Yes, exactly.

not very inclusive of all pronouns

like my 2 kids

Not so old that it hasn't lasted the test of time 👍

@@user-zz3nh7oe4m Lol @ that 😁

I wonder what it did to their careers. I mean he did mention that teh company is no more.

@@Robert08010 who would want to employ them after that?

@@charlestoast4051 Maybe thi FO can reopen his lawyer-office. But the Captain with his age of 58 or now even 60 two years later and this story is probably a really beaten man today. All the best for both of them!

@@charlestoast4051 I suppose I didn't state the question clearly. I was wondering more if they let you continue to fly (assuming you are still able) pending the outcome of the investigation. I mean with an 18 month investigation, during that time, nobody knows the outcome or whos fault it was.

Like BMI 92 back in 1989.

I imagine they did after the review was completed. The investigator can't ethically compromise the process. There have been several similar incidents with aircrews retarding the throttle on the good engine, and almost always with the same result - the loss of the aircraft.

It’s natural to think “did I screw something up” even if you know everything you did was right that question still pops into your mind. I’ve had an emergency and questioned it for months did I do something wrong.

@@davidmichael5573 yeah, that's kind of what I mean. The doubt is really stressful. Everyone has made a mistake before. It's way easier if it's like "you messed up" "yeah, I did.... So what now?" Then you take the consequences and move on. I understand doing that would compromise investigating things. Even if it's a minor mistake and you know the punishment is going to be basically nothing, and even if you are pretty sure you did your part correctly, the doubt and stress is really rough.

@@davidmichael5573 My first day as a captain at my first 121 ops, I had an engine fire. This was the 4th and final leg of the day. The first leg TSA had done a random audit and placed a fake hand grenade and fake knife in the the seat back pockets. We found it on the security sweep. Now my senses are heightened…..next leg I realize I have an illegal dispatch, weather was down to mins, but they didn’t add an alternate. Called DX and they fixed that. That turn down, was taxing out for T/O. It was a non standard day for this airport (the winds were not the normal direction and thus were departing the opposite runway) this required us to taxi to the far side. Normally it would have been a short taxi and then T/O. What happen next would have happened on T/O, probably after V1, but since we were taxiing to the far side… We got an engine fire. I still remember the the FO stating ‘MASTER WARNING’ and me almost nonchalantly saying ‘Cancel and Identify’ thinking he had said ‘MASTER CAUTION’ His response was ‘RIGHT ENGINE FIRE’ That snapped me back to reality. I looked up and saw the RED T handle lite. I stopped the taxi while calling Ground and stating we have an engine fire please roll the trucks and as soon as I had the aircraft stopped began going through the procedures. Completed I sent the FO to evacuate the PAX. I reviewed again the checks, concerned I did not do something but didn’t see anything. I left the flight deck, check the cabin and got out. The FO was with the PAX, all OK, and a fireman came up to me. He said didn’t look like any fire. I said OK, this plane is now yours and made a call to DX. I BRIEFLY stated what happened and would call back once the PAX were back in the Terminal. Next I called my Rep, who happened to be my best friend and whom I went to flight school with. I told him what happened and that I wasn’t sure if I did everything correctly. My nerves were pretty shot! I was going over the events with him, questioning all my decisions, very concerned I had messed up. He interrupted me trying to go over everything by repeatedly stating my name until I shut up. Then he asked ‘Is everyone OK?’ I said ‘Yes’ He said is the plane damaged or anything else?’ I said ‘No, except the engine fire.’ ‘He said then you did everything correctly when it comes to the big picture.’ That REALLY helped me. To this day I am actually grateful for that experience and my friends support. I truly believe it has made me a better pilot.

Oh man - sounds like a truly shit day. Glad you had good support from your friend.

Don't these engines get completely rebuilt after a certain number of hours ?

Shocking!

@@coolasice2187 The two blades that failed don't appear to be rebuilt. They seem to be original, judging how aged they look from the photograph. LBJ was President when the right engine came off the assembly line!

@@zoso73 ok. But I'm still wondering...

@@coolasice2187 They get torn down inspected and parts changed, but AFAIK not the main fan or turbine assembly, that would all be original.

My first thoughts were ‘what a couple of idiots’ but as I continued watching I began to think ‘that could have been me’. It’s easy to sit back and say ‘they should have done this or that’ but at night, over the ocean you can understand their panic.

