Fortunately, there were no fatalities. Though the criticisms of the crew for their decision to abort after V1 are legitimate, and they made some errors in judgment, I can definitely understand why they chose to do that they did... It must be extremely difficult to determine in a split second whether or not the aircraft is actually capable of taking off. If it weren't and they hadn't tried to abort, the results might have been even more catastrophic than they already were.
@timonsolus
Жыл бұрын
There were 2 fatalities. The 2 ducks.
@shdon
Жыл бұрын
@@timonsolus They weren't ducks. The ducks were stunt doubles for the video. The actual birds were kestrels.
@V8King770
Жыл бұрын
They never mentioned that if they had used the two outboard reversers would they have stopped on the runway? I suspect not.
@shdon
Жыл бұрын
@@V8King770 It was mentioned that not using the thrust reversers was a contributing factor to the accident. It would have helped slow down the aircraft. Whether that would have been enough to keep it from overrunning we likely will never know for certain.
@timonsolus
Жыл бұрын
@@shdon : There’s a good chance that the plane would not have overrun so far if thrust reversers had been used, so it might not have run into the ditch and broken into 3 parts. Then the plane would have been repairable instead of a total write off.
@rxw5520
Жыл бұрын
Hey at least the crew was was alive to be heavily criticized…
@Kill-Dozer
Жыл бұрын
straight up
@kmr9347
Жыл бұрын
Even Sully was hounded after his landing on the Hudson River about if he was really able to land at a closer airport. We live in a Era that seems to need to put the blame somewhere else. 😮
@donnabaardsen5372
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the spoiler. It's a shame when supposed adults never learned to comment without spoiling a movie, video, etc. for others.
@suzannemarienau2760
Жыл бұрын
@donnabaardsen5372 There's a simple fix for that; watch the video first, and read the comments afterwards.
@kmr9347
Жыл бұрын
@@donnabaardsen5372 What, you were hoping for a goryier outcome & needed to wait until the end to see it play out in living computer generated color.??? I'm sure they were just relaying their feelings of the crew & passengers being able to walk away & were not really thinking it was going to be triggering to someone else. 😃
@HolySoliDeoGloria
Жыл бұрын
I flew a Boeing 707 variant with a flight engineer (FE). The procedure during a full-stop landing or an aborted takeoff was to raise the reverse levers to the first detent. At that point, the engineer would tell the pilot which reversers he or she could use: "full reverse" or "inboards only" or "outboards only" or "no reverse." The idea that they didn't try to use any reverse thrust and didn't follow that procedure or something similar, based on the knowledge that one engine was inoperative (but not knowing which one), is bizarre. The FE can tell you which engine is out.
@eabnamoliben1598
9 ай бұрын
Maybe in simulators.
@daleupthegrove6396
Жыл бұрын
In memory of the birds who lost their lives in this accident.
@JohnnyLaps
Жыл бұрын
Eh..the one owed me money
@federicoprice2687
Жыл бұрын
I think the poor things died. At least, in this video, they were ingested 5 or 6 times, which is usually fatal
@ZnamManz
Жыл бұрын
@federicoprice2687 yea they obviously died. Nothing will survive those turbines
@gordonwelcher9598
Жыл бұрын
Some areas must have less bird ingestion problems because the population has ingested most of the birds.
@johannesbols57
Жыл бұрын
I think they were depressed.
@tallmonthegamer3074
Жыл бұрын
I found this channel 2 days ago and been in wormhole ever since. I actually found this channel from playing MSFS 2020...
@RipRoaringGarage
Жыл бұрын
I remember this jet. I worked with these guys and talked to them now and then. Kalitta and Atlas parked next to our jets (they were too big for TA aircraft). Kalitta at that time had some really badly maintained aircraft (or rather, they were junky from the start, so one could say the crew chiefs were pulling miracles to keep them air worthy. Atlas to an extent also back then, but they were clearly superior. By now, theyre both in a place where they order brand new planes. I think thats the case with Kalitta too) The rumors on the flight line were that the jet had issues with sticking TRs, as well as other issues that reduced trust in the aircraft, particularly in its ability to get airborne. But, they lived and kept on flying. Sometimes I think its a miracle how this company got off the ground!
@hishamhamed5033
Жыл бұрын
Pun intended 😂
@RipRoaringGarage
Жыл бұрын
@@hishamhamed5033 You caught that huh hehe
@Caracaraorangeberry
Жыл бұрын
@@RipRoaringGarage so did i! ar ar!
