HomeTravel & EventsRelated VideosMore From: AviationTV

Airbus A340 EMERGENCY - Engine Failure

35790 ratings | 15520529 views
Auf dem Weg von Zürich nach Shanghai wurde während des Fluges eine erhöhte Öl Temperatur in Triebwerk Nummer 3 festgestellt. Der Flug musste abgebrochen werden, eine Sicherheitslandung war nötig. Anschließend wurde der Flug mit einem anderen Flugzeug fortgesetzt. Das Video zeigt die vorgehensweise der Piloten in einer Ausnahmesituation, bis zur Landung. --- On the way from Zurich to Shanghai during the flight was an increased oil temperature found in engine 3. The flight had to be canceled, a landing was necessary. Then the flight was continued with a new plane. The video shows the entire approach to the landing, in an exceptional situation. ------------
Category: Travel & Events
Get embed code!
Text Comments (7927)
Georgia Gal (20 hours ago)
10:12..... Confirm you want to stay in MY AREA and dump this TOXIC FUEL? A little guilt trip coming from tower.
Colin Southern (1 hour ago)
No. She's simply asking where he'd like to dump it. It's released as droplets which are then ripped to shreds in the wake turbulence a split second later and evaporate almost instantly. None of it reaches the ground. The vapour is then broken down into hydrogen and plant food (co2) by UV radiation over the next few weeks.
El Tigre (1 day ago)
I thought the standard language when transmitting was English. How did they know to get a camera in there? I suspect it is a simulator.
Colin Southern (23 hours ago)
Negative. Although that is a popular misconception. English must always be AVAILABLE as a language so that there is always a language in common, but crews are free to talk to their local controllers in the local language if they wish. Moot point though because they did communicate with ATC in English in this video; the SwissGerman conversation that you heard was between Captain Frick and their ops base in Zurich. They didn't "know to get the camera in there" - the flight was being recorded by PilotsEye TV anyway; you can visit their homepage here: https://pilotseye.tv/en/ or view more details about this flight here: https://pilotseye.tv/en/route/a340-pvg-shanghai-engine-overheat-thomas-frick/ or view some of their other offerings here: https://pilotseye.tv/en/flightroutes/ This was a "lucky coincidence" ("right place, right time") for them and a not-so-lucky co-incidence for the crew and passengers. No - not a simulator. It was a real flight from Zurich to Shanghai. It was caused by a failed fuel/oil heat exchanger for the #3 engine. You'll never see sunlight in a sim ... or chocolates for that matter. What you WOULD see though is the sim supervisor console in the aft-facing shots instead of the cockpit door. Hope this helps.
Jeffrey Sasquatch (1 day ago)
Sounds like they need to wipe their mouths (all the flem) after talking
karl lindsey (1 day ago)
Engine 3 is out they have 3 other engines to continue on to land safely be advised.
Colin Southern (23 hours ago)
Yep. At takeoff weight they can stay aloft on only 2 engines and at max landing weight they could stay aloft on only 1 engine - so big safety margin.
rk h (3 days ago)
i am serious. and dont call me shirley
opl500 (4 days ago)
Timothy Brown (4 days ago)
12:37 . "Coffee, please ... provided there's enough power for the machine", in reference to the checklist which required him to cut power to the galley to reduce engine oil temp.
Timothy Brown (4 days ago)
10:42 : "jetzt muss ich zu der Passagiere" - 'Now I have to tell the passengers'. Picks up the phone, and reflects... 10:53 : "how am I going to put this? Hmmm, let's keep it simple".
Simon Gunson (4 days ago)
Satans Lair (16 hours ago)
so very, very inaccurate. she's a wonderful FO, but just...no.
Colin Southern (3 days ago)
mistofoles (8 days ago)
Translation : Pilot - "We have engine failure, what the fuck do we do??" ATC - "How many parachutes do you have onboard?"
Transfusions (9 days ago)
4:27 it looks like there is a discrepancy between captain's and copilot's attitude indicator.
noworries (10 days ago)
one of the ugliest languages in the world...swiss german...it should be forbidden to abuse the word "german"
nallan chakravarthy (10 days ago)
They did not panic, I panicked by that....
herobo123456 (11 days ago)
Lots of help from the ground they lucky
Colin Southern (10 days ago)
Not really - the just came to the same conclusion as the captain anyway (run the checklists - secure the engine - and return).
SamirLille (12 days ago)
SamirLille (10 days ago)
@Colin Southern yes you are right
Colin Southern (10 days ago)
No. Not "simulator". You'll never see sunlight in a sim - or chocolates for that matter. What you would see however is the sim supervisor console instead of the cockpit door in all the aft-facing shots ... which we don't. It was a real flight from Zurich to Shanghai that was being filmed by PilotsEye TV anyway - the failure was just a lucky coincidence for them and a not so lucky one for passengers and crew. It was caused by a failed #3 engine fuel/oil heat exchanger.
Brae Jordan G-CDJK (12 days ago)
Turn on captions 😂
Phil Heath's Gutt (12 days ago)
That's one cool captain
Captain Skippa (13 days ago)
Not Found (15 days ago)
is bad situation. 3 is not ok to be at the destination, too big.
Jay-pro Gaming Awesome (16 days ago)
At the start of the video when they spoke, I kinda laughed because there accent
Colin Southern (16 days ago)
They kinda laughed back because even though English isn't their first language, they still know the difference between "there" and "their".