@@axelknutt5065 Since the second engine that they had assumed faulty was still at idle and not showing high EGT, it baffles me why neither pilot thought to spool it up to get enough thrust to get back to the airport. After 25 minutes, I would have thought that they would have realised that they may have idled the wrong engine. I think that to a lot of pilots EGT is just a figure that they do not fully understand, On heavy marine diesels, the highest EGT on any cylinder is what sets the full ahead speed governor. If the cylinder has a blocked injector causing weak mixture to run hot, it is often shut down in order to increase RPM. On very large engines, repairs to the injectors can be carried out while the engine is running, by also shutting off the inlet valve to the cylinder.

​@@wilsjaneA bit off topic but I'm really intrigued about weak mixture causing high EGT on a diesel. Is this a peculiarity of big two-stroke marine diesels? As I understand it the mixture is always "weak". (Except if enough fuel is injected at max power to produce a lot of soot in the exhaust). You appear to know your stuff. Is there a quick explanation or can you point me to a resource?

@@alanm8932 The marine diesels, used on tankers, container ships, cruise liners and var ferries, run on heavy diesel, with a Redwood viscosity of around 3,000 seconds. This fuel needs to be stored at 50 degrees centigrade then further heated and filtered prior to injection. Almost all this heat is obtained from the engines, with a few isomantle heaters used on pipes and injectors, Being the residue of fractional oil distillation, it is cheaper but more importantly has around 20% higher calorific value per cubic metre. Cold engines are started on standard 35 second fuel, then switched over when everything reaches the correct temperature. Needless to say, the fuel is switched back prior to shutting the engine down. Due to pollutant exhausts, many countries do not allow heavy fuel to be burnt in port or their national waters, unless exhaust scrubbers are fitted. These are mostly used on short hop car ferries. These engines have a minimum design life of 30 years running 24/7, with a cylinder head valve replacement every 10 years. By comparison, an F1 racing car has a valve design life of 8 hours on the track. Back to the original point. To maintain the design life of the marine engine, EGT is absolutely critical to avoid rapid deterioration of the exhaust valve seats. Sensors on each port controlling the "full ahead" speed are the normal solution. Military vessels have a bypass system, for use when engaged in battle. I am sorry that it took such a lengthy explanation to put the whole thing into context.

@@wilsjane I'm not a pilot, a mere terrestrial dick, but I wonder if they were nervous about increasing throttle on the engine they thought failed for fear of causing it to frag and puncture fuel tanks

I don't know why I'm laughing, but I am. Glad you survived! BTW, *visceral.

@@lizj5740 lixdexia strikes again

Get everyone drunk and they'll feel better.

It would have to be. LOL

Good ol’ Pratt & Shitney

it has happen quite few times, at what point does doing nothing and just letting what ever engine is failing burn it self up, become the better option?

Sound like zero common sense again. Even if they had idled down the failing engine, if you are going to go down into the water because of not enough thrust. What the hell have you got to lose bringing up the thrust on the bad engine? In this case it would have been the good engine and it would all have been good. No common sense.

It's just ALWAYS this problem. Or maybe it's because if it gets this bad, then we hear about it. But dang, shutting down the wrong engine. Oof

@@walkingman9171 some times the brain works in mysterious ways that later seems to make no sense. The objective must be to find procedures that avoid that

Are the gauges arranged sensibly? Engine one on the left two on the right? Or is this another case of confusing gauge layout? Did conditions (say, a violently shaking engine) make reading the gauges difficult?

Lmao

It only broke and did not collapse, yes.

Yeesh 😂

Indeed, exactly.

All that was impressive, but earlier he he led the interview in such a way and proposed answers that the captain knew what he was getting at. Much better to ask the questions almost as if they are a routine checklist to go through. I suppose somewhat like a psychological profile might be done ie. DSMV.

Yes.

Turns out that most aeroplanes need the engines off idle to fly. These idiots tried to get around that. Splash.

Two lots of it. Imagine this lawyer trying to work as a lawyer. If he can't solve a binary problem ( left or right ) how the hell could he do any work in law?

That is really good insight. It would absolutely have an instant impact on your responses no matter how much training.

They had 2 engines running although 1 was at idle because they thought it had failed, the other WAS failing. Before I would allow the plane to be lost, and be possibly be killed in the process, l definitely would have brought the other engine up to see if it possibly would last long enough to make it to the airport. While listening to these kind of reports I just wonder where is the common sense ! ! !

​@@brucejones2354common sense is inaccessible in high stress, hence the importance of training, not sense.

