believe it was very fair to ask the same crew to pilot the plane back with no adjustments made. The crew did OK anyway. Maybe it was because he handled the situation well that he was asked to fly the plane again. If nobody could find out what was wrong with it, after a detailed inspection on the ground, the Captain can hardly be expected to, in the heat of the moment, several thousand feet in the air. If the crew had been totally incompetent, they’d have had their test pilots fly the plane back. I’m with the last commenter, the blame probably lies with Boeing. That is Maximus38 - not the previous person with the spam.

Well Moira, I suggest you watch the video again. Mentourpilot does a great job of explaining it. If you didn’t like my previous adage, I’ve got another one for you: “aviate, navigate, communicate” I’m no fan of Boeing, but they did issue a service bulletin. Air Maroc didn’t action it, but the IRS issue could have been handled by a competent crew. Despite lots of fuel, they just wanted to get the airplane on the ground, without properly troubleshooting the problem.

I can imagine the pilots were getting towards the point of "how long till we lose even more instruments? Do we risk trying to do a better/more standard stabilised approach not knowing if we will have displays/systems etc" This are the situations where you will ALWAYS need a human pilot. Unfortuantely this is something that is only going to get worse as systems get more automated/advanced relying on more and more systems and engineers will always be battling with the beancounters in acceptable risk/cost analysis (think 737 MAX and single point of failure being acceptable)

@@PantherSerpahin I argue until I'm blue in the face with the "get rid of human pilots" crowd. First, I can't make them understand that we aren't arguing opposites. They are arguing to remove the humans and fly with only automated systems. I am not arguing we eliminate automation. I'm arguing we need both. They have a disturbing faith in man-made systems, as if, somehow, the humans making the system are less fallible than the humans flying the aircraft.

@@excavatoree As anyone who works with computers on the regular will tell you. Computers are as stupid as the person using/programming them. I am 100% behind relying on automation more and more as it does remove the human variable from equations. However, the Human variable should ALWAYS be there in an oversight role as a very minimum to go "This doesnt look/feel/seem right," and is able to stop, review and possibly correct/abort what the computer is programmed to do.

​@@PantherSerpahin if automation causes one crash but prevents multiple human error crashes it seems like a reasonable trade off

@@excavatoree critical systems are not really redundant, because of cost and complexity reasons. So the first thing would be to make everything _actually_ redundant for full autonomy. That is an enormous task in itself. The second would be in case of full autonomy, to employ pilot-engineers. Basically the two pilots should be trained to work with the normally autonomous system, and understand it well in case of a malfunction. This is a _very_ high bar. This way autonomy in aviation can lower the chance of accidents an order of magnitude or even more, but it would not lower the costs at all. The opposite: pilots would need even more training. Airlines using autonomy to replace humans, to make things cheaper would produce just as many accidents as humans nowadays. Even highly intelligent autonomy is vulnerable to massive coincidences, there always should be two human pilots on board (at least until AGI becomes truly superhuman in every conceivable way)

Can't imagine any sane pilot believing it was all ok after a flight like that and flying it again unless they were coerced or lied to about it being fixed.

I'm shocked that both pilots agreed to fly that aircraft again without any work being completed on it

It would be like: "Hey, isn't this same crappy plane that we just turned in as complete garbage a few hours ago?"

You made it work once, we name you "expert" in flying this plane in particular. You will always fly this junk from now on!

I've rejected a plane that had a fault in the air that could not be duplicated on the ground. It was a serious issue that would have resulted in a loss of all flight instrumentation, save for the standby/backup instruments. I wasn't going to fly that bird again unless the actual problem could be identified.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. He identified an opportunity to land from his position and took it.

Totally agree

This. There comes a point where the objectively wrong thing to do is actually the best possible course of action. In this case, it was "get that bird on the ground and end the ever worsening situation while it's still somewhat manageable"

I dont think the pilot did anything majorly wrong. What would you do if your vehicle started doing this? Say, it would accelerate or brake slightly on its own or it would turn itself. Would you choose to drive it around town after you had already made it to your home street? I know its not an exact example but when electronic systems start to fail me I get real nervous. I am far more comfortable with mechanical failures because when its broken, then it doesnt work in a predictable way which means its reliably broken. If electronics intermittently fail then their unreliability is even more worrisome.