BDPhotog67 (18 days ago)
"Clean semen" translated while the female FO was speaking..Also-There's no better feeling than dumping over $50,000 worth of fuel into the atmosphere..! I guess it's OK to dump refined avgas into the air, but NOT ok to dump it's parent OIL into the ocean...Perhaps the birds can take advantage? Also, I'm thinking I'm going to go out and buy myself an exact replica of that plastic snack box the relief pilot was holding..."Gimme a break! Gimme a break! Break me off a piece of that Kit-Kat Bar! as we go down in flames!
Colin Southern (18 days ago)
It was about USD $23,000 at the time - it's a lot cheaper than the damage that can result from an over-weight landing. It's not "avgas" - it's avtur (Aviation Turbine); basically high-grade kerosene. It's released as droplets which are ripped to shreds in the wake turbulence a split second later and when dumped at altitude like this evaporate almost instantly. The resulting vapor is then broken down by UV radiation over the next few weeks into hydrogen and plant food (carbon dioxide). Nobody likes dumping any fuel in the ocean or in the atmosphere; unfortunately "sh*t happens" from time to time.
fellpower (19 days ago)
If the Cockpit is soooo dirty, i dont want to know, how dirty is the engine inside....
Colin Southern (19 days ago)
The cockpit is so clean it's sterile until passing 10,000ft ...
PlayerV DevV (20 days ago)
Was that real emergency or simulator?
Colin Southern (19 days ago)
PlayerV DevV No problem.
PlayerV DevV (19 days ago)
@Colin Southern Thank you!
Colin Southern (19 days ago)
Real. You'll never see sunlight in a sim. Or chocolates for that matter. What you would have seen had it have been in a sim though is the sim supervisor console instead of the cockpit door on all the aft-facing footage. The fault was caused by a failed #3 engine fuel/oil heat exchanger.
aAaa aAaa (20 days ago)
That is a STRONGLY enunciated language. I mean, I speak Yiddish, but that's stronger still.
Sledgehammer (20 days ago)
They declare pan_pan..
Yunus Emre Mert (21 days ago)
When you have 4 engines so dont give a shit about engine failure and eat chocolates
Katie Giles (21 days ago)
Help them!!!!
اللعنة الحارقة (23 days ago)
Airbus bait mistakes and showcase them at e cams any encroachment to the safety it immediately dispatch glitches on e cam , but this goes in backlog or over stranded lines without terminus ending point , I love airbus to the bone and on the near term future it will hit out Boeing , I dont want others feel frantic of this
اللعنة الحارقة (23 days ago)
@Colin Southern truly indeed sir , my mother tongue isn't English
Colin Southern (23 days ago)
I'm guess that English isn't your primary language.
Joao Scarabotto Scarabotto (23 days ago)
pleas whats is location airport emercy landing
Colin Southern (23 days ago)
They departed from - and returned to - Zurich, Switzerland
WHUFC71 (23 days ago)
I wish there were subtitles! And somewhere down below someone is thinking that the teradactyl is once again shitting out airplane fuel!!
Colin Southern (23 days ago)
There used to be, but they were added as annotations - and then Google turned off all annotations - so they've been lost from that point. The jettisoned fuel doesn't reach the ground when discharged at altitude like this; it's released as droplets when then get ripped to shreds in the wake turbulence a split second later and evaporate almost instantly.
Paolo Ernesto V. Reyes (25 days ago)
Is it standard to turn into the direction of one dead engine? Also should the atc give pilot discretion on which way to turn knowing that an engine is dead? Looked like the pilots just followed atc automatically. Dont know if it works the same for a four engine plane.
Colin Southern (25 days ago)
It's far more of a problem on smaller twins where the pilot has little information on aerodynamic performance than it is with large passenger jets that remain on autopilot throughout the event. It's also something that affects prop aircraft far more than jets. For a prop aircraft the issue are (in order of significance) (1) loss of accelerated air from the prop-wash generating lift as it passes over the wing (big) (2) Shielding of part of the wing from the airflow due to crabbing due to rudder compensation for asymmetric thrust (small) and (3) slightly lower airspeed over one wing as the aircraft turns. In the case of this aircraft (1) doesn't apply (thrust isn't vectored over the wings anyway) (2) is negligible and (3) is even more negligible. So to answer your first question: "best avoided at low speeds in light twins, but not of the slightest concern in an aircraft like an A340". To answer your 2nd question: "If you declare an emergency then you get to tell ATC what you're going to do and they have to part the seas to make it happen." In this video ATC didn't give them any routing information; they offered it, but the captain said "not necessary - we have FMS". (Flight Management System) Here's a link to a video showing why it's a bad idea in a light twin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqmomTUVsAw Hope this helps.
Maukel De la torre (26 days ago)
Ese avión es de 4 turbinas no se cual escándalo del piloto fácilmente esa aeronave puede volar con 3 turbinas
deepak rotti (27 days ago)
Kindly add English subtitles for the video, will be helpful for wider audience
Colin Southern (27 days ago)
They used to be there, but they were added as annotations ... and then Google switched off annotations. So chances are they're gone for good now.
ventende (28 days ago)
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Unfortunately I don't have very good news." That's an unnecessary dramatic approach that will get the passengers more scared than they need to be. Better to just inform of the undramatic return due to safety protocol. The captain also says they start to work the problem. That's not an optimal communication strategy either. It really doesn't have to be a larger problem than a standard return. It's inconvenient, but the captain escalates the incident and communicates to the passengers in a very dramatic manner that it's "not good news" and refers to the issue as a problem.
