Why Planes Crash. 

Real Engineering can you do a video on ATC officers? I would love to hear what content you would make 😄

Real Engineering Haha. When I started the vid it was on 50 odd views. After 12 minutes it was 2,000!!! *NICE* 😁😁

Smashing it harder than those smashing planes you talked about in your video

I believe I have an invite to ATC in dublin, so that's a possibility for sure.

Hulk Smash Belly button ! Wait what ?

Hououin Kyouma lmao

Hououin Kyouma oopsie wrong channel lol let’s go over to half as interesting

It's clearly CGI in that scene. Nevertheless, while I have never heard of a pilot doing this in the open water (because it is an unnecessary hazard), there is such a thing as water assisted landings.

It is not CGI. It is stolen content. Original video title is: Kevin Quinn World Record Plane Water Ski ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6OAEGPVcvhU.html

Robotic Hobo Oh wow! That's some good flying/skiing. That clip looked a little tackyish for lighting, which is what made me see it as CGI. Must have been the lighting, lack of jitter and camera settings used.

Absolutely this, the pitot failure did contribute to events but after the initial moments it was all human fault - the plane was unequivocally telling them what was going wrong but the second officer was doing the exact wrong thing. Was painful reading the transcript of the moment the second officer tells the others he's been holding full back stick for several minutes and they realise what's up, too late. www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/ is a good read for anyone interested, as it also will explain some of the terms used, controls etc so it makes more sense to a non-aviation reader.

That's why we have the positive exchange of controls. Pilot 1: "I have the controls" Pilot 2: "You have the controls" Pilot 1: "I have the controls" Prevents either (a) pilots fighting each other on the controls unknowingly, and (b) neither pilot being on the controls.

@@crosscheck8770 why why why were the pilots not talking to each other..

@@madattaktube there seemed no talking to each other as to who was doing what...

@@dashdriverdan - Look at the Colgan Air crash they had yokes and stick shakers and the captain still overrode the stick pusher

And everything strat from the beginning of 2018....

MH17 was about half of that

M Erasmus What? MH17 was in 2014

Diogo that’s MH370 lmao

Gamination_channel They were both in the same year

You probably got shit scared

Name?

Hide the pain man

I don't think he survived

What happend?

CarAxadent I mean, you're not wrong

Thats hilarious, and depressing, because its true. :(

hahahahahahaha... so a plane is a flying submarine?

You copied that from belcc

Antonman Whoever that is probably didn’t make it either

The Rules of the entire World are written in blood, not just those of aviation. Every human endeavour, both positive as well as negative, has cost the lifes of people.

Schnittertm1 Well said.

That's terrifyingly true.

Tombstone technology

Japhet Ye so are many things !! City standards , safety equipment, that handrail when you walk up stairs ! Lol

Same goes for any form of transport.

@@borismuller86 Yeah true, just that with any other form of transport is it more likely to happen

No. It’s not always like that. What if a missile hits your plane and people don’t know where it came from? That doesn’t help at all.

@@Nonamelol. Then the plane was shot down. That isn't a crash because of something like a mistake the pilot did or mechanical failures. If the plane gets hit by a missile, it would most likely or lose its engine, which would make the plane lose thrust, increasing the drag, losing speed and because of that it would not produce any lift, making it enter in a stall and eventually hit the ground or it would literally explode mid-air or lose a whole wing or tail controls or something important that keeps the plane flying. In any military planes it would be understandable and because of that they have flares and that kind of stuff, but comercial planes aren't supposed to be a target for a missile, so it's obvious that they don't think about anything to avoid one.

Cosas Chatarra when did I ask how missiles striking planes work?