@@LavenderSystem69Indeed. At that point, he must have expected to lose all instrumentation if he did another go-around. That would have been fine on a clear day, but getting into visual range for a VFR landing would have been very questionable with such a low cloud cover. So, with the airport in sight, he ignored the instruments and warnings and did what was effectively, if not by name, a visual landing.

Well, some of the passengers did end up disembarking to continue their journey to Paris by train (presumably on the LGV Lyon high speed train line) instead of waiting on the plane, apparently being too scared to stay on the flight. Source: one of the top comments is from a passenger of the flight

I'd have insisted that the engineer accompany the flight in the jump seat

@@randomentity6553I'm pretty sure that seat belongs to whatever company controller made the decision to send the plane out again instead of paying for a full technical verification, including in-flight diagnosis.

I do not understand how this would even be allowed and why the pilots didn't refuse? This plane was clearly unsafe to operate.

@@HenryLoenwind Not true, it's because of Boeing who try at every problem to blame the crew to preserve it reputation, the new 737 (what Morocco was one of the buyers) had a serious software problem in that time till it was stopped flighting by the majority of companies who own it (including Morocco), what escalade to a huge problem even with the US GOV VS Boeing!! in such cases Boeing is contacted, as the plane had to be verified by French engineers after the landing... Boeing did blame the crew for not doing a correct job, so the company trusted it and somehow punished the crew as Boeing asked for, but after same multiple problems with different companies, Boeing faced finally the truth and did a huge callback for all the planes!!!

Indeed, exactly.

Totally agree. There's *no way* I would've flown that plane again until all the faults were found and fixed. Take it up for a test flight (or several) in good weather, until the problems can be reproduced and solved.

Yes, it's hard for me to understand what was happening in the pilot's mind. He was so eagar - understandably - to get that plane on the ground, but then he's willing to fly it a 2nd time?

Yeah, the longer we're airborne with that many faults, the more likely things are going to keep getting worsez

It was making me feel stressed just listening, I cannot imagine the stress for the crew.

yes it had the hallmarks of a deadly accident: Multiple malfunctions and super overloaded pilots.

Spoilers lol. Just scanning comments while listening to all the background summary. Top comment in the list gives me the outcome even before the plane starts to suffer the first problems!

@@heavyecho1 Yes, this is the most stressful listen to one of these incidents I've heard from Mentour.

Damn spoiler alert thanks for ruining the ending

That's honestly where the pilots lost me. I totally get the non-stabilized approach, I think given their mental model it was the right thing to do. But there's no way in hell I'm getting back in that plane after the engineers said "sorry didn't find anything"

​@justmoritz if weather conditions got any better after their first landing in lyon then flying a plane all manual with no trust given to instruments doesn't sound that bad tbh. The most dangerous thing about this flight was that the instruments were untrustworthy in a weather situation where you absolutely need them.

C’est grand bravo, a nos magnifique pilote marocain

​@@drlahloubrazilianclinic jsais pas si c'était nécessairement des marocains mais ça a du shahad fort dans la cabine 😂

@@drlahloubrazilianclinic👍👍👍👍👍👍

Sure bud.

they are@@constantinc9034

@@constantinc9034 Nah he is right, Moroccan pilots are professionals, this issue was with Boeing plane which Morocco stopped buying with a lot of countries.

Yes, most probably.

I've seen millions worth of equipment scrapped as 'jinxed' hardware. Some problems simply get too expensive to be worth keep trying, some minor manufacturing fault can keep inducing errors. Hardware and software side is similar, ram issues, voltage issues, ram causing software issues. One bizzare one i saw one is a power surge overwrote the voltage on a motherboard, overvolting the cpu. That still doesn't make sense to me. Alas, the worst kind of problem is an intermittent one.

Indeed. It will be some common component (wiring or connectors most likely) causing something like this. Just ignoring it is not good.

It goes in my mind, correctly or otherwise, that the Apollo systems claimed to be in triplicate.

@@mandowarrior123 I don't know why my brain generated this idea, buuuut: what if we built a plane out of jinxed hardware and see where it goes 😅

Indeed. Boarding a plane that might have serious defects is one thing; boarding a plane that is _known_ to have serious defects is quite another.

@@flagmichael Yes. Indeed unbelievable. And that crew after that experience was definetely not in a condition to fly ANY aircraft, not to talk about the same one.