Colin Southern (28 days ago)
@ventende The usual term in aviation is "technical fault" (whilst in the air) and "engineering requirements" (when delaying/cancelling a flight on the ground). Both are examples of "corporate speak" (ie "SOB") - and I can tell you from experience that neither wins any brownie points with passengers. If you're delaying a flight due to a blown bulb in the cockpit then tell passengers that you're delaying the flight due to a blown bulb in the cockpit. If you have to turn an aircraft around because you needed to shut an engine down due to an oil temperature problem then you're not going to start a stampede by telling people that you needed to shut an engine down due to an oil temperature problem. I'm really not understanding what you're finding "provocative" or "dramatic" about what Captain Frick said; he didn't have very good news to deliver about the flight to Shanghai (that they were about 5% into at that stage by the way) - and I literally can't think of a better way to introduce bad news than by saying "I'm afraid that I don't have very good news"; it's going to make people sit up and listen (for a change) and it "keeps them hanging" for all of about 3 seconds before revealing that the issue is due to the #3 engine needing to be shut down to protect it following too high oil temperature. If you want to hear dramatic, then watch any episode of Airplane Repo; my favourite was "needing to fix the fuel leak from the underwing drain port that was dripping a drop of avgas about once every 10 seconds because if it ignited in the hot exhaust it could bring the plane down in a fiery apocalypse" (or words to that effect). THAT is being dramatic (in addition to being highly misleading).
ventende (28 days ago)
@Colin Southern When I wrote "safety protocols" I did not mean the word literary but something that was according to normal procedures or less provocative. I still perceive his approach a bit too dramatic, as I write much due to the order of the sentences.
Colin Southern (28 days ago)
ventende Again, I disagree. If he had started the announcement per your original comment (returning due to "safety protocols" etc) then the very first thing that would have gone through the minds of many would have been "OMG - what's wrong with the plane? How much danger are we in? What aren't they telling us? Are we all going to die?". That's what we "affectionately" call "SOB" - Standard Operational Bullshit; that's what leaves them all guessing as to what's wrong and how serious it is ... all the way back to the airport. Doing it the way he did he was honest with them - told them what the problem was. He treated them like the mature adults that they are. Again, there's nothing even slightly "dramatic" about starting with "I'm afraid that I don't have very good news regarding out flight to Shanghai"; asking passengers to pray - per a not too distant incident - was being dramatic. Telling it like it is is just being honest; I prefer honesty over SOB any day.
ventende (28 days ago)
@Colin Southern By starting his announcement by saying "unfortunately I don't have very good news" he creates anxiety and uncertainty. He could have just communicated the current situation instead of adding emotional drama leaving his passengers in limbo. If he had ended the announcement by saying "I know this is unfortunate news" instead of opening with that line he would have managed to minimize uncertainty instead of creating it. It's less of a cliffhanger so to speak.
Colin Southern (28 days ago)
ventende I disagree - there was no "drama" in his announcement; it was honest & up-front - authoritative - and believable. The worst kinds of announcements are the ones where they draw everyone's attention to the safety aspect by over-emphasising things like "don't panic - everything is under control". Here he sidestepped that beautifully by implying that safety was a given and their biggest issue is that their arrival in Shanghai was going to be delayed for a couple of hours whilst they moved everything over to a different aircraft. I give him top marks for the announcement.
Marcus Morrison (29 days ago)
Not like Swiss Air to have technical issues.
Colin Southern (28 days ago)
Especially considering that the aircraft had exactly the same thing happen on a test flight the day before. It was caused by a failed #3 engine fuel/oil heat exchanger by the way.
Jeffrey Twoey (1 month ago)
Clear your throats. Wtf
SnoDawg (1 month ago)
To hell with the environment. Let’s dump 53 tons of fuel all over the alps.
Colin Southern (1 month ago)
It's released as droplets that get ripped to shreds in the wake turbulence a split second later and when released at altitude like this evaporate almost instantly. From there, the vapor is broken down by UV radiation over the next few weeks into mostly hydrogen and plant food. None of it reaches the ground.
Tina Selka (1 month ago)
Wer hast's erfunden ? ...ja die Schweizer😃🍫🍬
WeedWhacker2010 (1 month ago)
The IDG if connected to a failed engine can overload the entire electrical system An IDG, once disconnected in flight, CANNOT be re-connected. Only on the ground.
WeedWhacker2010 (1 month ago)
IDG Disconnect.... That is the generator that supplies A/C to the electrical system. When an engine is shut-down for any reason we disconnect the IDG. Generators provide A/C current. Some systems require DC current...this is why T/Rs (Transformer Rectifiers) are part of every airliner's electrical system.
WeedWhacker2010 (1 month ago)
At about 4:00 minutes in? That is the relief Flight Deck Officer....required on flights scheduled for more than 8 hours...(USA Regulations, also ICAO).
WeedWhacker2010 (1 month ago)
NOT even speaking the language....as a retired airline I know what's going on.....
Colin Southern (1 month ago)
We've never had a retired airline positing in the comments before (although we have had a few retired airline pilots).
ventende (1 month ago)
If airplanes were made by Microsoft they would have to re-boot engines for forced updates. Mid flight or not.
mundl kalli (1 month ago)
chhhhchchchc hhhcccchhhh rchhhhhhhchhh crachhhhchchhcc chriiiiiichhchraaacaha
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
academy.jccbi.gov.catalogue (1 month ago)
Vinay Pal (1 month ago)
True professionals
Vinay Pal (1 month ago)
God - aeronautical engineers
希望匿名 (1 month ago)
戦闘はじめ (1 month ago)
パイロットはほんとうに リラツクス ですね
Mirco g (1 month ago)
What a stupid language...