Pitots played a (small) part

What's unbelievable is the average aviation enthusiast would have recognized the stall and reacted correctly but a professional crew just froze

@@dashdriverdan - Stall recognition and recovery is basic airmanship, like first week of flight school basic, all the clues of a stall were available to them with plenty of time to analyze and recover the accident is inexcusable. The aircraft design itself did not contribute in any way other than Alpha Protection being disabled as a result of the original pitot failure causing the eventual switch to Alternate Law but Flight Envelope Protection does not exist on the vast majority of aircraft in the skies it's not an excuse for the crash

@@dashdriverdan - I'm actually the first person to use AF447 as a clear example of the inherent limitations of Airbus' design philosophy and architecture (especially when dealing with the misconceptions surrounding the MAX) however they are just that, _limitations_ , they are not flaws and the regression of envelope protection exposed flaws in the crew not the other way around - absolutely compounded by human factors as you mention. Taken to extremes if the A330 was completely autonomous it crashes from the relatively innocuous failure of reliable airspeed input - highlighting the need for human input If the A330 is fully "manual" sidestick nuances aside they still crash from the raw pilot inputs - an avoidable crash of a fully functional aircraft If the protection systems had been fully available they don't enter the stall to begin with, if the crew recognizes the stall they had an eternity to safely recover. While the inherent limitations of Airbus' design did not allow intervention to _prevent_ the crash holding them as factors in _causing_ the crash is what's disingenuous there is a subtle but distinct difference. This is Airbus' version of the Colgan Air and the Elmendorf C-17 crash

Good discussion boys, as a grounded aviation fanboy, that was a terrific little read. I (as a non pilot) like all that Airbus has brought to the community, and keeping the other guys on their toes...but I just like Boeing better, almost plane for plane. I do like the OG 300, the big hunkin 4 bagger A340, and who doesn't just love an A350 or at the very least respect the mighty A380? As for team USA, I was never a 737 fan until the NGs, when they finally stopped looking like pregnant guppies, and after the guys at Parker Hannefin were making faulty rudder Power Control Unit Servos. Three or four full on catastrophies is 2 or 3 too many for this little hobby of flying busses, it might actually catch on one day, and we need to have these rules in place and start hiring drivers. All kidding aside...probably, those old Boeing engineers though, sweet Jesus those guys were good, a straight up masterclass in mechanical engineering is putting it lightly. Joey Sutter and his jumbo queen, the sleek and sexy 757, the mindblowing 777x program withe Ge9x twisters. Yeah, I'm an Everett dude a little more than a Toulouse bloke. Gotta say I'm a little nervous and disappointed by the east coast facility down in Asheville, North Carolina...if you haven't already, watch the Broken Dreams documentary with some of the workers and whistleblowers on the 787 line down there. Its not a veteran team like Seattle, and they are definitely doing some questionable stuff. A little scary when one of them little lemons (parts) decides to get jiggy (fail) and make lemonade (turn fine folks like yourselves inside out). Not very fair when you're runnin for pinks just to make sure the precious shareholders get their Q3 bonuses...gimme a fucking break. Anyway...if you're still on board, cheers. Fair weather and soft landings fellas, keep the shiny side up and rubber side down (unless you steal a Q400 Dash 8, you can fly the wheels off one of them...and you don't even have to be a pilot!! Or so I've heard) 🤪 + ✈ = 🔥

How much do get you paid?

DUDE

@@antonman1234 A potato per hour.

@@mr.normalguy69 lol?

They get paid in beans

Ethan Roberts microorganisms, oxidation :D

The main degradation areas in cars are things like bearings or bushings wearing out (if they're not greased or lubricated periodically,) engine cylinders shouldn't wear out that much as they have oil to keep them lubricated. Rust is also an issue on the underside of a car as that gets a lot of spray and salt thrown at it. Work hardening is a big issue - lead for example work hardens really quickly, you can bend it backwards and forwards a few times, but micro-cracks start appearing until it snaps completely. In regards to planes, the skin of an aircraft expands and compresses whilst going through different pressures in the atmostphere, causing it to stretch and retract - I suppose work hardening and cracks can appear then. The same with the wing structures - they constantly flex moving up and down. Airbus has a video of them testing the A380 wing - it shows you how they move. Repairing machines that have worn out is actually quite easy (still a long job though in some cases). For example, I use CNC machines for a living and the ball screws and guide rails had to be replaced because of wear - these are bolt on items. But things like bearings and bushes can be generally pressed out with a hydraulic press and new ones pressed in. They are normally made to a set tolerance so can be changed easily even after 30 years as the standards don't change much.