@@flagmichael forewarned is forearmed. Or something. They'd seen it happen first hand, and managed to make it work.... sort of. I'd certainly put more faith in them than a pilot who hadn't seen it.

My opinion: the crew should have been within their rights to refuse to fly that same plane any further, until the fault(s) that explained all unexplained failures of the previous flight had been found and fixed. The engineer reporting "no fault found" doesn't cut it. The fact that a fault demonstrably exists, but that you can't find it, doesn't make it OK. That said, intermittent faults can be hard to find, and two independent intermittent faults on the same bird is sheer bad luck, human error creeping in somewhere, or a sign of too much complexity in the design.

They fly back to Marrakech where the weather is always good 😎

They still should have flight engineers, in my opinion.

Exactly 👌

Yeah, it seems very reasonable to me that the captain went for it when he got a visual. There wasn't enough fuel to just keep circling around until they figure it out, and it was also unclear if the state of the aircraft is further deteriorating with new failures popping up at seemingly random. And what a precise landing it was, I think the captain was really good with the manual controls. (A bit worse with tech log though.)

I'll give credit were it's do these guys used crm veary well and kept the rules aviate navigate communicate tech log needs work but good flying

It may not have been done "perfectly" in terms of flying a stabilized approach, but I think his call to get the airplane on the ground considering how strangely it was acting and just how much stuff was failing in and out, was 100% correct.

As a GA pilot who flew many flights into IMC I can certainly relate. Once he established a clear visual of the runway environment and realized he could continue visually it made perfect sense to land albiet it was not the usual stabilized approach. He knew it was within his experience and ability to land safely. This is actually why they train and what they train for... to deal with the unexpected, think quickly and clearly. Kudos to both of them. Another great video from Mentour. Keep em coming!

i mean to him it seemed that everything around him was fk breaking and if he kept it in air who knows what else might fail

I wonder how the pilot recognized LSE airport with almost every instrument disfunction.

@@SEACalifornia1 old school piloting..

Bravo? They failed so hard that im questioning why they were even allowed to sit in an airliners cockpit.

@@Zerusch tell me you don't know shit about aviation without telling me you don't know shit about aviation

@@Zerusch dude everyu system that is supposed to help them land in a foggy environment is malfunctionning.

Shows brutality of money concerns

I would not have had the nerve to fly the same plane again, given the multitude of problems, and for the company to expect them to do so is unbelievable. A tortuous act!

Sometimes you have to manhandle it and show it dominance lol

They should have put the engineer on that plane back to Marrakesh too so he/she can finally see the issue.

Not finding a fault which has been reported by the pilot = fault "cleared" 🤣

You can't trace a fault accurately if it's not active or If it only sometimes acting up.

yeah its insane to imagine, oh yeah breaks on your car dont work? well it worked for me so i fixed nothing so go ahead and drive 100 km of mountain roads. what worst that can happen.

To be fair its done quite often. Alot of the time its becuase the pilots didnt give enough info on the fault they just go "hey this system wasnt working, xx bit code was displayed", nothing specific for maintenence to go off of. Thats not a whole lot of info to go on especially if the tech data doesnt have much info on the bit code and it cant be duplicated on the ground. With a situation like this, espicially since the write up is not a grounding condition, it would be proper to do a second flight verification of the system. From how it sounds in the video it was good for 5 flights after. If it came back again and same situation, replace the most common to go bad component or possibly just swap the adiru and have the pilots do an "in flight ops check". Alot of these components are just miniature computers though and its very common for the system to just need to be restarted and/or reseated to properly work again just like a normal home computer.

@@Nitro91 _"You can't trace a fault accurately that's not active or if it only sometimes acts up."_ True, but then you take it out for a test flight (or several) in good weather to recreate the problem.

Glad you think so!

Yess

Exactly! Very enjoyable and detailed, paired with a passionate presentation. Really good. 🙂🙂👌👌

@@adambazso9207 yea

I enjoy these from a passenger’s perspective. I had no idea the complexities, training and vast amount of knowledge pilots must have. It’s amazing how much you’re expected to know. Hats off to you and thanks to all the great pilots out there. Great series

I maintain a shop full of industrial manufacturing equipment, and as often as I complain about some poorly designed and intermittent failure prone equipment, in order to put things in perspective I often comment that "Well, thank god these people don't build airplanes"

Ditto that Robin! Pete, Gas Electronics, london

Very few situations warrant a test flight. That is a gigantic net loss that 99% of airlines will not permit except under specific things like dual engine changes. Source: am airline technician.

