Bleeding Out Over San Francisco | Pan Am 845

[@flyashi]

In his book "Wide Body", Joseph Sutter, the chief engineer of the 747, mentions this incident. In WW2 he was in the Navy on a storm-tossed ship that lost steering, and vowed to make the 747 as safe as possible so that the pilots never loose control. So he put in four independent hydraulic systems. This plane lost three, and was still able to come back in for safe landing.

[@benedictramage-mangles2622]

F for JAL123

[@millomweb]

"independent" is a trickly bugger. The systems might be independent but if all the systems have 1 pipe each that all go through 1 hole in a bulkhead, say, then that hole being damaged could take all 4 systems out. Separate system pipes and wires should not be run anywhere near each other.

[@stephenhoover4095]

@@millomweb the systems all have separate lines and pumps. The real problem is there's only a certain amount of room to separate lines and each control surface is operated by at least 2 or 3 of the hydraulic systems to prevent the loss of a single hydraulic system from knocking out a entire control surface. That's why multiple systems have lines close together.

[@millomweb]

@@stephenhoover4095 The pipes and wires for system: 1. should run under the belly. 2. Down the left side of the plane 3. Along the top of the fuselage 4. Down the right side of the plane Then unless the plane's chopped in two, one control system should be complete.

[@TheOneTrueSpLiT]

@M Glenn It wasn't a "design flaw" that brought down JAL 123, it was poor and shoddy workmanship on the repair to the pressure bulkhead that caused JAL 123 to rapidly decompress, that repair being required due to bad piloting that caused the original tail strike incident that required the repair of the damaged bulkhead.

[@alexanderslater4021]

I don't know why listening to commentary on aviation disasters helps me sleep so well, but I'm glad it does.

[@HemanthRajGplus]

I think its because we are safe on the ground when we watch the videos, so we feel less worried thinking "at least im not on that plane!"

[@8cordas381]

You are not alone.

[@sphumelelengcamu1984]

Same here.

[@daonlyzneggalz7522]

Those plus his voice is pretty calming...

[@greggstrasser5791]

MACI may work you know you are safe but the story makes you feel out of control, then you just relax and accept your fate.

[@cindysavage265]

This 747 was named Clipper Juan Trippe, named after the CEO of Pan Am. It was the second 747 placed into commercial service. The first 747 was Clipper Victor, which was lost at Tenerife in 1977

[@karlcarrigan4451]

Wasn't this 747 repaired and put back into service? I'm sure it was according to another video I have watched....

[@richardrawson]

I researched this aircraft and found out that it had been sold and shipped to Korea and turned into a restaurant which then sat abandoned for years until being scrapped in 2010. Crazy!

[@josephmassaro]

Mini Air Crash Investigation: "Gears are damaged...flaps are damaged...stabilizers are damaged...brakes are- Nick Fury: "Well what's not damaged?" Mini Air Crash Investigation: "Air-conditioning is fully operational."

[@Ian-lx1iz]

Yeah, in flight movie is on, but it's 'The Cable Guy' so even that's a bit >meh

[@millomweb]

"Mini Air Crash Investigation: "Air-conditioning is fully operational."" That was down to the hole pushed through into the cabin ;)

[@josephmassaro]

@@millomweb It's green technology. Natural airflow. ;)

[@millomweb]

@@josephmassaro Except - have you seen how big the engines are to provide the airflow ? ;)

[@josephmassaro]

@@millomweb Don't ruin my funny with facts.

[@burke615]

I discovered this channel a few days ago, and have been binging the content. I'm really impressed by the improvement over time, both in audio quality and in smoothness of narration!

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Thank you for the encouragement!

[@aaroncarson]

Right?! It's genuinely awesome to see his heart and soul get poured into the videos 😄

[@aaroncarson]

@Benjamin P 7 why are you being so negative? obviously it’s not “original content”. unless they went out and crashed a plane themselves and kept all air investigation teams out, there’s no way it could be ENTIRELY original content. we’re here for the narration and obvious passion that the creator has for the content they present to us

[@kasuraga]

man this accident was way too close to a full disaster from start to finish.