If I'm not mistaken, the term is wear and tear I'm no professional but something... something... heat and friction cause bits and pieces of a material to fall off If my explanation was right, an example should be sand paper that's been used too much so it's little grains slowly grind

P. S for more information, ask google

With regard to airplanes, it's mostly metal fatigue. Every time a plane takes off, and every time it lands, the difference in air pressure between the outside and inside of the fuselage changes dramatically, and if you apply these forces on a piece of aluminium thousands of times, it will eventually break. That's why the manufacturer-recommended maximum lifetime of airplanes is typically given in pressurisation cycles, not in years.

Tunderstorms

Yep, "Tunderstorms'

Pedotubes

@@TechRyze thats how its pronounced

Don't get me started in "column" 6:58

The Independent Channel @mentour pilot where you at!

Seeing this comment made my day.

If only we got this on H.I. for our first guest :)

Tim!

Grey would LOVE that video :))

Hello Tim!

#JozBananas All of em got grounded lol

Let me correct you Boeing 777 Max

Cheng Yang Zhao No its 737 MAX

Too late

@@prestonang8216 777 max 8 dumbass, learn to google

Ye

*Ah frick*

*it's ok, I have russian bias*

Been looking for a war thunder comment

I Got Da Infinity Stones me tooo

You idiot there is no left wing

HI fan?

the worst news is mh370 hasn't been found yet for 5 years now

@@stingcobra8538 yeah

@@lphjustin 737 Max was not a case of trial and error. It was a case of known error for the sake of business. One could argue that more measures should have been taken in cases where there was a flaw not known before. But for the 737 Max, Boeing and airlines trying to save a buck for the sake of security are completely at fault. The only thing to learn here is that short-sighted, money-driven decisions are a bad idea. And I think everybody should already know that.

737 MAX crashed because of Boeings greeed.

Stefan Kristersson My god people like you are just fucking idiots, yep greed was the factor, money was a driving force that’s why they’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars in law suits 🤦🏻‍♂️

OurTube - Beyblades n’ Animation I can’t say your wrong

nasa should hire you... you are a genious!!!

OurTube - Beyblades n’ Animation beyblades? Srsly?!?

*john mayer - gravity in the background*

Artus Barris, lol thats a good quote XD

Yess!

Hmmm.... Wendover's production is also way too good on airplane and toyota corolla videos

Chaitanya Singh RealLife lore is the guy with the toyota

You need to check out mustard

A lot of his videos have to do with airplanes, and it's a common joke on Wendover Productions videos, where almost all of them are airplane related.

Nobody beats Wendover

Thing go forward. Fast thing go forwarder

@@swine13 lmao sean lock tho

And like many of the examples the filmmaker chose to talk about, CRM was inspired by a series of accidents in which the pilot caused the accident by refusing to listen to the F/O and/or F/E.

@@CinemaDemocratica there’s a lot more to it than that b

Vincent Lu I couldn't believe they didn't realize that they were stalling the aircraft.

When your instruments are giving you the wrong data, how are you supposed to know you're stalling the aircraft?

The only data missing was the air speed. They had the altitude, they had the articifial horizon, and most importantly the "STALL" alarm kept going on and on. When the autopilot went off because of the loss of the airspeed, they climbed for no reason, they climbed so much that they stalled, and they couldn't even do the basic maneuver to get out of the stall. They understodd what was happening only seconds before impact. So yeah even after the loss of airspeed data the crash didn't have to happen. Pilot are supposed to be able to fly without the autopilot or instruments.