Completely agree. They actually did a fantastic job

Flying a desk is always cute.

It was foolhardy of the pilots to fly the aircraft again, with passengers without rectifying the fault(s) in the instrument/computer system(s). How did the airline or Boeing Co. make the aircraft serviceable again? Have you followed it through? To become a good pilot one should be thorough in manual flying, like a good physician ought to be good at clinical diagnosis. I gather this is the right way about it, right?

And more problems. Your instrumentation seems correct, but then because of something, the auto pilot recieves wrong informations from one of the biggest and only working instrumentation of that type left onboard.

They could not have known that the rapid progressive deterioration was the "expected" effect of the single point failure. Imagine the case of a sneaky fire in the avionics. You lose instrumentation one-by-one slowly as the fire progresses and kills the aircraft. You may never get the fire warning because the system giving the warning is destroyed first.

@@adamrak7560 Yes. So it was the right decision to put the plane down ASAP, alltough there was enough fuel left over to perform another Go Around.

I can almost understand the "fear for your job"... BUT from my time in the Navy, I learned that it's ALWAYS better to put more information than you need in the log... In the case of an unreliable aircraft where I'm employed to be the Captain... I'd likely quit on the spot if told they hadn't reproduced the faults and I was to fly it anywhere else for any reason... SO no... I don't think I'd hesitate to add the GPWS warnings, regardless of consequences. If there's additional training or some legitimate reason I shouldn't fly again, it's simply not worth being post-humously recognized as "The mass murderer of flight XXX"... There aren't many reasons I'd happily tell the owner(s) of a company to f*** themselves, but putting a hundered or more passengers at risk in an aircraft I already KNOW is unreliable or faulty outright is one of those kinds of reasons. I won't go as far as blame the pilots. Obviously they have different ideals of just how screwed up that plane was and whatever dubious nature their decisions were at the time... That's between them and God as far as I'm concerned... I just know (and can honestly say) what I would do in that situation. They DID a hell of a job just getting the plane safely on the ground at Lyon... AND for that, yes... my hat's off. Maybe the closest I'll ever come (on the ground) to that nature of concern and stress is on a faulty motorcycle on the Interstate... BUT I'd happily rather ride a known reliable "old school brute" kind of bike than a possibly faulty electronically overloaded "nanny bot" type of bike... The worst kind of safety system is a system that seems to be good but isn't. It give you the false sense of security that it will help you accomplish maneuvers with "relative forgiveness" when in fact, you're confidence in it is GOING to get you killed... Just like "bad gear" is even worse than no gear. You think you're being safe and reasonable, when you might as well be naked. ;o)

@@gnarthdarkanen7464 in my private company, my boss says that information takes time to write, transfert, and read, thus costs money. So, the less info, the less cost you spend. Just ask the client to pay, and that's the only important thing. I have quit this job.

@@benoit-pierredemaine3824 As a tech', myself, I've often gotten "bitched" for my write-ups when troubleshooting and effecting repairs or replacements... BUT just as often, I've uncovered patterns among seemingly unrelated issues and actually expedited repairs and rebuilds over the longer run. Just my experience, but as a tech', once you've twisted a single screw or bolt, YOU OWN IT and whatever else goes wrong with it... Clients don't like to pay for "crap". Most of them are much like us. They JUST want the g** d*** thing to WORK! The last time I worked in a shop environment for someone else, I was there for 5 years, and after my first year, I was routinely fired at least twice a week... Rather often (even though it was just the boss and me "going round and round") I got customers coming to my defense and even had one threaten the boss outright over it... I think you can understand how that works. At least, I hope so. If you never ever compromise your own values, you'll do GOOD work, and clients won't need "convinced" to pay you for it. Be proud you quit that job... AND I wish you all the best going forward. ;o)

Thank you! So happy you think so!

@@MentourPilot I always find your voice so calming even after a few dozen errors has occurred on a flight. It is total cluster F of problems but do not worry he will guide you through it so it all makes sense anyway.

No, RU-vid is better. RU-vid can be free, Netflix is always payable :-D

@@toriless sorry for late reply.....i last saw this video 1minute after released... Even i feel same...

I agree... He explains a lot of technical stuff... brilliant work.