@johannesbols57
Жыл бұрын
Trs=Thrust reversers?
@paulu7751
Жыл бұрын
Pratts are garbage engines anyways. Should’ve replaced ‘em with GEs.
@rosiegroovy
Жыл бұрын
RIP to the birds. I love it when you guys use that epic song at the end!
@michaelsimpson2490
Жыл бұрын
I love the way that the NTSB ( or whoever investigates these crashes) comes in and assesses the blame, spend sometimes years figuring out what happened. These pilots have seconds to make a decision. Could they have made different choices maybe Just what would have happened if they had got airborne and crashed into the heart of the city?
@a24396
Жыл бұрын
It's why procedures exist. The hard part is supposed to be identifying what's going wrong; the "what to do" part should be automatic. In this case, they knew that they were above V1, so they should have taken this particular problem with them into the air... The only time procedures typically allow rejection after V1 is if the aircraft cannot fly. (e.g., loss of multiple engines, take-off configuration warning, runway obstruction, loss of flight controls, etc.) The reasons to reject at "low speed," "over 80 kts," and "after V1" are part of the pre-take-off safety brief, so there really should have been a clear understanding of what to do in this case. That said, a certification requirement for all commercial aircraft is they must be able to fly after losing an engine at the Maximum Take Off Weight during the "most critical phase of flight" (usually at "rotate). This is why the crews are trained on procedures and drilled in simulators - to experience the startle reflex and become used to reacting properly. If crews are putting too much thought into things, they are doing it wrong... "thinking" is what is used during wargaming procedure development; Once a crew is operating the aircraft in a time-compressed and high workload situation, they should really be following procedures.
@Edax_Royeaux
Жыл бұрын
A Boeing 747 costs like $418.4 million, the NTSB damn well try to find a way to prevent future disasters.
@doriWyo
Жыл бұрын
Those birds shown are not Kestrels of any kind.
@maurice7413
Жыл бұрын
Of course the NTSB did not investigate this accident.@@Edax_Royeaux
@a24396
Жыл бұрын
@@luka3532 On this aircraft the flight engineer and pilot monitoring should be watching the engine instrumentation and communicate to the pilot flying what was happening with the engines if there was a problem. The engine performance is clearly indicated and the gauges should have shown which engine(s) were effected. (N1 readings, EGT changes, even fuel flow, would have highlighted where the problem was. But... Ultimately the issue to resolve at the time was "can we fly?" If "yes" you don't reject after V1. By definition at that point you either fly or you crash/overrun the end of the runway...
@dantheloanmanvegas
Жыл бұрын
I want to know why your thumbnail shows a Burning Plane when in fact the plane did not burn like the thumbnail shows?
@Virtualnoaidi
Жыл бұрын
Clickbait, TFC probably thought a good idea to introduce that and shoot itself in the foot
@paparucoontour
Жыл бұрын
Brussels airport, BELGIUM. We're not all Americans here.😂
@johneyon5257
Жыл бұрын
i don't think TheFlightChannel creator is american either - based on his slight accent when he narrates (assuming the creator is doing the narration) - and on the grammatical errors that show up when he uses text - he might be european
@Diamond007
Жыл бұрын
Glad they all survived. I wish your thumbnail was not false and would provide a true picture of the incident. Its misleading.
@rosemarydudley9954
Жыл бұрын
That's the only reason I watched it.....!
@gustavoc6812
Жыл бұрын
In memory of the 2 birds who lost their lives.
@mainmansentertainment
Жыл бұрын
They were trespassing.
@margeebechyne8642
Жыл бұрын
Saboteurs.
@machintelligence
Жыл бұрын
Great, except that geese are not kestrels (which is a rather small species of hawk.) This may be a simulator limitation.
@trainmanbob
Жыл бұрын
Just had a squadron of geese fly over my house in Nottinghamshire, UK as I was watching the geese enter the engine on the recreation. Very weird!!!!
@brianspencer6397
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, the simulator probably doesn't include every species. And as the birds got close to the intakes, they would've really sped up - those engines are each sucking in between 1.5 - 2 squash courts of air every second..... Instant 500 knot tailwind for the birds as they approached the chicken-chopper!
@Seventh7Art
Жыл бұрын
Had the pilot chosen to use the longer runway, the aircraft would have had enough room to brake and stop before the runway threshold... 660 meters of additional paved runway was enough to make the difference between saving an aircraft and.... sending it for scrap.