Yes, the pitot tube failure only last 30 seconds.

@@vincentlu8624 It was First Officer Pierre's ineptitude mixed with the fact that the Captain Marc Dubois was asleep in a cockpit closet after having had only one hour of sleep

I hear Michael O’Leary gave both pilots a huge raise. €10 each.

@@borismuller86 you forgot the €9.99 tax he applied to that raise

@@mwbgaming28 A 1 CENT RAISE :)

0:

Otherwise known as "Remote hijacking"

no....

Oh, so its like 'remote desktop' for a cockpit then? No thanks. Besides, anything can be disabled by someone who understands how it works. If it was made, it can be broken.

It does allow remote hijacking if the ground controls fall into the wrong hands (and some conspiracy theories have asked (1) why it wasn't used to stop the hijackings leading to the 9/11 attack, or (2) WAS it used by the government, and WERE there any actual hijackers?). Not going there myself, but it could be possible "next time."

HuntingTarg - Greatly reduces the number of people who have access to the controls.

G-force is as real as centrifugal force Jealous woman argument wins

@@grapesurgeon rookie mistake, it's a pseudo force,something we feel because of another actual force that we are interacting with, in this case, gravity,(just like centrifugal force is actually directional inertia) And yes, theoretically its not possible to move away from gravitational force till 0 interaction with gravity ,but ,at a suitable distance from anything in this world, we don't experience its effects on our scale(between macro and micro)because a human is not a quark that will be tremendously affected be a billionth of fraction of a fermi newton of gravitational force, Like my friend has mass,he has gravity,but i don't feel any pulling interaction from him sitting close to him because the amount of gravity he has is so small its irrelevent in our world,but if i were a quark i would have been pulled into him or orbited into him as soon as my momentum became equal to his gravitational value, doesn't matter how far away i am because the value will also change with my reference point from his position

@@grapesurgeon no you're not a rookie,u just made a rookie mistake Sooo,g-force is as real as centrifugal force,verified✔️ Jealous woman argument wins

calm down, what are you saying??!

everythingeverythingpro are you illiterate? Read what he fucking said

um no they arent lol

That it is way safer that the car you are going to use to get to the airport

Guillermo Marturet Fendt that's true.flying is the safest way of transportation

Joe Biden let's hear it😅

thats bs

R.I.P..... Ill take care of your wife for you buddo....

You bloody genius 😂😂

I don't know why that made me laugh so much =D

The amount of stupidity is too much to comprehend ....

Calvin Cahyadi :(

Calvin Cahyadi :(

well.....

Not true unless it's considered a hull loss it can fly and crash again. There are many repaired planes after crashes.

That is true because if a plane crashes it can’t fly again so it can’t crash again If it crashes badly like every thing breaks and ya

NO

Antonman YES

Some planes are ripped to pieces in midair though, just because of square windows, or some pressure issue within the cabin.

Of course

Not just gravity, could be loss of lift, stalls, low power, over stressing the airframe, even over stressing the pilot, not enough fuel, engine damage, prop damage, gravity is not the only reason an aircraft crashed

Douglas Roempke have you seen allec joshua ibay channel? It's fantastic

General Relativity I’ll have to check it out.

Oh, there's more than ONE of those. Personal "favourite": the one where ports were left taped shut after a full plane wash. Everybody died.

Did you ever look up the channel?

Yea. It’s kinda short, but I like that, despite this, it really tells everything we need to know!

Elias D omg today Boeing 737 MAX crashed 😖

I can't believe you've Douglas...

Lockheed my warning and stop being so punny!

I see everyone is Bombardiering this thread with puns...

Kartik Cating-Subramanian this turns into a Cessnapool of cringe humour!

Patsonical i

Why did you choose to include this one? Do you know it well?

Naaaahhh. Increased and improved training has vastly improved aircraft safety. TAA's are limited to their avionics for their maintenance report. And you are still discounting the thousands of aircraft that haven't installed glass. Training. That's pretty much it.