I used to have flight anxiety before watching. Now I just take the bus...

This is amazing and something that I always love to hear about! 😍

Check out some of his very early videos where he breaks down everything that is going on and addresses concerns about specific fears people may have about flying.

Now don't jinx it

@@DavidM2002 🤗🥳🤣!!!

Glad you liked it! Dom did a fantastic job with this one.

@@MentourPilot I also like the fact that you're giving us ones (not that this is new to you, of course) where the point is about the pilot psychology and not the horrible outcome. I'm a software engineer, not a pilot, but I remember the time I was driving a then-new electric vehicle from our corporate car pool as a relatively new driver and it went dark and rebooted _while I was merging into the highway._ A mere four seconds of “oh sh--!” with no eventual negative outcome-the vehicle still steered and everything else came back before I was forced to do anything that would badly surprise other drivers-but four seconds I won't easily forget. That workload multiplying effect of “if this doesn't work what else won't work?” _while you're already doing the tricky bit_ is very real and worth understanding.

@@stephenspackman5573 I would have parked it and called an Uber.

@@chrispy104k Yeah. It might have been better to abandon it on the shoulder, though (this is California) there was pretty much nothing but interchange between the point where it misbehaved and its home lot. In the moment-and I'm not defending this, in fact I think it relates to the decisions made under pressure in the incident in the video-nothing seemed substantially safer than driving it back.

@@stephenspackman5573 And now the US government is thinking of allowing the vehicles to have no steering column or pedals. Nuts!

Get a room

These are absolutely better then anything I have ever seen on broadcast TV, and shows like "seconds from disaster" were some of my favorite to watch back when I used to watch TV

Mayday just can't stop reusing the same footage to achieve a proper runtime, it is so annoying!

Much better, simpler yet information packed contents, no nonsense graphics and/or over dramatized acting. Better than ones produced n shown by big networks n "professionals", and thats the reason (one of) me and others alike keep coming back for more.

@Eve Wait, how many of you are there then?

I agree what ever happened to any Landing you can walk away from is a good landing.😁

I just made this exact same comment. Just get it out of the air. That is the only comment on my mind after watching this. To hell with go around.

I also agree! Going back up in the soup was certainly the last thing they wanted to do with all those faults.

I was just about to comment the same thing..with the airplane seemingly getting worse and worse, after having eyes on that runway I would also not go around...but hey, thats why we can't all be pilots :p

Nice bot comment

While they got the aircraft down safely, let's not forget that they made avoidable mistakes as well.

There were plenty of mistakes made by many but the pilots ultimately got the plane on the ground with nothing more than bad nerves on their part.

It was a light reprimand but they were assumed reasonable. If the cockpit voice recordings were there it might've been lighter- they could've easily been fired for this if any reasonable pilot could say this was inexcusable or could never happen to them. I doubt there was any quibble about retraining manual IRS, help build their own confidence back. Not something to forget in a hurry. I think they'd be much better pilots after an experience like that.

They got lucky.

@@mandowarrior123 Yep, not pulling the cockpit voice recorder made it appear the pilots had something to hide. I'm sure that only made their "punishment" a lot worse.

Sounds like a good thing to practice for sure.

As an instrument pilot, I was cringing when they were deviating from the localizer and glideslope, thinking I could do better than that; seems to me they had become robots more than pilots and could stand a few hours in the sim doing ILS's.

You were flying and watching the video at the same time?

@@behindthen0thing He simply stated he flies a 737 himself.

@@johan.ohgren "flying a 737 myself during these videos"

@@behindthen0thing chekc the “comma” after myself!

Problem is that in the physical world things like heat, contamination, corrosion etc. can produce infinitely complex faults that would require you to simulate the universe to find out.

Intermitent bug means you dont know how to reliably reproduce the issue. So no idea what you are talking about. Saying the bug is intermittent doesn't mean it isnt a bug. Never has.

"no such thing as an intermittent bug, you just haven't figured out what triggers it." LMAO

@@deth3021 Ever repaired a crackly potentiometer? a corroded input jack? those kind of problems can start or go away when a device stretches with heat, or the moisture level in the air increases, or the device is being exposed to cycles of these conditions like in the case of a plane... Unless you can predict the conditions a part has gone through by modeling with your infinitely fast supercomputer (or godlike brainpower) some faults will be intermittent if you accept the limits of technology or yourself. [This is getting way too existenial lol]

@@VeraTR909 did you reply to the wrong person? Im not the one who said there wasnt intermittent bugs. Also bugs are software, you described hw issues. Which would be more typically be called intermitent faults.