@perniciouspete4986
Жыл бұрын
The birds wouldn't have been there, either. I don't know why any pilot would reject a longer runway, all other things being equal.
@EdOeuna
Жыл бұрын
You don’t abort after V1. They could have a 10 mile long runway but the rule still stays.
@a24396
Жыл бұрын
@@perniciouspete4986 The crew probably set up for 19 and programmed the Flight Management Computer, the V speeds, the legs, and the routing on the climb out. So... They were probably reluctant to go back and set everything up again - especially since they had already pushed and were "on the clock" to depart. If everything had gone as planned, they wouldn't have had to reject, and runway 19 had plenty of length for takeoff and rejection. At least, that's my sense of this...
@gusmc01
Жыл бұрын
@@a24396 Agree...no other reason to reject the longer runway. They were used to using 19 and that's what the plane was set up for.
@Seventh7Art
Жыл бұрын
@@EdOeuna Incorrect. Aborting take off beyond V1 is allowed when the aircraft is deemed unable to climb. For example, if you lose all engine(s) or most engines, in case the aircraft has 3 or 4 engines... Moreover, in this instance, the 747 needed the entire runway and all engines working, to take off. With 3 engines running, it would barely take off before the end of the runway
@GDaddyyy
Жыл бұрын
Would much rather take the criticism or even lose my job. Being dead gives you no chances to fix your mistakes. Even a heavily experienced pilot knew that his chances of survival were much higher on the ground even being past V1. Don't blame him at all.
@EdOeuna
Жыл бұрын
That’s not how aviation works though.
@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
8 ай бұрын
The 747 can easily take off with only 3 engines, not a problem at all. My guess is that captain never flew again, not as a captain at least.
@fathergabrielstokes4706
Жыл бұрын
This is the greatest channel on this topic
@ShanecaRene
Жыл бұрын
This channel is really good at reenactments 👍🏾
@1JackTorS
Жыл бұрын
06:11 Holy crap! Did you see the size of those geese? They must have been 12 feet long! You sure they didn't hit a couple of pterodactyls instead?
@rosemarydudley9954
Жыл бұрын
ha ha ha ha ha.
@suekrebs8387
Жыл бұрын
I got a kick out of how many times those poor birds met their demise.
@anthroposmetron4475
Жыл бұрын
I think the Flight Channel was incredibly proud of that animation.
@moniquegrabrijan2898
11 ай бұрын
A new meaning for "overkill"?
@jobaecker9752
Жыл бұрын
Aren't controllers aware of the aircraft and runways? One would think a cargo plane, taking off on a shorter runway, would be met with commands from the control tower to "stop!"
@gort8203
Жыл бұрын
Controllers have no idea of how much runway length any given aircraft requires.
@roderickcampbell2105
Жыл бұрын
The ATC sent the Kestrels after the aircraft to get it to stop. But, yes, it was a little hard to follow this video. It seems like some important information was left out.
@SarahRenz59
Жыл бұрын
I didn't realize that pilots have the option to reject a runway assignment. "Hold short of runway 25R." "Nah, bro, we gonna' use runway 19." I've always assumed you go wherever ATC tells you to go.
@EdOeuna
Жыл бұрын
@@SarahRenz59- pilots can request certain runways, but only for genuine reasons. Runway 19 isn’t particularly short and so take off performance from it is well within the comfort limits of larger aircraft.
@jayachandranpr7673
Жыл бұрын
Very nice video and analysis
@federicoprice2687
Жыл бұрын
Another great video! But I'll turn the volume down on the next one! Beautiful birds, but I think the poor things died. At least, in this video, they were ingested 5 or 6 times, which is usually fatal...
@erikkz
11 ай бұрын
Again loving the video, but somehow I cant get passed the birds flying backwards with 150 knots ;) Keep up the good work!
@jamesjaneczek8256
Жыл бұрын
RiP to the birds lost......
@ciambelgemelle1530
Жыл бұрын
Why did they chose a different runway that was 700 meters shorter than the one initially proposed by the ATC???
@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
8 ай бұрын
Why didn’t they use full length when they knew they needed full length
@bulldog1603
Жыл бұрын
It's amazing how a tiny bird 🐦 can bring down a big bird 🛫
@maurice7413
Жыл бұрын
@@lougottlieb156 I doubt his software had a "Kestrel" available.