@@brucejones2354 On page 211 the interviewer asked him just that: ". . . was there any time in that time that you thought, you know what, let me just push the number 1 up just to see if there is anything." That's where he says no, I was busy w/ the stick shaker. I'm not a pilot and don't know what you are trained to do and not do when the stick shaker goes off but in that situation, where you already know you are going down, I would think it would be instinct just to shove the thrust levers forward w/o looking at them or even thinking about it. What do you have to lose? Surely you aren't concerned about finishing off the engine you think is going bad. Again, I'm not a pilot, but I did used to race cars, and I still do track days in fairly quick cars. If I had experienced poor braking during a race and decided that they were about gone, I would not, if someone spun directly in my path, have the mental thought process the pilot said he had: I know my brakes are gone and will not do any good so I am not even going to bother to hit them. Right after that the pilot said something not mentioned in the report or in Juan's narrative, that he thought the No. 1 was already at full thrust. Does this plane's FDR not record lever position?

I'm guessing it's more subtle than you would think. Practicing engine outs in a piston twin, I expected the prop to stop dead in front of me, but it doesn't! It still spins and makes noise. You have to to through the "dead leg, dead engine" drill, and pull the power on what you hope to be the dead engine. And try to get it right, without running out of airspeed or altitude in the meantime.

And those planes are as basic and simple (read - safe), as they can get! That's why so many cargo outfits ran them - and some still do. 737-200's are still great planes, but the problem these days seems to be, pilots are taught glass cockpits nowadays: throw analog instruments at them, and it's a whole different world. There are little tricks & quirks to flying older planes, that don't have computers to tell you everything you want to know. Kinda like taking a new pilot that was taught in the latest aircraft, then putting them in a Curtiss Jenny: they'll figure out how to fly it, but may complain about trying to figure out what direction the wind is coming from on an app on their cell phone, all while bitching about that damn rag that the mechanic left on one of the wing struts! Same thing in my present line of work- truck driving: new drivers don't learn with manual transmissions anymore, only automatics. Put these new drivers in snow with automatics, and watch the accident rate skyrocket.

Beech 18s! Good Gobble Goo! I flew scheduled for old Emery Air Freight. So you lived to tell the tale of flying 3s & 18s! Congratulations! You & I are probably the last two survivors. Everybody else is d e a d. Except for Britcarjunkie up there.

@@billcallahan9303 I've flown in all kinds of fun stuff, even Traumahawks, ScareCoupes.

​@@billcallahan9303 I cheated! I didn't fly the 18's. There was no way, my dad had a bunch of time in them (he's 91 has a smidgen over 30,000 flying hours). So there is no way I was going to fly 18's. Used to fly with him when I was a kid. He would fly baby turkeys in DC-3's back East somewhere. I hadn't really thought about how many of us that were left.

@@Britcarjunkie Mr. Britcar, we have a 2,580 foot grass airstrip. Two idiots overshot the runway on landing! Yes, overshot it in a Scarecoupe! You really have to work at that to do it in a Scarecoupe! They ate several trees for dinner but lived to be embarrassed for life & still have splinters in their asses. Two more pea brained idiots, Undershot the runway (same one) had trees for supper that were over-cooked as a fire destroyed them, their Scarecoupe & the poor innocent trees they hit. Both true Scarecoupe stories. North Florida. 2JO.

at least nobody died!

Amazing ditching skills, terrible CRM / ADM skills.

easy to say. until you are in a circumstance you've never experienced, panic is at your finger tips, and your brain convinces you that something is happening that really isn't, and you efff up, and go down the rabbit hole yourself.

Not being a pilot but with one engine glowing and not delivering enough power, I can't see why I would not try to coax some power from that other engine - the one *assumed* broken. Just 10% power from that one would have made a significant difference. And as we know from the report - it would have surprised them by delivering way more than 10% thrust. They would suddenly have had all the power needed to safely land. History already have lots of planes surviving with engines not delivering full power. So why not check and dual-check and tripple-check the thrust lever position of the non-glowing engine???

​@@octagonPerfectionistOnly because it was a cargo plane, with just 2 crew onboard. Were it a pax flight the outcome would've been much worse.

I remember reading about a DC3 running cargos between the Hawaiian Islands. About 10 years ago.

Yes, indeed, and don´t waste your time with a chaotic attempt to explain to an overworked and distracted ATC thant you´re in trouble.

Yes, I, too - with this questions around Engine Number 1 he probably started to realise that they "screwed up" - but astonishingly only then, eight month after the Crash with much time to think through what has happened.

Drama! It reminded me of a Brian Lecomber novel, where the hero is nursing a Beech 18S into an island airport with one blown up engine, the other running out of oil.

Do have the link? I’ll add it to the description.