Perhaps their airlines pressured them to continue. I’m Moroccan and I’m familiar with this bullshit airline.

I can't believe the pilots were made to fly the same plane on two more legs without the issues being resolved. It should've been grounded. The pilot did the right thing by going forward with the landing once he saw the runway.

Seconded. I think the pilots reacted like normal people in a stressful situation.

They should have declared an emergency a long time before landing

@@ALEXWORLD11 Yeah, if it were me, I'd have at least declared PAN-PAN and told the controllers a bit about what was going on. They can't help you if you don't tell them what's happening. They could have gotten more attention and position information from the controllers if they had used PAN-PAN or MAYDAY. One thing I (as an American) have found kind of weird, though, is it seems that pilots in Europe and recent European colonies are somewhat more hesitant to declare an emergency than we're taught to be in the U.S. I even see a lot of criticism from European pilots on videos from incidents in the U.S. about pilots declaring when they didn't think they should have. In the U.S., it generally seems to be taught more along the lines of "If there's any doubt, declare." The worst that can happen from declaring when it wasn't completely necessary is that you need to fill out some extra paperwork after landing and possibly some other flights have to hold or get vectored a few minutes longer. The worst that can happen from not declaring when you should have is much, much worse than that. Even if the situation is generally under control but there's some significant doubt about the state of the aircraft and/or crew, there's no harm in declaring. The controllers then know to focus more on your flight and they can help relieve some of the pressure and task saturation on the pilots. It's a lot better to be back on the ground with some extra paperwork to fill out than to risk damage to the aircraft... or the people inside it.

@@vbscript2 Agreed on that part, they should have issued PAN-PAN, as the aircraft had multiple systems failure. The landing showed some really good piloting skills, though.

And then had to fly the bloody thing back without getting to the bottom of the problems!

Yes... Before it less to another issue...Royal Air Marok should have reported that they have updated the systems to Boeing.....

He safely landed the plane, which is the MAIN thing. Kudos for that. But why didn’t he run the checklists? Why didn’t he follow procedure to figure out what was wrong? What if he hasn’t been such an accomplished pilot? Not everyone could have landed that safely. This is a training opportunity. They had the fuel to figure it out, but they didn’t know that - because they didn’t check. And they were failed by the mechanics and pilots before them - for sure.

@@jahbern because checklists are written by fallible humans like the fallible humans that allowed that plane to fly...?

@@edb8139 The checklists are written by engineers on the ground who know all the details about the plane and have days and weeks to consider all possibilities and downsides of certain actions. I think the actual problem is that the pilots here had to run like 6 different non-normal checklists at the same time (lots of failures) and the workload just got too high.

to be a very good

Thank you for your service ❤️

@@columbus8myhw fixed it, thanks for the edit.

Oh no, I say it’s better.

Just like the African pilots still flying the 1960 model aircraft

Google "Minimum Equipment List", and you'll understand why they did this.

Indeed, especially with parts already replaced. Is there a bad connection somewhere that only goes bad in the low temperature and pressure at altitude? Some weird computer bug that only strikes at certain magic numbers in the instrument readings? EDIT: Or did Royal Air Maroc quietly find and fix the problem sometime _after_ the final report was published? 🤞‍

@@AaronOfMpls I'm voting for door #3. Risk management is a well-developed discipline, as is keeping quiet about unflattering outcomes of safety issues that were actually completely analyzed and handled before anything went boom.

yes me too....

Probably bad and lazy maintenance personnel - sadly, training and education is key, debugging issues is truly an art. Throughout my journey in engineering, I've met way too many engineers who just "assume too many things" and forget the "real engineering process", which is to go step by step and test every node and connection to reproduce the problem. If I was the maintenance person in charge, I'd never re-certify that plane to fly again after hearing the pilot's complaints and knowing the previous maintenance records - it'll go right into the hanger until it can be sorted out. Not being able to reproduce the problem just means that my maintenance staff sucks, it does NOT mean that the problem does not exist - but I guess this depends on who you ask, clearly, they didn't trust the pilot's word / report.