@rosemarydudley9954
Жыл бұрын
@@lougottlieb156 ... 2 even!
@gyax
Жыл бұрын
I worked for Kallita out SE Michigan In the late 90's and i will have to say it was the worse company i ever worked for!!!
@gailpeterson3747
Жыл бұрын
Okay, I'm not a pilot, so excuse if this is a silly question. Since I'm sure the instrumentation would have shown which engine was not functioning properly following the bang, why did the flight crew not just shut down the suspect engine, add thrust with the remaining 3 engines and continue the fly out? The 747 is rated to take off, fly, and land with only 3 functioning engines. Thanks.
@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
8 ай бұрын
You are basically correct. The crew would normally get safely airborne first and shut down the engine later.
@flybywire5866
Жыл бұрын
I wonder why the crew decided to use the shorter runway despite the plane is at its heaviest at takeoff. Then aborting the takeoff beyond V1 and not using the reverser wasnt helpful. All odds were thrown onto the same pile.
@maurice7413
Жыл бұрын
One article I read said they tried to use reverse thrust but they failed to deploy. I couldn't find the actual Belgium report.
@EdOeuna
Жыл бұрын
Runway length hasn’t anything to do with it.
@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
8 ай бұрын
@@EdOeunarunway length does improve V1 for an old 747
@EdOeuna
8 ай бұрын
@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 - the thrust and flap setting will change accordingly, so using the longer runway doesn’t gain much. The important bit of this is that they rejected after V1. You could calculate for a 4000m runway and reject after V1 and you will still run off the end of the runway.
@cr7goalz
Жыл бұрын
I love your videos :)
@rgarlinyc
Жыл бұрын
NO reverse thrust. Sheesh! 🤦🏻♂ (Thanks for the retelling TFC. 👍🏻)
@youtube-admin920
Жыл бұрын
In memory of the 2 birds that died 😅
@grantandrew594
Жыл бұрын
No fatalites and NO FIRE....
@VolarEsPasion
Жыл бұрын
A few months after this accident there was another one involving a Kalitta Air B747 at El Dorado airport in Bogota, Colombia. It would be great to have a video recreating this crash.
@Jay-Z33333
Жыл бұрын
What would have happened if the pilots decided to go through with the takeoff, given they have passed V1?
@ioanplesa
Жыл бұрын
In theory they should have rotated the aircraft, initiated the climb, did the ECAM checklist (i think), and proceeded back to the airport. On the other hand, we don't really know if it would have ended well if they proceeded with the take off roll taken into consideration that the aircraft stopped gaining speed upon the bird strike. The most important part is that nobody got killed here. An aircraft can be replaced, but a human life can't.
@gort8203
Жыл бұрын
Provided they made no other errors, they would have safely got airborne and likely returned for an uneventful 3-engine landing.
@EdOeuna
Жыл бұрын
They would have saved a perfectly good aircraft from crashing off the end of the runway. Poorly trained pilots doing bad things and ruining a perfectly good aircraft.
@Kill-Dozer
Жыл бұрын
didn't work out so well for the Concorde
@philiphumphrey1548
Жыл бұрын
@@Kill-Dozer Concorde was forced to rotate and take off prematurely because the asymmetrical thrust was forcing it off the runway. It was a situation which was going to result in a crash no matter what the pilot did.
@brobit69
Жыл бұрын
sad to see the 747 leave it was my one of my favorite boeing plane ever i never got the chance to fly in one i really wish that i could sit in one
@ronaryel6445
Жыл бұрын
It's interesting that even experienced crews can make serious errors in judgment, likely because they don't fully understand their airplane. In February of 1989, United Airlines Captain David Cronin and First Officer Gregory Slader understood the nuances of asymmetrical thrust and signs of damage to flaps, and used only the inner flaps when landing their crippled 747 in Honolulu. Other crews died in similar circumstances despite having thousands of hours in a cockpit. Here in Brussels, we have a crew that did not remember that they could selectively choose thrust reverse on Engines 1 and 4 to help them stop the airplane. They also did not appear to understand that a 747-200 can take off on three engines. Further, it was carrying only 76 tonnes of cargo; its maximum payload is about 110-112 tonnes. Hence, assuming the fuel on board did not take 747-200 to maximum takeoff weight, the crew could have completed the takeoff with confidence, shutting down the #3 engine. Then the flight crew members could decide if they wanted to continue to Dubai or turn it around and land at Brussels. The crew members went through a briefing and checklists, and yet they didn't know the basic information they needed to operate safely. And after calculating that they needed a full runway length, they chose the shorter runway even though the longer one was available. I find this appalling.