@@blancolirio Search - KHON2 speaks with USCG crew who performed rescue

Human memory is fallible. I had IT jobs with so many details checklists were natural but not always used. My wife handles her medicine supply in her head and it just doesn't work. But a checklist is a "crutch". Pride is why checklists are as rare as they are.

Many years ago in the service, somebody gifted our C.O a carved plaque bearing the old line from Ben Franklin: "Beer is proof that God loves his children and wants them to be happy". This was a gag gift, as he was a bookish sort and a teetotaler (but a good sport). A couple of weeks later, we see the plaque on display: he'd taken a chisel and a paintbrush to it, and it now read "Checklists are proof that the Air Force loves her children and wants them to be alive." The point was taken!

@@jasoncarswell7458 Imaginative. The Franklin joke is a favorite. And, yes, a good checklist can INSURE vital items are remembered.

They were looking for a Darwin award, the hopeless idiots.

Indeed. It has clarly this potential.

Yes they have 'good crew coordination and communication'. For Yanks anyway. Look at the last too leaders the Yanks choose, neither can string a sentence together. Their representatives !

A very good point, indeed. "Admiral Cloudberg" made shortly a very good blog about this accident, too, with very interesting additional informations - really worthy to read.

Yep, you are right "disorganised, confused or distracted" and with no problem solving skills, or willingness to use a checklist. Americans.

You nailed it . I was thinking the same thing, SilogramVids

These pilots are the one's who asked Honolulu tower for "a vector away from the airport so we can run our checklist" ... then didn't run them. They flew away from the airport and out to sea when they were clear to land ..with a return over open water no houses or buildings to people to jeopardize. Their planed flight was less than 60 minutes to another Hawaian island.. couldn't have been over on fuel much if at all.

@@TenGreenRangers Yes, exactly. Thank you very much for this reminder!

You nailed it, indeed. It remembered me in the first moment to the Kegworth Disaster in the UK back in 1989 - but after a closer look it was much worse. They were really damn glad that they were flying a Cargo Aircraft without Passengers and Cabin Crew. But the whole situation at this Airline was messy at that time and it can be questioned how the relationship between this Breakdown and the broader situation in their Company was.

Lawyers don't need checklists, they're always right, that's why everybody likes them.

Hi Magnar! Will you do a commentary with your take/lessons from this accident? Your perspective is always interesting. :)

@@foowashere Indeed.

This Final Report must really be horrible for them to read. But I found it really astonishing that the Captain was even eight month after the accident absolutely convinced about the actions he took and obviously got only doubts when the investigators started to focus their questions onto Engine Number One.

It doesn't show "we humans have limitations to cope" .. It shows these Pilots screwed up. Stop giving the Pilots outs on resposibility. When you practice activitities.. you become skilled at those activities. I bet you can tie your shoe in the dark... because you've done it 1 million times. You practice response to the most dangerous posibilities.. over and over.. that's what makes you calm and familiar with the steps and able to do it easily when the real thing happens. A Pro is practiced up.

no, thats what happens when you submit to certain forced inoculations without question....wearing face diapers which cuts off oxygen/nitrogen to the brain increases carbon dioxide..aka in total ...dumbs you down..anyone can see the rate off incidents after 2019/20 has increased....hmmm i wonder why...?

There have been other incidents like that where the pilots shut down the wrong engine. UKposts has videos of some of them.

From memory I think the engine instrumentation had been wired wrong for left and right ?

@@ridbanner1407 I don't think so. That would be evident upon engine start.

I think you are correct , it featured as a possible theory at the time. turned out cabin air on old model came from left engine ,new model right engine which pilots did not know ,so smell of smoke triggered wrong side shut down.@@gerardmoran9560

Yes, indeed - next to CFITs

Agreed. Losing the critical engine right after rotating on some aircraft will lawn dart the craft into the nearest hangar if the PF doesn't quickly feather the bad engine. It should be simple: If your right foot is all the way at the stop, feather the left, and vice versa. But reality is that when shit goes bad, it takes a while to process it. Taking it slow might kill you in the rare engine failure after rotation, but it'll save you in 99% of all other engine failures. I'd go with your slow but measured type of aviating. Especially as you get older.

Part of my briefing as a wide-body pic was "no fast hands"

Nicely stated and very thoughtful. On many light twins after engine failure and the ensuing helmet fire, the second engine only functions to take the crew to the accident sight.

I got noggin fire reading this, in the comfort of my twin mattress.

@@tenpiloto What's the saying? Slow is fast, fast is good.

It tells indeed a lot about the situation in this company at that time.