Davi Lima (1 month ago)
A Betina da empiricus esta nos anuncios pedindo desculpas.. passa amanha tô sem trocado
Moldof Valgard (1 month ago)
i komplitli underschtän dem... beid chnöpf drucke!
Jazzy Groove (1 month ago)
LOL the subs are hilarious
Rahul Shahakar (1 month ago)
He is clearly snoring while awake. Khrrrrrakkkk. Is this the reason for engine failure.
Se7en (1 month ago)
It's good that they changed the manual book into the Ipad mode. Saves the pilot a lot of time. Just type in the problem and the solution is there.
Matt fo (1 month ago)
The subtitles make Google translate into English from Thai look perfect!
Andreas Paul (1 month ago)
Unglaublich. Wie schlecht und unfähig. Kennen sich mit dem Flieger überhaupt nicht aus, nicht mal mit den gängigen Notverfahren. Hoffentlich bekommen die nie ein richtiges Problem, bei dem man schnell reagieren müsste.
Colin Southern (1 month ago)
Ich befürchte, dass Ihr Kommentar nur dazu dient, Ihr mangelndes Wissen über das Umfeld der kommerziellen Luftfahrt zu dokumentieren. Ein EICAS-Hinweis für hohe Öltemperaturen ist KEINE Warnung zu Speicherprüflisten. Standard-Betriebsverfahren erlauben es ihnen daher nicht, das Problem aus dem Speicher zu beheben, wenn das Risiko, das Falsche (oder sogar das Richtige zur falschen Zeit) zu tun, die Situation nur verschlimmern könnte. Im Ernst - wenn Sie Hunderte von Checklisten zur Fehlerbehebung haben, warum sollten Sie sie dann "beflügeln"? Als kommerzieller Pilot kann ich Ihnen sagen, dass Sie hier ein einwandfreies reales CRM beobachtet haben.
47 (1 month ago)
Andy Vv (1 month ago)
A fucking moron will always be a fucking moron
Skandi9 (1 month ago)
My kimono say cumparsita help select bar belly shirt value the poverty is a human custom. The auto translation is like every bad rap song
Martin S (1 month ago)
I recommend to watch it with auto-generated English subtitles. Hilarity ensues.
Petr OK1RP (1 month ago)
no english?
Capitanmatt (1 month ago)
53 TONS of fuel dumped in the sky....
Colin Southern (1 month ago)
No. 53 Tonnes. When dumped at high altitude like this it evaporates almost instantly - and the vapour gets broken down by UV radiation over the next few weeks.
Stephan Maurer (1 month ago)
Schoki hilft immer👍
Sakura Nippon (1 month ago)
転載支援 http://goo.gl/f28lV  拡散中!!よろしく・・・(^0^)
Segundo (1 month ago)
no entiendo ni vrg xd
Larry Courtney (1 month ago)
I think he said it's an open bar drink all you want
prankmonkey650 (1 month ago)
English subtitles?
Colin Southern (1 month ago)
Used to be there, but were done as annotations ... and Google turned all annotations off. So unfortunately it looks like they're gone forever.
Gern Blanston (2 months ago)
Blonde girl saved the day she is my hero.
TheMotodiaries (2 months ago)
pussy dumped fuel
Michele Bogdan Craciun (2 months ago)
Intercontinental flight. 1 engine failure. Captain at 10:50 'oh please give me a break another boring flight let's take some meal before I land this beast, ok?'
Инна Рудая (2 months ago)
You pilites Super!
MISC Things (2 months ago)
Turn on the English captions it’s funny 🤣
UXXELDUXXEL (2 months ago)
To those comments saying that germans cant understand him or her at the start. This 100% depends on where you grew up in germany. I am from the south west and out local dialect is somewhat similar just a lot less harsh in some sounds. I had absolutely 0 issues understanding anything he said compared to east frisian where it is more dificult to understand for me but someone from northern germany would have the opposite problem. To midigate that theres standart german which he spoke with minor accent at the end. The swiss speak their dialect when amongst themselves and so do I but when I am talking to someone from a different area i just switch to standart german
Bjørn Otto Vasbotten (2 months ago)
Did the subtext disappear from this vid?
Colin Southern (1 month ago)
@Sam Grant There was another copy uploaded with very similar subtitles ... but I think it got taken down due to copyright. Just keep in mind that these are just "snippets" of DVDs available from PilotsEye TV https://pilotseye.tv/en/ - if you were keen then you could purchase the relevant DVD https://pilotseye.tv/en/route/a340-pvg-shanghai-engine-overheat-thomas-frick/ which according to their FAQ https://pilotseye.tv/en/faq/ has the subtitles. Hope this helps.
Sam Grant (1 month ago)
@Colin Southern Thanks for clearing that up. This is one of my all-time favourite flying vids. I'll just have to watch it without the subs.
Bjørn Otto Vasbotten (2 months ago)
@Colin Southern thanks, i didnt realise. Huge shame!
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
Subtitles were added at some point, but they were done as annotations. Google decided to switch off all annotations - so they were forever lost at that point.
joe hatu (2 months ago)
Relaxed and cool pilot 👩‍✈️
Ron Clarke (2 months ago)
Mmmmm.....its all in German
Bill Atchison's Holiday Videos (2 months ago)
I thought the language for Radio Transmission was English no matter where you are in the world.