[@thatguyalex2835]

Yeah, the Swiss Cheese Model really showed in this accident. Also, I would have called the whole flight off, and head back to the gate, if I was the pilot. Too risky to use a short runway. Plus, the runway data should have called for 8,500 ft in the charts, and the pilots should have recalculated their takeoff velocity. Man, so many mistakes made by the crew and airport.

[@TheGospelQuartetParadise]

Very nice and complete report. I lived in Oakland when this accident occurred, and it was all over the news. Have you ever done a video on the Japan Airlines plane that made a perfect landing NEAR SFO -- in the Bay? Japan Airlines Flight 2 was a scheduled passenger flight on November 22, 1968. The plane was a new Douglas DC-8 named "Shiga", flying from Tokyo International Airport (Haneda) to San Francisco International Airport. Due to heavy fog and other factors, Captain Kohei Asoh mistakenly ditched the plane near Coyote Point in the shallow waters of San Francisco Bay, two and a half miles short of the runway. None of the 96 passengers and 11 crew were injured in the landing.

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

very interesting ill look into it!

[@epicspacetroll1399]

As I recall, the captain was very humble about it as well. When questioned about why the accident happened, his first statement was something along the lines of "as the Americans would say, I f***ed up." Thus, "The Asoh Defense" became a sort of expression for someone owning up to a mistake.

[@erictaylor5462]

There was another, I think around '65 it was a 707 taking off from SFO and it lost an outboard engine and part of the wing and ended up landing at Travis AFB.

[@cmw9876]

@@epicspacetroll1399 Hard to say at times. We spend our lives seeking a kind of perfection. It's a great goal. It's just impossible. Great comment, "139"!

[@lightningstrikestwice6302]

I remember that! I live on the peninsula. I was a much younger man than! Much much younger!

[@skuula]

That's really tight tolerances when like 12% or so less runway length makes the difference between perfectly safe, and lucky to survive.

[@Milesco]

Well, they got switched to a shorter runway, and then it turned out that the shorter runway was even 1,000 feet shorter than they thought. So it was a "double whammy".

[@dennisyoung4631]

Need 2x the calculated distance to be safe?

[@Greg-yu4ij]

Its insane to think a anything causing 12% miscalculation can cause a loss of a plane. At least the rotate and V1 should overlap. If they did they could have simply hit the brakes. Plus this is the 3rd time the lights or a fence at the end have seriously messed up a plane. They should be made of fiberglass or something that can shear off in an emergency.

[@greggstrasser5791]

@@Greg-yu4ij The calculations are math. If it’s a GO, that means you can do it.

[@rherman9085]

Wow, your attention to detail is fantastic. I realize these are geared for civilians to understand. AS a pilot, your explanations are excellent. Another great video. Thank you!

[@bingosunnoon9341]

I wish he would stop adding a leading zero to runway names. The markings are pretty clear on the approach plates.

[@sueb9128]

Hey Sun One, yeah I found these stories very interesting! But I also am very confused about the runway names. Ex: R1 - E28! Is there a method to their madness or visa versa??

[@TraceUK]

@@sueb9128 The numbers relate to the compass bearing of the runway ie: Runway 32 would be called as such, due to it being 32 degrees

[@surferdude4487]

Here's a comment for the algorithm. It is amazing to me that this incident didn't kill everyone on the plane.

[@davidhoffman1278]

The nose tilting upward after landing stop, thus rendering the forward evacuation slides useless, was due to the missing and failed body gear assemblies, something never anticipated by Boeing engineers or the FAA certification staff. The evacuation slides twisting in the wind also led to future design changes to evacuation slides to reduce the probability of twisting in wind.

[@Gundog55]

Actually the aircraft tipped onto its tail due to fuel dumping to lower landing weight causing the an aft CG.

[@davidhoffman1278]

@@Gundog55 , But, IF the body gear had been intact, fully down and locked, then there would probably have been no nose tip up, even with the lower fuel load.