@georgepidick9967
Жыл бұрын
Exactly!
@SPTSuperSprinter156
Жыл бұрын
Far from an expert but I wouldn't think it would be standard practice to fly to the destination with a failed engine on takeoff. That's your safety margin gone for the entire flight. Surely in a circumstance like this it is standard procedure to always turn back and land immediately?
@HolySoliDeoGloria
Жыл бұрын
@@SPTSuperSprinter156 Whether to continue with three good engines and one inoperative probably depends on the operator's policy. I don't know of ICAO rules that require landing as soon as practical in that scenario. (I flew four-engine jets also.)
@bartviolator.3477
5 күн бұрын
Brussels is my home airport. Its a big luck the plane just stopped before the railway full of electricity lines and in worst case a passing train. A few days later while this runway was closed and there was strong eastwind. A DHL A300 missed the last taxiway after landing @07R. He had to turn at end of runway itself. 3 planes had to do a go around. 2 years earlier this very Kalitta N704CK had a strange 25L take off and i photographed it very nice.
@Danin4985
Жыл бұрын
At @4:00 the wheels of the push car are moving forward while the push car is going in reverse. 😊
@ChaJ67
Жыл бұрын
I kind of think the whole "it felt like it stopped accelerating" explanation is a load of crap. A fully loaded 747 with an engine out is not going to have tremendous acceleration, but it is going to continue accelerating. It sounds more like someone was having a bad hair day and then panicked. Go a pile of flights with nothing going wrong and all of a sudden you lose an engine on the take-off roll. It can really shake you up, especially if you are already having a bad day to the point where you are not even listening to the advice for what runway to take off from. The simple fact is the 747 is specifically designed to take off with an engine out. All airliners are. If it is really hot out / you are really high up in the mountains, you have to recompute with lower performance. Especially with the software they use, I am sure it had all of the margins they needed computed in. The simple fact is the pilots had a reasonably flyable plane and they panicked and crashed it.
@paulu7751
Жыл бұрын
Yep.
@royjudson4380
Жыл бұрын
Even the most experienced pilots can make the wrong decisions.
@UndercoverMZ
Жыл бұрын
Is it possible to put a mesh or anything to prevent the engine from ingesting hail, birds, foreign object etc? RIP birdies😢
@TrinaMillenheft-us4pb
Жыл бұрын
Thank goodness no fatalities
@abs0lutelyn0t
Жыл бұрын
two birds died. just sayin' :D
@TrinaMillenheft-us4pb
Жыл бұрын
Oh yeah your right lol
@TrinaMillenheft-us4pb
Жыл бұрын
R.I.P.🦆🦆
@pstrzel
Жыл бұрын
Oh my, what giant geese you have.
@StalinTheMan0fSteel
Жыл бұрын
At least they got out of it with their lives.
@boozypixels
Жыл бұрын
Damn those birds were THICC
@Cyberleader135
Жыл бұрын
The animation of the geese going into the engine was funny for some reason
@perniciouspete4986
Жыл бұрын
As if they were aiming for the motor.
@TheGospelQuartetParadise
Жыл бұрын
Two birds and a 747 were sacrificed in producing the events needed to create this video.
@lifeofamarylander1289
Жыл бұрын
@TheFlightChannel are you planning to make a video on Japan Air Lines Flight 123? Or have you already made one and I just didn't find it?
@watchhans
Жыл бұрын
They were lucky that the fuel tanks were not ruptured and that leaking fuel was not ignited by the engines.
@VictheSecret
Жыл бұрын
?? Why would the tanks be ruptured by a compressor stall?
@Forest_Fifer
Жыл бұрын
@@VictheSecretmore likely by the whole "dropping off an embankment and breaking into 3 pieces" part.
@VictheSecret
Жыл бұрын
@@Forest_Fifer Ah yes, indeed. 👍
@Pooch747
8 ай бұрын
I actually flew this aircraft particular aircraft for this company numerous times. It was a good jet that was destroyed by a series of errors by the crew. I'm not demonizing the crew, and I wasn't on board, but I did have some insight as to how things transpired. It was an unfortunate situation, but I'm grateful that no one was injured or killed.