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
No - but that is a common misconception. English must be available as a "language in common" if required so for example a French student pilot in France can speak to his local controller in French etc. Some have argued that this can reduce the situational awareness for other pilots on the same frequency - and there may even be some validity to that - but none-the-less that's the law as it's currently written. The extended conversation that you heard here was between the captain and his operations base in Zurich on the Swiss Air company frequency - and again, they're free to speak any language they like. Crews always speak in their native tongues in the cockpit - it reduces the chance of a misunderstanding - especially during an emergency. Comms with ATC were in English anyway. Hope this helps.
D C (2 months ago)
"Thank you starting dump" LOL
Mr Paul Grimm (2 months ago)
Watzfuc. She’s Hot! Her joystick overheated
Mike (2 months ago)
make the title in german!!!!!!!!!!
Striker Fox (2 months ago)
I belive khhhhaa is their favorite sound
Jaim Diojtar (2 months ago)
there is no subtitles even turning on annotations
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
@Jaim Diojtar The irony is that there was a version of the this video with proper sub-titles ... but it was taken down after a copyright claim. Possibly only the original video available from PilotsEye TV's website has them now.
Jaim Diojtar (2 months ago)
@Colin Southern awww shame on you google >,_<
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
Google disabled annotations a few months ago unfortunately.
jesoby (2 months ago)
Check the passenger manifest, see if we have an engineer on board .
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
No need.
The77trip (2 months ago)
These videos are always fascinating to watch. One thing I noted about this video was the fact that this is apparently one of those aircraft without the yokes for pilots; at least I can’t see any. That concept has always seemed so totally counterintuitive to me. Some years ago after a plane or two crashed, many pilots demanded that yokes, basically steering wheels, were to be returned to all flight decks. At that time, I believe this was done. Pilots and flight crew felt very compromised in their human ability to control the aircraft, especially in the event of an emergency. It seems that flight decks lacking yokes have made a comeback, which seems very odd to me.
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
Airbus use sidesticks and Boeing use yokes. Some Boeing fans (none who appear to have any experience or qualifications with regards to aircraft design or ergonomics) like to "sound off" about this, but thankfully aircraft designs revolve around things a little more scientific than "what unqualified Boeing fans think". The usual argument is "what happened on Air France 447" where the First Officer (Pilot Monitoring) and 2nd First Officer (Pilot Flying) displayed extremely poor airmanship when the autopilot of their A330 disconnected and handed control back to them due to having insufficient redundancy to continue in Normal Flight Control Law due to pitot icing. Rather than simply run the unreliable airspeed checklist (which basically says "set X% N1 power, Y deg pitch, and have a nice flight) they tried to react to erroneous warning messages. Pilot flying pulled back on the sidestick - held it there - and stalled a perfectly good aircraft all the way into the sea (abridged version). It's argued that because the sidesticks don't work in unison the pilot monitoring (and then the captain) didn't know that the 2nd first officer was still holding it back. That argument may (or may not) have some merit; Airbus sidestick position can be brought up on both PFDs (primary flight displays) but this crew at this time had basically thrown the book out the window and were in essence making it up as they went along - with disastrous consequences. I don't want to dump it all on them; it was pitch black outside - in a storm - and it was a very scary and confusing cockpit; a lot of what was needed may well have been down to the shortcomings of the training they received but the bottom line is that the aircraft gave them all the tools they needed to carry on the flight without incident - but they didn't use those tools. There's only so much aircraft manufacturers can do cater for crew stuff-ups. Speaking of crew stuff-ups, Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies; Boeing's philosophy is basically "if the pilot is going to do something that would take the aircraft out of it's normal safe flight envelope then let them because pilot knows best" - whereas Airbus's philosophy is basically "if the aircraft looks like it's going to go out of it's design envelope then DON'T let it because at that point it's obvious that the pilots have already dropped the ball". Which philosophy has proven safer? ... last time I looked the stats per passenger mile flown were almost identical (tiny advantage to Airbus). Since then they've probably swung more in Airbus's favour after the 2 737 MAX accidents. The stats also included pilot suicides (which I don't agree with but regardless they were included anyway). So you need to take more things into consideration than just "yoke vs sidestick"; I've heard many pilots say that their ideal aircraft would have an Airbus cockpit welded to a Boeing airframe; Airbus ergonomics are significantly superior to Boeing (cockpits like the Boeing 737 is a "dogs breakfast" mess whereas Airbus's is much cleaner and logical). If you're a 737 pilot doing short hops then you'll probably eat most of your meals using the tech log across your thighs as a makeshift table - in an Airbus (because there is no yoke in the way) they can pull out a table. On aircraft like the A380 again because there is no yoke they can pull out a full size keyboard making data entry far more efficient. Having better ergonomics - of which the sidestick is a part - leads to more efficiency - less fatigue - and fewer mistakes. That can translate directly into safety (consider the B777 accidents into SFO and Dubai) neither could have happened on an Airbus because of the automation and who knows maybe even without the automation the more ergonomic design of the Airbus may have prevented an accident like that anyway. People need to remember that Airbus don't design their aircraft on the back of a napkin by a couple of hung-over engineers - they're developed in conjunction with the pilots who have to fly them. Additionally, if they were in any way unsafe then they would never have received regulatory approval to fly. So in short, 2 things to take away from this (1) Airbus aircraft are just fine (as are Boeing for the most part) (MAX MCAS F-Up not-with-standing) and (2) Don't believe everything you hear - especially when it comes from people who are wonderfully patriotic but none-the-less completely unqualified to take about what they're taking about. "love" ex-pilot and ex-senior avionics engineer who loves Boeing AND Airbus.