[@Gundog55]

@@davidhoffman1278 If

[@cyberi4a]

I remember that day and it went live on the TV. I believe the worst injury was severed feet when the metal deck was ripped up inside the cabin. Also went landing and the plane went off the runway, it carved a big trench in the ground. I used to have the original newspaper headlines, but they vanished over the years.

[@MrSuzuki1187]

Before I retired from United Airlines, I used to make takeoffs flying a 757from Runway 1 Right under these same circumstances. We were required to use slightly above idle thrust for the first 1000 feet to avoid jet blast affecting car traffic on Highway 101.

[@MendTheWorld]

That’s a good compromise, to at least give you a running start. I wonder if that change was made because of this incident?

[@breadandcircus1]

What a comprehensive, knowledgeable explanation about this airplane accident. Thank you for this great video

[@the_bottomfragger]

oh SFO.. This airport has had more heart palpitations and nervous breakdowns than lives lost. Must be a world record of narrowly avoided huge disasters.

[@zew1414]

Yeah I will never fly into SF again if I can help it.

[@Aztesticals]

@@zew1414 no do you'll get your near death experience out of the way

[@KristinCortez]

Thank you for another great video. I appreciate that you are so thorough in your research, present the facts well, and that you show sensitivity to your viewers (i.e., apologizing for mispronunciation of cities). Keep up the great work!

[@patrickmollohan3082]

Yes. The details you give on everything that's going on and being done, made it so easy to see what truly happened and why it happened the way it did! Thank you so much for the detail you put into ALL of your videos!! Its very appreciated!!🛩✈

[@SKBenergy]

lovely video !!! and yeah that British Airways 777 video is @ my home Airport !!!

[@GoodGnewsGary]

Great vid! It's exciting to see how far you've come.

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Thank you so much!

[@ddegn]

Agreed. I was watching back when he just had random airplanes on the screen. I'm pretty sure I've watched all the videos on this channel so I was surprised to see I wasn't subscribed. I'm subbed now. Thanks for the fun videos *@Mini Air Crash Investigation.*

[@hankcarter1021]

This is one of the best descriptive narrative of what happened! Great graphics!

[@brianmuhlingBUM]

What a great story! I had not heard of this incident before. In flying, you assume nothing. Always check and recheck your own data. Great narration, very well done.

[@lillymom7909]

WOW! I have exhausted so many aviation channels, but you still taught me something new! I am impressed and subscribed!!! 😁

[@dukadarodear2176]

I know nothing about flying but I enjoy longhaul flights. I've great admiration for all the crew that gets us into the air, keeps us there and grounds us again. Thanks for the post. Very interesting.

[@MendTheWorld]

I generally have no fear of flying, but was generally happier before I found out it was actually possible to stall an airplane over the middle of the ocean. I mean, I thought that once you’re airborne, that’s pretty much it until it’s time to land. But noooooo. So thanks, AF 447 and whoever else. Remember to trust your instruments. I do!

[@wildatlanticcoffeetasters1423]

Very informative and interesting video. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Great job!

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Thank you so much!

[@jamesturner2126]

On a technicality, SFO is in San Bruno, CA. In Bayview-SF, WE CAN RARELY even hear aircraft leave SFO. So the flight bled out over San Mateo, CA. Its like a $50 taxi ride.

[@timmack2415]

I'm always happy when I see that you uploaded a new video! This one didn't disappoint, as always.

[@martijnellenbroek6448]

Hey, i just wanted to let you know that i really enjoy your video's the quality is amazing, and your voice is nice and calming. I often listen to these video's when i just want to get my mind off things and it really helps. Thank you so much for making these, and i hope you enjoy making them as much as i enjoy watching/listening.

[@donnafromnyc]

Mini has so improved his tone and delivery...and in such a short time! He doesn't need dramatic music or effects. The Jack Webb of aviation incident videos! (Just the facts, ma'am...Dragnet)

[@donnafromnyc]

Another excellent report and analysis from Mini on a forgotten incident with "The Queen of the Skies" ...and she brought them home safe though undoubtedly written off. This one was truly a concatenation of mistakes. The sims get better and better too...almost real.