@Giucemer
Жыл бұрын
Dear Flight Channel, I am a big fan of your videos. However, this time, as I live in Brussels and saw that accident (I have a photo of myself in front of the damaged 747) I would like to highlight some details. First, you should say Brussels, Belgium, not Brussels, Europe. If it was in Paris you would certainly have written Paris, France, right? Second, your arrow points to the wrong end of RW 25R. A7 is not where the arrow was. Third, the typical runway usage in EBBR is 25L for landings (only) and 25R for takeoffs (and landings, in particular of cargo flights as well as Schengen flights, given the shorter taxi distance to respective terminals). A second (less common but not rare) setting is with takeoffs from 07R and landings on 01. Takeoffs from RW 19 are extremely rare. In 30+ years as a relatively frequent flyer, I may have taken off from RW19 maybe 4 times. So, the Kalitta crew - for their own reasons - decided not to take off from the USUAL, 25R. Many thanks again for all the dozens and dozens of videos I've been watching with great interest.
@gordonslippy1073
Жыл бұрын
The cover image shows this wreckage in flames, but the aftermath photo shows no sign of fire. Was there a fire or not? If yes, it wasn't mentioned. If no, the cover image is deceptive. Love this channel!
@Cdearle
Жыл бұрын
There was no fire so the photo is clickbait!
@metrikmechanik
Жыл бұрын
Saw it lying there whilst passing by with my car, could have been far worse.
@johannesbols57
Жыл бұрын
I was thinking it was fortunate a train didn't come barreling around a corner.
@miketype1each
Жыл бұрын
No human fatalities with a hull cracked open like that is pretty amazing, really. Like they say, airplanes can be replaced.
@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
8 ай бұрын
Pilots can be replaced also. I’m sure these guys were replaced PDQ
@williamthethespian
Жыл бұрын
Wow. Great job of relating the events. The pilots didn't seem to know just how little or great the damage, and so, aborted the flight. Perhaps over cautious in not deploying speed brakes, and having chose the shorter runway, may also contributed . Tough calls, wrong choices. Sadly, it happens.
@SteveErickson-e8s
Жыл бұрын
Yes. I also wondered why they didn't engage the speed brakes. It might have bought them just enough time not to overrun.
@Cod_edits_yt
Жыл бұрын
dam bto nice bird animation 10/10
@DillonAuto
Жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure I flew on Kalitta Air at least once during OEF-OIF.
@AJS90210
Жыл бұрын
Didn’t realize Europe was a country 🤔🤦♀️… Brussels is in a country called Belgium 🇧🇪
@YHBW1001
Жыл бұрын
Why no thrust reversers? Even if they only deployed them on engines 1 and 4 to avoid asymmetric reverse thrust it may have been enough to stop in time.
@sah3173.
Жыл бұрын
Kestrals dressed as geese!
@BEGGARWOOD1
Жыл бұрын
Poor birds 🦅
@MoodIndigoNL
Жыл бұрын
Wasn't it runway 19? At the end you mention number 20...
@shdon
Жыл бұрын
Checking the Belgian authorities' report, there is not a single mention of Runway 19 in that entire document. Runway 20 is mentioned 29 times. The Wikipedia article does mention Runway 19 several times. The Brussels Airport website, however, mentions they have 3 runways: 25L (7R) and 25R (7L) and 01 (19). So it is likely that the designation of that latter runway may have changed at some point.
@jessicasnaplesfl7474
Жыл бұрын
Shoulda used those THRUST REVERSERS! They were correct not to take off, but why didn't they use their thrust reversers? That's the first thing I thought of.
@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
8 ай бұрын
Why were they correct not to take off? The B747 is perfectly capable of taking off and flying with only three engines, the crew even did the performance to prove it.
@MacPac78
Жыл бұрын
those are ducks, not European Kestrels. The Flight Channel was heavily criticised for it's lack of avarian accuracy.
@TheTiffanyAching
Жыл бұрын
Those are Canada geese, not ducks.
@blueskies6475
Жыл бұрын
I dont understand why the plane broke into 3 pieces?
@BrianAchterberg928
Жыл бұрын
The Kalitta family also has a really good NHRA Drag Racing team in both Top Fuel and Funny Car categories.
@zyenathalous
Жыл бұрын
a few months later, one of their cars ran off the end of the paved road. (RIP Scott)
@paulu7751
Жыл бұрын
Who cares?
@Jesper83
Жыл бұрын
Loved the animation of the birds going into the engine.