A Plicqu (2 months ago)
It would benefit if there was a navigator or relief pilot... third person in the cockpit to aid the pilots in emergencies with such complicated planes.
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
@A Plicqu He's not "completely useless"; Hans-Conrad Stamm is a very experienced senior first officer; the reality is that there is nothing for him to do (other than hold a tray of sweets). The A340 CRM is designed for 2 pilots - not 3. Re-writing things on-the-fly is where mistakes happen. He was only there so that Captain Frick could brief him on what was happening.
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
No. The aircraft is designed to be flown by 2 people; as you can see here neither pilot raised a sweat - the emergency was handled efficiently and safely. The 3rd pilot (who would have been the relief pilot) was Hans-Conrad Stamm - and as you can see he didn't need to contribute anything other than holding a tray of sweets.
A Plicqu (2 months ago)
Sorry the third person here is completely useless.
Etypeman (2 months ago)
Them taking so long to figure this out, I wonder if they would be able to figure out more severe instances, like a rudder stuck or all engines shut down...these planes are far too complicated and these pilots don' seem trained on these instances that can occur, so they have to call the manufacturer? Flying a plane such as this is not like assembling a table you bought in a box. These guys need more training on this plane.
Dr. Andrea Blackmore (2 months ago)
@Etypeman Far out you talk some shit etypeman
Etypeman (2 months ago)
@Colin Southern You are now being ignorant...and still writing a book completely irrelevant to my underlying argument...are you really a pilot? or ex pilot? You have not paid attention to this specific line I put to you "a dangerous road should be identified BEFORE a fatal crash occur on that road, not AFTER the crash occurred, and that means paying more attention to detail, THAT is a fundamental fact. Making excuses should not be anymore in our day and age of technological advances. SHORTCUTS most always mean a dead end road"....NOW WHY do I have to supply you with "links" and go search when that has NO relevance to the line I just put to you?...In other words you are inclined to WAIT before something happens before taking action am I RIGHT?, you would like to see a disaster before you would want to do something more...Obviously you are either not capable of reasoning or simply ignorant to the underlying fundamental issue I put to you. If that means MORE TRAINING to the workings of a specific aircraft then so be it...You can never do enough to assure SAFETY and competence...You can not POSSIBLY in reasoning disagree with my statement, yet you do. Why? Some people simply argue because they want to get the last word, you seem to be one of those now. Providing you with links is absurd in the face of my fundamental argument. I shall also put it to you that MANY have put their faith into "those guys" and paid with their lives... Thank You.
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
@Etypeman In my previous reply I asked you to "Please provide me with some links to a few recent incidents (say in the past decade) that fit this criteria (ie because pilots left it too long + didn't know what to do + had to call the manufacturer)." Let the record reflect that you appear unable to provide any. Why is that? ... it's because there aren't any. As I said before, you're saying things that either aren't true or you don't understand the context of them; you gave a classic example when you referenced QF72 (an incident that I am intimately familiar with): You said: "His fighter pilot skill told him immediately to not fight the computer and simply let go of the yoke, so when he did the plane straightened out." You're clearly referencing QF72 even though it was an Airbus A330 with sidesticks and not a yoke (even though a B777 (that has a yoke) had an almost identical incident). Let's take a look at the relevant portion of the official incident report from the ATSB said: (and here's a link to it so you can verify this for yourself): https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3532398/ao2008070.pdf On page 3 you'll find the portion "The FDR showed that the captain immediately applied back pressure on his sidestick to arrest the pitch-down movement". So there ya go. Busted. Yes - I've seen the incredibly misleading puff-pieces that you're referring to; the earlier one was to publicise a Sydney Morning Herald segment (also on video), and the more recent one is to publicise the captain's book. Here's the real (abridged, I wouldn't want to be accused of writing another book) version: holes in 7 safety layers lined up to produce what was a very real and nasty incident; as with all aviation incidents lessons were learned & changes made (in 3 areas: BITE improvements, AoA algorithm redesign, and procedural changes) to ensure that it couldn't happen again. The two uncommanded pitch-downs resulted in sidestick control being inhibited for only 1.9 and 2.6 seconds respectively (this was while a decay value to stop the tail section being ripped off played out) before full control was handed back to the pilots when the automation cycled the FCS master role from PRIM 1 to PRIM 2 to PRIM 3 and then back to PRIM 1 which accepted the role on the proviso of downgrading the active flight law from "normal" to "alternate 1" as per their programming. This downgrades flight envelope protections from "active" to "advisory only" and thus prevented the spiking ADIRU 1's intermittent data from being accepted via the AoA algorithm's 1.2 second memory interval and causing another pitch-down. The crew did NOTHING to enhance the recovery of the aircraft; zero - zip - nada. All they needed to do was reach up to the overhead panel and switch off any 2 of the 3 ADIRUs which then leaved the FCS with insufficient redundancy to continue in Normal Flight Control Law switching it within milliseconds to one of the 2 Alternate Flight Control Laws (and then direct law once the gear is lowered for landing), but they didn't know that because it wasn't published as a procedure at the time ... but is is now (it is now a required memory checklist item for EVERY pilot who flies ANY Airbus aircraft). The ATSB implied that the QF72 was never in any danger of crashing and for the record additional protections are brought into play whenever the radar altimeters report that the aircraft is within 500ft of the ground. I'm going to leave it at that; no-doubt you'll want to argue back again, so I've come to accept that I'm wasting my time trying to teach you anything, but I'll let our exchange stand in it's entirely so that anyone else who's interested can read through it all and come to their own conclusion. What it basically comes down to is you as a PPL who flies light twins think you knows better than the collective airline industry despite having zero experience in that industry. And that's just patently absurd. My suggestion is "you go tell them how they should be doing it". Good luck with that. Charlie Juliet Sierra is clear of the zone ...