[@Milesco]

Surprisingly, the plane wasn't written off, and in fact was repaired and returned to service. It continued in use for another 20 years until a Pan Am went out of business in 1991. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oaKQqo2aZrGBpZY

[@michaelscott356]

@@Milesco Not surprising; a 747 is a helluva big asset to write off and since no one died and the plane didn't break up, per se, or catch fire, I assumed it would be a "repair job", at worst.

[@thedie-castaviator4081]

Great video mate😎 Very very lucky passengers on this flight😬

[@Houndini]

1 more time the rule is broken. You do not cut corners or take chances on Aircraft. Mother Earth is a very hard hit when you do. She don't care who you are or your excuses.

[@reneedaniel2881]

Love new videos when you least expect it 😍

[@rebelyank6361]

Another great video and another sad accident that shouldn't have been allowed to happen. I'm willing to bet that the airport was there before a highway of that size was located there. It's time landowners, towns & even states & federal government are forced to deal with it. If they don't like the takeoffs near the highway either move the highway or build blast walls!

[@lucasakachubby8694]

loved the original 747 very infromative again

[@willer3399]

The prettiest bird ever.

[@johnlustig4322]

Clear and concise. Excellent...

[@BillyAlabama]

Your work is always so well done and a pleasure to watch.

[@epicspacetroll1399]

Another great video! As an engineer (well, engineering student) who read about this accident before, it always intrigued me that antennas/lights would be able to slice through a plane like that, even taking off landing gear. A plane going off the end of the runway seems like something you could reasonably expect to have happen at any airport given enough time, so I would think engineers would design for it if at all practical. Would it not be easy to build the light poles and antennas with frangible joints so they just break apart if an aircraft hits them? Idk, maybe there's some reason the light poles had to be really strong that I'm not thinking of.

[@bobkile9734]

They are now. I don’t know when that change was made, but this accident happened in 1971. They are frangible now. Doesn’t mean they wont cause damage, but at least it’s less now.

[@epicspacetroll1399]

@@bobkile9734 Good to hear. Yes I imagine even a frangible antenna/light pole could put some big dents and possibly holes in an aircraft, but at least it probably wouldn't travel through the aircraft like a knife.

[@ddegn]

I was wondering the same thing. Road barricades used to be made to be strong. The people designing roads finally figured out it's better to let the barricade be damaged than killing the people who crash into them. Hopefully the airline business has learned from the highway people. I know the highway/car designer people have learned a lot from the airline business.

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

"maybe there's some reason the light poles had to be really strong that I'm not thinking of" Nope. It just hadn't been thought about back then. The landing gear (300M steel shock strut) is much stronger than the runway light trusswork (plain ole 4130 steel or whatever), but aluminum structure in the vicinity of the landing gear is another matter. I don't know if this figured in to the MLG damage experienced, but note that airliner MLG are designed to fail aft from a certain amount of longitudinal load. The MLG hinge is actually a closely-designed shear pin, which will snap before the trunnion it mounts to rips off from the wing. Since the trunnion attaches to the wing in an area which also serves as a fuel tank, the end result is that on a good day the fuel tank doesn't rupture because the trunnion stayed intact because the shock strut ripped away first. On a bad day (Continental 603), there are vertical or other loads on the trunnion which cause the fuel tank rupture anyway.

[@TheDalhuck]

It's crazy how thin aircraft skin is. I once dropped a screwdiver while standing on a horizontal stabilizer and it punctured the skin. No real damage done, because it was getting pulled off due to hail damage, but it was crazy to just see this screwdriver sticking out of the skin.

[@N1120A]

A Pan Am 747-8 would have been nice to see.

[@elcroato8338]

Thank you for the upload. I'm a great follower of your channel.The analysis is excellent,the quality of your vids also. Keep on doing. Greatings from Germany.

[@bluegreenglue6565]

I am not a pilot, nor will I ever learn to fly an aircraft. But I find the technical details fascinating.