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your experience. And you´ve probably not confused communicate with aviate and distracting yourself by a chaotic radio communication with an overworked and itself distracted ATC.

@@NicolaW72 I thought she did a pretty good job.

EPR gauge on a Lear 35? That's different.

Indeed.

Yes, indeed.

That's exactly what I was about to say. I was just looking for someone else commenting on it first.

Aircraft failed to reach the runway and crashed on the M1 embankment

​@@trafficsnitch3505was it at Kegworth?

@@trafficsnitch3505 Known as the Kegworth Disaster. Crashed short of the M1 actually, then slid over and onto the M1 and hit the west embankment. They only needed to make a it about another 200 yards to miss the M1. I was in Bedford at the time and drove up there on my way to Newcastle on the following Friday, I worked near J13 on the M1. By then the only sign of the disaster was some new landscaping on the other side of the M1. Every scrap of clear evidence was gone.

And the pilots only had to ask the cabin crew to look out of the windows to see if there was any signs of an engine in distress. Even better, one of them could have walked back into the cabin to look for himself. But that was too simple!

And the short section of new metal barrier in middle of the motorway.

it could conceivably cause an overheating engine to catch fire. But I agree with you, push em to the stops and figure it out after you get speed back.

A checklist by nature can only assume all prior steps were completed correctly, otherwise it becomes something other than a checklist.

Indeed.

Indeed, but the "what can we learn going forward" part is the kicker, given this is not the only time something like this has happened.

Maybe not. Industry hasn't learned from all the other times.

Yes, indeed.

Yes, indeed.

Yes, I, too. Probably he´s today a beaten man.

A possible outcome would have been for them to have shut down the #1 (good) engine. The put the throttles at half. Problem not solved unfortunatley.

👍

Indeed, exactly - that´s the point: It IS a difference if you´re sitting in a simulator, from which you can walk out every time and where you´re prepared to be checked, or if you´re sitting in a real Cockpit in a real Aircraft in a dark Night over an Ocean - and in a few seconds the Situation changed from anpther night at work to "Get it done NOW or dy".

Sad end of an ancient Aircraft, indeed.

...is not a good landing.

👍

True true and true. Our brains are both our best friend and deadliest enemy but with an attitude like you’ve just stated I’m betting you’re going to be good in the long run. 👍

One can’t help but think the many engine failures at their outfit made it easier to believe a dual engine failure happened

Indeed.

Yep!

Thank you very much for this interesting additional information and tip!

link?

@@KuostA You type in "Admiral Cloudberg Transair Flight 810" into your search machine.

Indeed. And the Captain was distracted by the radio communication chaos.

They both had a terrible case of CRS(can't remember shit) or CRAFT(can't remember a fucking thing) as they both knew which engine was bad

These are the Pilots who asked Honolulu Tower for a vector out to sea.. "so we can run checklist" .. and then didn't run them. They were cleared to return and land with an approach over open water.. no buildings or people to jeopardize. Their flight was a planned 50 minute hop so their fuel weight couldn't have been terrible. These are also the pilots who were too sheepish in their communications to clearly communicate their emergency to Honolulu Tower. Amazing how when you practice responses to scenarios .. when the scenario happens you are able to function. You want me to believe these guys had drilled engine/out or 2 engines out once a month out of profesionalism? You don't have to be in a simulator to do so. Maximum vulnerability is a takeoff .. that's where every pilot's training should be razor sharp.

Yes, indeed.

Wait... really?? Who TF doesn't alternate between engines when training for engine failures?

These guys were in their 50s with tens of thousands of hours of flight time and you think it’s plausible that they only EVER experienced an E2 failure? Also, E2 IS the bad engine in this story. E1 was good the whole time. Baffling logic.

Yes, #1 is the one everyone trains for because it is typically more deadly. That’s why dead foot, dead engine comes before identify, verify, feather. The captain knew they effed up during the second questioning. I hope he’s ok.

@@georgewchildsI didn’t realize jets had a critical engine, or that you had to feather a turbojet engine.

@@nocalsteve Now you know.

Indeed.

Pilots get paired differently every flight, so you won't have as good coordination under stress as if they had been flying together all the time.

@@djinn666 Don't the majors send their pilots to cockpit management classes? I assume this takes into account mixed crews and establishes generic protocol for emergency procedures.

@@djinn666 As Juan pointed out in the Video: They had only 24 Pilots in this Airline. It was a really small Business - and probably all Pilots of this Company new each other very well and had flown together often. That Airline was not American Airlines or Delta with their thousands and thousands of Pilots.

👍 - This Final Report must be dreadful for them to read.