Etypeman (2 months ago)
@Colin Southern Colin you are writing a book in a feeble attempt to erase the FUNDAMENTAL point I made in the beginning...THIS line is the only line I found useful in your book you wrote here..."They're pilots - not engineers. Ops has ready access to engineers (and every other aspect of the airline) to assist if needed; I'm not sure why you would find that unusua"........ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In other words YOU are suggesting that "learning on the job" is sufficient? You are deviating from what SHOULD be a fundamental thing seeing you are 1000's of feet up in the air...this is not some bus you are working on sitting on the ground, so NO, I disagree that pilots are not to be trained in the engineering aspect of the planes they are flying carrying hundreds of passengers at a time that can loose their lives. You seem to suggest that an air disaster is OK now and again, by not agreeing with something FUNDAMENTAL. See, I do not simply accept that nothing more can be done to make flying safer. Computers are fantastic, we all know that and detrimental in assisting us to fly, and I know comparing a beech jet double prop to any heavy is apples and oranges , BUT the fundamental aspects need to remain. We can not as pilots simply give ourselves and our passengers to the mercy of "let me call the manufacturer or engineer assistant because I can not immediately identify what may be the cause of warnings. and what I should do". One does NOT have the luxury to do that and SHOULD not have the luxury to do that 1000's of feet up in the sky. Pilots should have that as an absolute necessary last resort. I suggest pilots learn about most or ALL things that can go wrong with an aircraft, so that immediate action can be taken as EVERY minute counts when something goes wrong...thats all I'm saying, and you simply can not disagree with that. If you do then you are simply saying in essence, that nothing more can be done to make pilots more efficient and flying more safe. I can show you for instance a pilot that SAVED his airliner and passengers when he had all engines out simply because he was also a trained glider pilot. Or the pilot that had a computer fighting against him pointing the aircraft's nose down. The pilot was a skilled fighter pilot and said himself if he was not, he would not have known what to do and would have crashed like those before him. His fighter pilot skill told him immediately to not fight the computer and simply let go of the yoke, so when he did the plane straightened out. Others went down that kept fighting the planes computer system. There ARE many more instances such as this. What I am telling you is that especially commercial pilots where lives are at stake and time is of essence should receive MORE intensified training on aircraft behavior and the engineering side of things so they too can ident a problem quickly...They do not have to know HOW the engine works for instance only HOW to ident and act in all possible scenarios. It should have to be the NTSB making recommendations all the time after some crash? You know now I am writing a book as well but I will leave you with this...a dangerous road should be identified BEFORE a fatal crash occur on that road, not AFTER the crash occurred, and that means paying more attention to detail, THAT is a fundamental fact. Making excuses should not be anymore in our day and age of technological advances. SHORTCUTS most always mean a dead end road.
Colin Southern (2 months ago)
@Etypeman "I appreciate your lesson, however, it is a known fact that pilots have become reliant on computers to the extent that they can not fly without them." It seems to me like you're repeating something without really understanding the context of what you're repeating. You keep talking about "computers"; which computers? - Are you talking about the computers that on aircraft like the A380 monitor over 10,000 sensors? I couldn't calculate how many pilots would need to be onboard for those "not to be monitored by the computers" and still have the same degree of safety. - Are you talking about the computers that log FCS maintenance info on the fly? Again, that would take several pilots to log that amount of info manually. - Are you talking the autopilot taking away hand-flying skills? That's a common one that's brought up, but it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense; not too long ago here in New Zealand we had metroliners flying the skys and ... they didn't have an autopilot. Flying one of those IMC does not make for a "better pilot" - it makes for a bloody fatigued pilot. In departure / cruise / approach phases these nothing particularly difficult keeping the wings level - or doing rate 1 turns - or pitching the nose and trimming; it's not hard (a trained monkey can do it) but it's fatiguing and it takes mental capacity away from higher level functions - and they aren't good things. - Are you talking about autoland systems? That varies by airline, but most specify a certain number of manual landings need to be done manually - and most autoland systems can't be used when the crosswind component is above some modest figure (typically around 15 knots). And of course in the case of Cat 3B landings, if the automation wasn't left to do it then the aircraft wouldn't be landing - so nothing lost there either. So about the only "fact" is that fact that higher degrees of automation free up pilot capacity for higher-level tasks; this has resulted in vastly lower accident rates. Boeing MAX MCAS F-ups aside, how often do you hear of commercial aircraft accidents despite the tens of thousands of flights throughout the world that happen daily? Again, it varies by airline, but here in NZ Jetstar allow pilots to hand fly the A320 if they wish providing certain criteria are met. "I thought you said they never spoke to the manufacturer?" Pilots in flight don't ever "phone the manufacturer". Again, this flight liaised with their operations base. "If they are indeed trained on the planes mechanics, they would not need to do that." They're pilots - not engineers. Ops has ready access to engineers (and every other aspect of the airline) to assist if needed; I'm not sure why you would find that unusual; they're there to provide support, assistance, logistics etc. If they had not been able to contact them then it wouldn't have made a lot of difference because the checklists had it covered. They followed the checklists and ops didn't in anyway contradict that. It was more an opportunity to advise them of what was happening - and receive any information if they had anything to offer. "The truth is that most pilots fly aircraft with only general aviation skills,.They are not schooled on things that could go wrong with a