You don't fly for a living if you think training has gotten better over the years

And you must have just started flying! To compare a commercial pilot recipient and your average 135/121 training program to the same 20 years ago, is night and day. To say otherwise is straight up ignorant

As simulators have gotten more realistic, pilots can be exposed to more "tough" malfunctions and gain their experience in handling them without flying an actual airplane. The one drawback of having so many high tech systems could be slacking off on pilot training, especially to handle situations where the tech fails. Of course, it fails much less often, but that leads to less frequent cross checking if pilots get lazy, because the failures are so rare. The tech is good enough that a reasonably intelligent and science-savvy non-pilot can USUALLY use it to land safely with the help of controllers on the radio (as an emergency measure, of course). This situation was tested in a simulator by the cast of the old Mythbusters show; neither Adam nor Jamie had any flying experience before filming this episode, both of them "crashed" badly in the control runs without help, but both "landed" safely with the simulator operator acting as a radio contact. And of course, such emergency landings HAVE happened in real life. But again, if the technology fails, you NEED a pilot with experience in old school flying to land safely.

When you study aircraft accidents as I do, you come to the conclusion that the machines today are much safer and more reliable. Coupled with the systems that won't let pilot make mistakes as easy like they once could and aircraft that monitor themselves and report. Look at the accident rates over the years, there are almost no major ones anymore, and the occasional is gross pilot error. With 2500 fatalities a yr in the 70's to 50 in 2015 that's progress.

this ignore's mechanical failures and computer errors. (I mean how is it the pilots fault when the plane literally breaks up in midair?)

speedy01247 That's covered under ideas.

speedy01247 The worst thing, and I'm sure it's happened quite a few times, is when a plane experiences a mechanical failure, like a case of explosive decompression and everyone knows they're dead and they have to wait to hit the ground, like cases where everyone knows it's severe enough to the point that they can't recover.

haha lol that got me

insane bad luck can also cause accidents, like the case of the british airways flight 009, they only managed to survive by sheer luck, as they were able to restart the some of the engines. or even that bizarre acident with a plane from saudi arabia, where 2 people were sucked out of the plane because of an explosion caused by one of the wheels.

Well...when you fail to plan, then you plan to fail. I guess they wanted to say: "planning is for chumps!" :P

That's amusing to me, because there's an Arab saying: "Trust in Allah - but tie up your camel."

seems like a load of BS to me. Why is emirates and Etihad so safe, Qatar airways... even Saudi airlines???? All these are middle eastern airlines. fake your story is fake

SuperVstech - "Allah" hates them? Or just wants to take them on to Paradeisos?

Al Grayson not sure, I wasn’t in on the conversation, but basically, they had no interest in maintaining the planes... because, if it is allahs will, it will break, preventing it didn’t occur to them.

LMAO

I traveled through time just to post this comment wut?

No, the horror, the *horror* ...Wendover Productions, keep on making educational content! ;)

wow...

Don't worry, your grammar quality was above most of the people within these comment sections.

There was no excuse for an experienced professional crew to ever enter that stall nevermind fail to recover

A couple of things wrong here. New pitots were being made available from an alternative manufacturer but weren’t available in sufficient numbers for the whole worldwide fleet to be done by that point. The reason bonin held back was poor training by AF, who hadn’t invested in training ti manage the physiological and psychological effects of startling situations.

You seem to be thinking airspeed and ground speed are the same thing.

I know they are not the same and knowing the ground speed is a tool that you should be using if you have a pitot system failure.

*doesn’t want to sound like a dick but uses the word actually* 😂 Sorry I’ll let myself out

You're correct about the pitot tubes, although I think the main thrust of the video is fine without that distinction. However, GPS measures ground speed, not airspeed. It's useless for actual stick and rudder flying, especially at high altitude where the margin between stall and overspeed might only be 15 knots.