[@dominikmilien]

After watching this once, it got me recommended again and I realized that the thumbnail misspelled "disaster" as "diaster" Great video as always!

[@68MalKontent]

Also within the video the Vr speeds for flaps 10 and 20 are opposite to what they should be.

[@dominikmilien]

@@68MalKontent I don't think so, more flaps means more drag, but also more lift, considering it's 747, flaps 20 could be ok for takeoff and further decrease the speed needed for rotation. I haven't done any calculations but it seems reasonable to me that these speeds are correct.

[@68MalKontent]

@@dominikmilien You are right. What confuses me in this video is that he clearly says at the beginning, that they talked with the despatcher, decided on flaps 20 and afterwards read out the V1 and Vr speeds for that flaps setting, with the Vr *even mentioned* to be 157 kts. It is contrary to what is being said at the end of the video, that they *didn't* recalculate the speeds for flaps 20 and expected rotation not sooner than at 164. There's a mistake somewhere, those statements are mutually exclusive.

[@dominikmilien]

@@68MalKontent I think they didn't recalculate and the part of the video that mentions the dispatcher is not well put. I was also a bit confused but I think I got the point

[@youziyin996]

displaced threshold is not used to prevent taking off; it is only for landing in this end of the runway. you can use the dispalced section to taxi and take off or landing from the other end of the runway.

[@glamdolly30]

Love this narrator's voice, so easy to listen to and really memorable.

[@bartskinthepro3138]

Another great video

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Thank you!

[@dimitarivanov3817]

Can we just say a lot of people were responsible about this incident? A perfect example of why we should always and I mean absolutely always check, double check and triple check every piece of information available. I am just glad everyone survived that. And I don't want to think about if one more thing would have gone wrong.

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Definitely a very close call

[@dimitarivanov3817]

@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation Can I say I am speechless because on one of the recent videos of your somehow I got almost 1k likes

[@reneedaniel2881]

@@dimitarivanov3817 it must have been a very good video to elicit such a like worthy comment, these are A1 class videos.

[@Ananth8193]

Hi man good to see your videos...2nd comment..IS THE AIRPLANE WRITTEN OFF??

[@naknaksdadn572]

Configuring the "bug speeds" of v1, vr and v2 is fundamental. It is mind boggling that trained, experienced flight crews fail these very important pre-takeoff check lists.

[@Milesco]

Well, they _were_ configured -- just for the longer runway. When they were made to switch runways at the last minute, they changed the flaps setting but forgot to recalculate the V speeds. And even _that_ wouldn't have been a problem had they not _also_ gotten bad info about the runway length. They were told they had 9500 feet when in fact they only had 8500 feet.

[@AdrianColley]

This is why we can't have remote pilots. If the pilots' buttocks aren't personally on the plane, then they won't be as careful in distinguishing runway length from TORA in the charts. It's a little surprising that the pilots blindly accepted what the dispatcher told them, so it's a bit like the Tenerife incident.

[@naknaksdadn572]

@@Milesco Well.....you need to explain that to the passengers, the cabin crew and their families. i am curious as to how your opinion would be if you or yours was on this aircraft. People got hurt.

[@Milesco]

​@@naknaksdadn572 : Not minimizing the severe injuries that some of the passengers suffered. That's bad. But humans are not infallible, and none of this would've happened if [1] the runway hadn't been changed at the last minute, and [2] the pilots hadn't been given bad information about the length of the new runway. So in answer to your comment ("you need to explain that to the passengers..."), I would say: 1. The runway was changed on us at the last minute, which resulted in making appropriate changes to the plane's takeoff configuration, but unfortunately overlooking changes to the V speeds as well, and 2. The new runway was not only shorter than the original one, but was an additional thousand feet shorter than we were told, and if we had known that, this accident wouldn't have happened.

[@naknaksdadn572]

@@Milesco It's tragic indeed. Horrible that this wasn't in the NOTAMS.

[@MarkPMus]

Brilliant video, thanks. I binge watch these!