specific aircraft and what to do in those situations as well as weight ratio's for landing/ takeoff runway length on specific aircraft. Thats why they have the manual of the plane and thats why they have to call the manufacturer." No that's not "the truth" - that's just something you've got stuck in your head somehow. You've trained to PPL level; trust me the requirements for CPL is a step up - ATPL a step up again - and that's in addition to the MONTHS pilots spend learning the systems of their aircraft to get their type ratings. Many failure scenarios are simulated - as are crew responses to those simulated failures. Where on earth do you come up with statements like that? "Pilot error is not a myth." Finally we agree on something. "In todays hectic schedules airline companies take shortcuts and one of those shortcuts is inadequate training of their pilots, followed by aircraft maintenance neglect." In some third world countries, but they usually end up getting banned from entering into US and European airspace. No two pilots will ever be equal in terms of capability, but the real question is "are they adequately trained to be safe". By and large the answer to that for US, UK, Australian, NZ, Canadian, and European countries (lets assume post BREXIT ...) is yes. Again, aviation safety has reached an incredibly high standard; much higher than PPL level general aviation - and much higher than commercial aviation had in the past; that is not accidental and is an indication that overall they're doing far more right than they're doing wrong. Does this mean that it can't be improved any more? HELL NO; It's my professional opinion that automation is really good at things humans aren't (the ability to multi-task thousands of things at once - not making mistakes under pressure - not getting bored or sick) but on the flip-side, human pilots are great at thinking outside the box. The BEST results come from the two learning to work together; the draw on each others strengths to eliminate each others weaknesses. "These two pilots in this video seemed mystified, completely relaxed about the situation . Your argument is they knew they could fly on 3 or less engines but again, one problem can quickly become more problems and their relaxed attitudes is what was alarming to me, even in the face of they had to call the manufacturer. Three engines or less is not the way this plane was designed to fly it;s leg, The more engines simply allows for faster speed and more take off weight and in the case of one engine out, the remaining engines assist the plane back to the airport or the nearest airport and by dumping fuel. " No - not "mystified"; again, if you knew the history of the flight (and keeping in mind that I've had the benefit of watching this video hundreds of times when the subtitles were working) (they were added as annotations, and Google recently disabled annotations across the platform) the captain's reaction was more in the context of "this happened yesterday on the test flight and is obviously still an issue - so what are the implications of that". Think "why is this still happening" rather than "what is happening". It isn't my argument that "they knew they could fly on 3 engines" - that's just a fact anyway. The captain did say to the cameraman that "having one engine out is an uncomfortable feeling, but other than that it's not a big deal" though, for what it's worth. In terms of safety, it's a non-issue; they can fly perfectly well on 3 engines (at any weight) and #3 engine can be restarted if need be as well. What we saw here was the epitome of solid aviation; an extremely experienced crew calmly following best practice protocols. Are you suggesting that you would have felt more comfortable with their performance if they had panicked - not followed checklists (to "save time") and immediately turned the aircraft around? "Many aircraft disasters happen because of pilots not taking immediate action and/ or not knowing where a problem is quick enough and/ or not knowing what to do when the problem is established, to the point they have to call the aircraft manufacturer to figure it out. Surely you can not argue with that. If it's simply a case of "the plane is OK while we figure the problem out" I don't think we would see such a high number of plane disasters." Do they? Please provide me with some links to a few recent incidents (say in the past decade) that fit this criteria (ie because pilots lets if too long + didn't know what to do + had to call the manufacturer). "I had my own near disaster to speak about and exercised immediate action and I had my port side stall on me with what I thought was a failed fuel pump. I landed with one engine in turbulent conditions and while doing so the remaining engine also stalled on me." Engines don't "stall". I was wrong in my assessment as it turns out I had a sudden fuel leak but what I can tell you is if I did not take immediate action, landing on a dead stick in those turbulent conditions would not have turned out good. So my remaining engine lasted until minimums and simply stopped, but I was as good as landed. It just seems to me that commercial pilots more than often sits cozy and think they have all the time in the world to "figure things out, and call the manufacturer for a chit chat. All the while they could be miss-diagnosing the problem and could soon be gliding or free fall with no vectors in progress for fuel dumping and/ or landing." Again, lets have some links to some of these recent incidents that apparently keep happening. And again, checklists are there for a reason - and dictate the action that needs to be followed for given situation. If you get a simultaneous master caution and engine fire indication on both loops then you're going to follow the checklist - secure the engine - and start heading towards a suitable airport - you're not going to "phone the manufacturer". In contrast - if you get an engine indication ADVISORY (as they did here) a good crew will - again - follow the appropriate checklist. If you're trying to argue that in every situation where you get an advisory you're going to head for the nearest airport then I'm sorry, but any career in commercial aviation that you intended would be a very short one (when the chief pilot wanted to know why you didn't follow the checklist whilst you were "enjoying" "tea without biscuits" as we say.
Bass Fishing with the Antichrist (2 months ago)
Dumped 53 tons of fuel? Someone's lying on their tax returns.
Bass Fishing with the Antichrist (2 months ago)
Bus drivers should be paid pilots salaries and Airbus pilots should be paid bus driver salaries. And Nazi's shouldn't have been pardoned and given cushy jobs, IMHO.
Mark Emanuele (2 months ago)
Boy, the English translation REALLY SUCKS!!!!!!!