Why can't the aircraft have 3 ADIRU units? If you have 2 and the data from them doesn't agree, you have no idea which one is faulty, but if you have 3, and compare the data from them, if 1 & 2 agree and 3 is totally different, then it's reasonable to assume unit 3 is faulty. I have no idea how these things work, gyros or whatever, and I assume that they're expensive, but I bet it's still cheaper than having the remains of your aircraft smashed to pieces on a runway somewhere.

My thoughts exactly as pointed out in my own comment. When the workload gets too high to follow checklists, ask for help from the ground.

The primary thing I didn't like was the floating issue basically ignored and not even noted in big red letters for the next crews flying this aircraft.

You can only vector an aircraft to intercept the ILS. The tower can't make the minor corrections fast enough to keep you on the localiser and, as was said in the video, the tower couldn't even tell if they were above or below the glideslope. The tower simply didn't have the tools.

@@ImperrfectStranger - still... This is not a passenger trying to land a 747. This is an experienced crew. If they can't take - let us call it navigational hints to make sure they are coming in on the right heading - and get under the cloud cover and descend at some reasonabel rate while flying manually, they should not be allowed into a cockpit. Sure, some busy city bureaucrats might complain 2 weeks later about violating noise levels over residential areas by flying to low, or almost snipping the top of a chimney, but it gets the plane on the ground in one piece.

@@JanBruunAndersen They may have been "professionals", but their basic flying skills were seriously atrophied. They couldn't even intercept and maintain an altitude without the autopilot. Even with ILS signals they flew consistently and dangerously below the glideslope. What professional pilot ignores terrain warnings? There were probably a lot of navigational cues available to them but they failed to read them (probably due to poor CRM).

Haha! That would be very strange.. but a bit awesome

@@MentourPilot "...and right at that moment the pilots realized.... that everything was configured correctly. BUT THEN, they realized to their shock, the coffee was actually quite good this time!"

@@subbss (in Mentour's voice): Something you have to understand about company drink containers is that they are quite slippery. For this reason the pilot had developed a habit of sliding their pinky finger underneath the container to better maintain positive control. As it turns out, this was an excellent thing to do, as you'll understand later on.

@@MentourPilot Do it for April Fools Day!

@@MentourPilot Oh, yes! I know one element. When, a long time ago, I first went flying with pets (not in the cabin), to emigrate for the first time, I was quite nervous about how that would go (for the pets, I mean, two cats at the time and one of them had been quite worried). But that landing was the smoothest EVER! Made me feel very grateful..

It wasn’t explained in the final report sadly.

Seriously, I wish we had an idea of that as well! I expect they dismantled it good

Even as a technical person, this kind of phantom intermittent error nonsense reaaaaaly makes you think that gremlins (or Machine Spirit if you are so inclined) are a real thing. Sure, this is probably some weird interaction between systems that nobody could predict is a thing, but given that it can't be reproduced on the ground, makes it nearly unfixable. At that point you either mark this machine as cursed or rip it apart and rebuild it completely in hopes that fixes SOMETHING.

This episode made the hairs on my neck stand up. I’m reminded of the captain of a Swiss flight who had to deal with an engine failure after takeoff on camera, and after dealing with the initial steps pulled out a chocolate bar and casually ate it to calm himself.

The aircraft involved, CN-ROJ is performing domestic flight AT1413 between Laayoune and Casablanca as we speak...😅 To be fair, it's five years ago so I hope we can assume the issues were resolved in the end.

I was honestly anticipating a different end to that flight.

@@johnstreet819 same , I thought they were gone

True, also after Petter said “things are gonna get much worse” I was 100% sure that they’re gone, but luckily it’s a happy end…almost spoiled in Marrakesh…

@@johnstreet819 I just had to skip to the preview thumb at the end to see if the plane got down. It was too stressful!

drove

and then they flew it to paris and back to marrakech. all in all they did very well imo

@@klotzinatorinho BEA: "yeahhhh let's focus on the dozens of things you did wrong!"

It is easy to become rattled under those conditions. They could not forget about the problems they had already experienced, the continuing problems, and more were appearing rapidly.

@@klotzinatorinho Yeah if I was them I'd be like "I'mma get a SECOND logbook JUST for all the technical failures."

Maybe you should check out Microsoft Flight Simulator. You can enjoy flying, with feet firmly on the ground.