[@steveflor9942]

I heard about this when it happened. Now I know how it happened. THANKS!

[@Ian-lx1iz]

(8:57) San Francisco should change their Airport Code from SFO to LAX. Their dispatchers sound pretty funkin' lax to me.

[@richardcline1337]

You also have to remember, this is San Francisco....a part of California....they screw up (no pun intended) EVERYTHING that they get near!

[@Clipper1094]

@@richardcline1337 yet they somehow have the largest economy in the county and the 5th largest in the world.

[@HolySoliDeoGloria]

The tone of levity around 6:00 saying something like, "I'm just gonna stop listing all the damaged systems" seems somewhat insensitive.

[@CreRay]

One thing I don’t get is: with flaps 20, the Vr and V2 speeds are lower than with flaps 10 at which the speeds were calculated. This caused them to pull too late on the stick, wasting precious runway. Yet still the plane wouldn’t lift off. Why?

[@albertjm]

Love your content! Informative and high quality, keep it up :)

[@arbajrahman2135]

This was N747PA, the 2nd 747 ever built.

[@tomperkins5657]

So glad you are not an AI voice. Excellent info.

[@donnafromnyc]

I am thinking that the logo on the livery would have been the older "Pan American" type in 1971, not Pan Am. But a great video analysis with photos of the actual aircraft. And the sims are a far cry from the random footage of your early ones.

[@zdenekkindl2778]

It seams every runway at every airport ends at highway crossing, tall building, deep forest, busy farmer’s market, hospital, hotel, church, lake, river, ocean front, bridge, drive in movie theatre or police station…

[@wwsoapbox6921]

I stopped on I-280 that day and watched the landing of this 747. We could hear the tires exploding even at that distance. I believe there was one fatality at the take off time.

[@pameladee]

I was wondering about the seriously injured passengers. It had to be pandemonium in the cabin. I can only imagine the horror …

[@Clown90125]

There were no fatalities. Read the official NTSB report. Its online.

[@104thDIVTimberwolf]

There's a great video of an Il-76 taking off somewhere in Europe and not lifting off until about 1000 feet past the end of the pavement. I can only imagine the pucker factor going on in that cockpit. At least they didn't have lights to interfere with their takeoff.

[@tdestroyer1882]

It’s crazy to think that there with aviation incidents it’s like there’s unlimited amounts

[@TheScrappingJeahaha]

And that's only the top of the iceberg, there are many many more to come and also many more which aren't public. Oh and let alone the amount of incidents in private flying

[@drnogueiras8783]

Wow. Made it in 37 seconds, that’s a first

[@random1883]

3:19 This animation is a take off from Runway 10R. The actual take off was from 01R which would be towards the middle of the bay and Highway 101 wouldn't be on the right side.

[@atreyu6976]

@random1 I noticed this also. The animation looks backwards. Ive never seen take offs towards the south bay.

[@OscarScheepstra_Artemis_]

I love those videos. You are an amazing storyteller! The ONLY thing I would possibly change (not sure if it is possible!) woudl be to use period-correct planes. This is the only detail that catches my eye. But seriously, I love all the research, the narration, the way you tell those stories. One of my favorite aviation channels ever!

[@LoneWolf-gm5qm]

Oscar, will you please shut up!

[@HerminiePA]

I didn't hear mention of the white digits on the black background that are on the side of the runway. When, at low speed, they passed the "8" instead of the "9". wouldn't that have been a hint that the runway remaining was too short?

[@themobseat]

Well done, your attention to details shows!

[@roderickcampbell2105]

Really nice report. I hope the folks who were hurt came out of it with as little pain and grief as possible. I suspect some will never fly again.

[@GH-oi2jf]

There is film of this flight returning to SFO on KZbin.

[@davidjb3671]

Apart from the error in V speed calculation, you haven't really answered the question of what went wrong. Was it simply impossible for a 747 at that weight to take off in 8,500 ft? Would a different flap setting have allowed it to take off OK? Was the auto-throttle set to an insufficient power level, or did they fail to manually advance it far enough for full take-off power? These are the details that matter. Thanks.