@kinsley7777
Жыл бұрын
@TheFlightChannel admittedly, none of these are meant to be humorous, but by the 3rd time the ducks got cleaned up neater than by a Dyson, it was all 🤣🤣🤣
@vistalite-ph4zw
Жыл бұрын
At least there were no fatalities, however this was a bad time for Connie Kalitta and Kalitta Air. I believe they had 2 planes crash and the lost of his son Scott Kalitta in a horrific drag racing accident....
@gingataisen
Жыл бұрын
It was pretty fatal for the kestrels. 😭
@aviationreid
Жыл бұрын
hi, i have a request for Avianca Colombia flight 11 and/or Pulkovo airlines 612
@johnw3638
Жыл бұрын
Could they have gotten airborn? Who knows for sure? The captains decision ensured that all 4 walked away from the crash. Stalling at 100 feet and they all would have perished and maybe more on the ground.
@EdOeuna
Жыл бұрын
That’s not how aviation works.
@bradjohnson482
Жыл бұрын
I'm the missing third kestrel. At the last moment, I decided the other engine looked warmer, but due to heavy drinking that morning, I missed it completely.
@roderickcampbell2105
Жыл бұрын
Naughty Kestrel.
@GarthWatkins-th3jt
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, who sent you? Sheesh....
@rossbrown6641
Жыл бұрын
Looks like heavy drinking affects the brain!
@roderickcampbell2105
Жыл бұрын
@@rossbrown6641 Yes, Ross, and considering that Kestrels start out with pretty small brains, it's especially hazardous.
@eddiehimself
Жыл бұрын
"I would rate this disaster as a bad day at the office..."
@r1273m
Жыл бұрын
I can imagine a flock, or even a couple of geese causing a jet engine to have problems. However, a Kestrel is a very small bird, weighing only a couple of hundred grams. They are also solitary birds, they don't fly in flocks. I wonder how they determined it was a kestrel. I also remember that someone was sucked out of an aircraft and went through an engine. They did find some DNA to identify the person.
@gyax
Жыл бұрын
every bird strike has a dna swab after the fact
@shady7230
Жыл бұрын
@denniswilson8013lol no that is not true at all.
@S27DNC
Жыл бұрын
Please do pulkovo flight 612
@TheRealSuperJ
Жыл бұрын
#3 was one effective bird incinerator
@josdenis3684
Жыл бұрын
Sorry, but there was no fire whatsoever. Why do you show the aircraft in flames on the clickbait cover?
@zachboyd4749
Жыл бұрын
Earliest I've ever been to one of these vids!
@martinc.720
Жыл бұрын
And?
@ARedMotorcycle
Жыл бұрын
Wow, so very interesting and insightful. You're very clever and witty. You should be in pictures. 🤡
@xzero001
Жыл бұрын
Poor birds 😅
@MrYfrank14
Жыл бұрын
I'm not a pilot. Why can't you use reverse thrusters if one of your 4 engines is eating birds? I realize the one filled with bird guts wont work, but I thougt you still had three reverse thrusters that would work.
@Pooch747
8 ай бұрын
You can use thrust reversers with an engine out. The Captain failed to deploy them.
@maykealvesdasilva4313
Жыл бұрын
Greetings from Brazil🇧🇷
@pondamin_728
Жыл бұрын
🥇
@mauricyorosario9586
Жыл бұрын
Salve, amigo 👍👍 É noix
@miel1074
Жыл бұрын
Greetings to you in Brazil!
@bassfischer4273
Жыл бұрын
Have 747 pilots/experts weighed in on whether the bird strike would have compromised a safe takeoff? No one died, thankfully, but the catastrophic loss of the aircraft, clearly due to the pilot's decision to abort after V1, seems like it could have been averted if the pilot had just taken off, circled the field and landed using its 3 good engines.
@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
8 ай бұрын
They had calculated the performance so there is no reason to suspect that the aircraft would not have become safely airborne
@Pooch747
8 ай бұрын
I flew this particular aircraft for this particular airline from this particular airfield for a number of years prior to the mishap. To answer your question, the crew should have continued the takeoff, as they were past V1, which is the maximum speed at which you can reject/ abort a takeoff. Multi-engine transport category aircraft are designed to be able to takeoff past V1 and climb with an engine out. Had they continued the takeoff, they would have been fine. I'm not vilifying the crew, as I wasn't aboard, but I was an instructor on the 747 and I knew all of the crewmembers. I'm happy they're safe!