I admit I am not educated on the subject, but I doubt there would be a full pitot-static system on older planes, which might be why we see much less crashes due to incorrect speed gauges.

But more people died from plane crashes than lightning......😕😕😕

@@dcdrip4773 youd have to quantify that with actual data from hundreds of years

But lightning strikes millions of times for every time you've been in an airplane

I'm sure all air crash victims were familiar with those statistics.

@@empressqi1722 ok boomer

are you alive

Problem with the Air France case is that they didn’t recognize the stall. If I recall, the faulty ASI was at times indicating an increase in airspeed (possibly from climbing while the pitot tube was blocked?). It’s easy to say what the crew SHOULD have done, but that is assuming they recognized what sort of failure was occurring, which they did not. So the real emphasis of that accident should be: why did they fail to recognize what was occurring?

No professional pilot is using Nav logs! That's just crazy. I'd quit and work somewhere else if the CP or DO told me to track a Nav Log

ADFs can work with VOR and TACAN. Also, the pilots of AF447 failed to recognize the situation because they did not understand what the plane defaulted to when the autopilot and auto-throttle disengaged. The PF took immediate control of the attitude of the plane, but for a long period of time assumed that the auto-throttle was working, and that envelope protection was functional, when that was very clearly not the case because of the FBW reverting to alternate law. The aircraft even enunciated the control law change, so the pilots failing to know what that implicated just shows a poor understanding of the underlying systems perhaps as a result of negligent contingency training and testing. Regardless of the lack of envelope protection, the PF still willingly flew the aircraft into an unsustainable attitude and maintained that attitude, which is a very basic lack of pilotage. Just because the plane is supposed to keep you from exceeding the envelope doesn't mean you shouldn't at least know what the envelope is.

All dispatchers give pilots a NAV log they are still in use today (as a backup)

@@EnDSchultz1 - Pitot tube freezing was a known vulnerability of the A330 at the time they knew what it was but failed to run the checklist and it was downhill from there. There were more than enough cues of an aerodynamic stall the airspeed indication is almost irrelevant not everything that flies on wings has an airspeed indicator and they all can stall

It's not a crash but a very exciting landing.

It's not an exciting landing but a cool way to escape the Matrix

Zulikas69 Falling with style :.(

Nah, they just land too fast and/or too early. You can't fail to land. Gravity always wins.

They don't crash. They simply experience rapid, unplanned disassembly.

Uriah Siner Take a look at brilliant.org! A lot of science channels on RU-vid get sponsored by brilliant.org.

Or check out Khanacademy. It's free and it's good.

If you sine up and pass the credit check, or have a cosiner. But that's going off on a tangent.

Brilliant or khan academy or good old do it yourself.

Uriah Siner Is you actually do sine up, it should only take a couple secants.

Far more people have died in cars and trains.

@@borismuller86 Yeah true but it's just it scale of the loss of life that is shocking.

I'm going to be pedantic. You should have said 'I'm going to end this centuries entire career." Just a nitpick from someone who's definitely got a better grasp on the English language than you.

@@PaulRudd1941 but that's not how the meme goes

TokenBlackman7 me to

metoo

Me too

Dante Regiani Freitas yea and beacon lights

They have locater beacons that last for 30 days

Aaron Martinez, interesting, do you know their range?

A radio beacon's range can vary a lot depending on the conditions of it's environment, for instance, if it's at the bottom of the ocean, it's range is pretty much nil, but if it's in the woods somewhere it's not hard to find.

GPS is so that something can establish its OWN location. It would need a chronometer or a timebase reference for that. It would also need a transciever to receive GPS signals and to convey that location to the outside - then it would no longer be a 'black box' .

Barring any malfunction Alpha Protection only engages if the pilots have essentially lost awareness and attempt to exceed alpha limits there is no excuse for that crew to have entered the stall to begin with nevermind fail to recover, a known pitch and power setting was all they needed to stay safely flying regardless of their airspeed indication issues