Ive had my share of doubting machines. They've betrayed me before. From tire blow outs airplane engine died in the air coulter counter giving uncalibrated readings. I don't fully trust them. Take their action with a grain of salt. On a C 141 the pilots complained of flight controls not operating as designed. On the ground the defect could not be duplicated. In the old days you would fly with the craft as a crewchief. It happenef in air only and we discovered one of the cabled wss twisted & turnbuckle loosened. It had to be rerigged and thank goodness it caused no more doubts.

I have 15 years in software QA, and it baffles me that the cannot reproduce answer is accepted in the case of aircraft safety. My mind immediately goes to obvious conditions missing when testing on the ground and it makes me really wonder how many risks are taken on a daily basis in the air.

Yes, as a former software tester, it seems obvious to me that if a fault cannot be reproduced during testing, it does not mean the issue has gone away by itself, it means the exact conditions in which it occurred have not been met.

I am in professional software development too, and I was like: "What? They let it fly with a _known_ fault in a crucial system?"

There is enough redundancy that if pilots are aware of what part is most likely to act up, the hazard posed by its doing so could be minimized, and in some cases there may be no practical way to find the root cause of a problem without flying a plane. It also might make sense, as a matter of course, to request in the maintenance logs that pilots pay special attention to systems that are repaired, until there have been multiple flights where the systems can be shown to work perfectly.

@@adamrak7560 They did note that technicians DID try to fix it. They could not reproduce it so they had no way to figure out what exactly was causing it, but they did try replacing the whole system that was generating the errors. Of course once the same error returns even after you have replaced the part that should mean that there is probably something else causing this. On the other hand each day the airplane sits in a hangar with technicians stumped by the problem despite running through all manufacturer issued procedures and finding no faults it becomes harder and harder to not mark it as suitable for flight. After all if you can't trust your on the ground diagnostics to mark this plane as flight capable, then how can we mark ANY plane?

Totally. I'm convinced that MH370 crash had to do with a tech problem that came up b/c of the crew O2 replenishment system being worked on right before the flight, that caused a fire, circuit breakers being turned off, tried landing at Langkawi, set course to Kota Bahru, then depressurization/fly until crash. NOT a murderous pilot. Everyone protects Boeing b/c of $$$$.

This is ridiculous. The 787 is fine and the only 737 max's that crashed were from 3rd world airlines with poor crew training standards. Not to excuse Boeing but the recertification process has been under extreme scrutiny by multiple authorities around the world. It'll probably be one of the safest aircraft to ever fly by the time it's all said and done.

@@ZboeC5 You are so wrong. Boeing got caught taking short cuts and not following processes. The FAA has been found not providing acceptable oversight. Don't blame the flight crew for Boeings mistakes like not telling anyone about the modified flight control systems.

@@av8tor261 BLAH BLAH BLAH. Good for you. I know what's up and I know the only two airlines that crashed the MAX were shit tier 3rd world junk outfits. That's a fact because It's indisputable. No first world airline crashed a MAX, also indisputable. I don't care what you think at this point, have a great day!

@@av8tor261 correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Boeing issue a bulletin about MCAS?

Absolutely, I completely agree. Thank you for watching and commenting.

@@MentourPilot Thank you- love your work, outstandingly good!

@@MentourPilot Sometimes in good weather when an FO asks “Do you mind if I have a hand fly?”, my standard reply has pretty much always been “Actually, I mind if you DON’T.” It’s one of those skills that is quite rapidly lost if not practiced often. Also if I notice an FO using automation too much in good weather, I would suggest “How about disconnecting and hand flying?”

That's at least two of us, FS738. I retired with over 8,000 hours in 737s (and was a Line Check Airman on the -300). I was leaning forward on the edge of my chair toward the end of the video!

Thank you! I’ll have a look at that one.

My brain wants to call that one "flight pi hundred"...

I remember that one well.

That wasn’t explained in the final report sadly.

@@MentourPilot which is very unfortunate, really. Unless this error is not something that would be specific to Boeing or the aircraft using the same systems, something limited to this aircraft alone, but even then, something like that would be of use to others.

Aircraft is still flying, it actually flew to Orly and back to Casablanca today.

@@se-kmg355 Here's hoping the fault(s) was found and fixed! 🤞‍

There´re some postings here confirming that this specific aircraft is just now on a domestic flight inside of Marocco. Hopefully they´ve fixed now the technical issues.