@Patco11
Жыл бұрын
It’s easy for us as well as the crash investigators to sit on our butts and criticize the pilots. Much harder when barreling down the runway when the bird strike occurred. Yes I know they are trained pilots but they had literally seconds to make the decision and I don’t know if I would have done anything different. Once you are in the air, always chance of being in worse situation. I’m not a pilot in any sense but these guys were humans doing what they thought best in order to live. They lived, so good ending as far as I’m concerned.
@EdOeuna
Жыл бұрын
There is no decision to be made in this situation. Above V1, take off must continue.
@wp40
3 ай бұрын
Yeah we know you’re not a pilot. These go/no go decisions are made on the ground based on industry standards and thoroughly briefed by the crew before checklist are started. This is something us actual pilots do every flight. And these scenarios like engine failure immediately after v1 we practice regularly in the sim. The plane will fly on a loss of an engine, whether it be a 747 with three running or a 777 with just one.
@bikeny
Жыл бұрын
If they used Runway 19, why do we see 'Runway 20' as the runway value?
@jaimhaas5170
Жыл бұрын
Take it from Canada when those big birds decide to off themselves....it's gonna take you out too.
@VictheSecret
Жыл бұрын
Kestrels aren't big and don't fly in flocks.
@andrewwilkinson5220
Жыл бұрын
The reenactment showed Canadian geese (flying backwards I guess) but those weren’t the correct type of bird that caused it.
@chrismacaber4531
Жыл бұрын
Cannot count how often I stood and still standing there sometimes, watching for planes at the position the plane dived.
@BrilliantDesignOnline
Жыл бұрын
Pilot standing outside the wrecked aircraft before equipment arrives lighting a cigarette with the plane behind him: "Brakes worked good, but not that good..."
@krashd
9 ай бұрын
It's crazy how the plane jumped to different parts of the runway during the take off, that's out of this world turbulence.
@jennifer7330
7 ай бұрын
Those poor birds 😢
@astinsunnyk5950
Жыл бұрын
Will you make the documentary of 9/11 flight accidents??
@cosmicpapa
5 ай бұрын
I would always choose for the longer runway if possible
@crew-dog2668
11 ай бұрын
Mistake in the video. At the end of the video, you mention twice runway 20. You stated at the beginning and showed runway 19. - the pilots should have continued the takeoff.
@margeebechyne8642
Жыл бұрын
Well, I am thankful everyone survived - on the plane and on the ground. Obviously, it was a huge mistake to not reverse the thrusters but in a situation like this one, the pilot really only had mere seconds to make a decision. Also, he should have listened to air traffic control when they suggested the longer runway. I am wondering what happened with the flight crew, the captain. Was he merely reprimanded, or was he fired? He had a lot of experience to make such a mistake. He had requested an early take off and was given it. Why was he in a hurry to get going? Oh well, the important thing is no one died. Thank you for a great presentation!
@da1247
Жыл бұрын
All that's missing in video are feathers shooting out from the back of the engine...
@prajwal-9670
Жыл бұрын
The queen has fallen 💔
@henrymcmiller2527
Жыл бұрын
Why didn’t the captain use the thrust reversal to slow the plane. I don’t understand how they could be criticized for their actions. As for the plane, it was almost 30 years old.
@andrewbarnett84
Жыл бұрын
Problem is this, heard a BOOM, aircraft decelerating due to slope and failed engine, pulled throttles to idle, no time to spool up again for reverse thrust. Also engines at full power (reverse or not), in a crash makes bigger BOOM. They turned to avoid all the light poles and antennae at the end, so middle tank did not get split open for huge fire. In the end the freight was safe, crew safe, better result than aircraft stalls into hundreds of houses on fire.
@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
8 ай бұрын
@@andrewbarnett84this aircraft was perfectly flyable, there is no reason to believe that it would have stalled at all
@JamesWallgren-ze6bf
8 ай бұрын
Which Plane game do you use to make your videos I rlly want to fly the 747-200 in that game
@luka3532
Жыл бұрын
I find it hilarious how the birds are moving backwards at 100 kph 0:03.
@dickbeale9731
Жыл бұрын
If a two engine plane can safely climb with 50% loss of thrust, then a four engine plane can easily fly with a 25% loss of thrust. I have over 10,000 hours in C-5s and 747s. This was a no brainer. He should have continued the takeoff. What’s the point of having an abort brief if you don’t adhere to what you briefed in the first place?
Пікірлер: 513