[@acedragon1456]

If the pilots didn't recalculate their takeoff configuration they would use the wrong power setting on the engines (planes rarely takeoff using full/TOGA power as it would wear out the engines quicker). The pilots also pulled the nose of the plane too high (as evidenced with the tail strike) leading to a high angle of attack, disrupting air flow over the wings and a slower climb rate overall.

[@davidjb3671]

@@acedragon1456 Thanks, and understood. That's what I imagined but it wasn't really made clear in the video. Flaps were mentioned but not whether the 20 degree setting was good, bad or irrelevant, and I don't recall hearing anything about the power setting, though I could be mistaken.

[@Rodhern]

I cannot quite figure this out. The rotation speed was believed to be 164 knots, the plane reaches the speed, rotates and also reaches the maximum pitch up that can be done before dragging the tail onto the surface, yet it does not lift off. If the true rotation speed is 157 knots, then the aircraft must be traveling faster(?), and at the same pitch attitude, than it would in a text book flaps at 20 degrees takeoff. Why does that not just create even more lift than the text book variant? (I am aware that the plane has used up more runway at this point, but that is kind of irrelevant to the question).

[@Mihcar2887]

As far as I can tell the problem was the fact that they rotated to late because they thought they needed more speed meaning that when they started rotating it was already to late and the plane didn't have enough time to get of the ground

[@tomstravels520]

They likely rotated too quickly and didn’t give enough time for the lift to take effect

[@Mihcar2887]

@@tomstravels520 they actually rotated to late

[@tomstravels520]

@@Mihcar2887 I said rotates quickly not early. As in pulled the nose up sharply

[@alhanes5803]

@@tomstravels520 🥵

[@tsurutuneado5981]

I don't understand the flaps part, didn't the flaps 20 configuration actually save the flight beacause of lower airspeed needed for takeoff and thus less runway needed?

[@MattMcIrvin]

Probably, but they forgot to rotate for takeoff earlier, which they could have done at flaps 20--that would have prevented damage entirely. (Also, I am not sure but I think the extra drag from the flaps might have increased the amount of runway needed to get to a given speed, making that recalculation all the more important?)

[@joshuahudson2170]

@@MattMcIrvin I thought about dropping the flaps at VR but I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea.

[@hellosweden8786]

Everything is so awesome, I hope you can visualise the airport layout next time there is a lack of runway and displaced thresholds!

[@Edgy01]

Another thing that perhaps is missed in analysis is just how new the 747 was in 1971. I flew my first 747 ride from LAX to Hilo, Hawaii I think summer of 1970. That Pan Am 747 was still going through countless build problems then. Perhaps dispatch just wasn’t as proficient with the 747 numbers as he should have been when presented with last minute config changes. Sadly, ultimately the crew didn’t want to hold up others stacking up behind them. That’s, sadly, a common problem. Everyone’s in a hurry to get to their accident.

[@danieldrayet2364]

At sfo The full-length of runway 1R is 9500 ft The only 747s to depart from there were likely domestic routes and likely not max weight

[@oboealto]

I really enjoy your content and the insights you provide. However, I've noticed that sometimes there's a bit of repetition that extends the video length unnecessarily. Maybe consider condensing your points a bit to keep the content concise while still delivering the valuable information. Keep up the great work, and thanks for sharing your knowledge!

[@LMays-cu2hp]

Thank you for sharing.

[@sakshattiwari6831]

Hate it how the commerical aspects of it (burning of fuel, other planes waiting behind you when taxiing, very quick communications with the ATC) puts pressure on the pilots to make very quick decisions, which can sometimes end up being life threatening. Maybe technology has come to a point where all this is avoidable, but the fact that a lot of accidents happened because of just these factors is sad.

[@stephenallen4635]

Is there any particular reason why the end of the runway has what seems to be a minefield that shreds planes if they run into it

[@FreemanVashier]

With a lower rotation speed needed to lift the nose, wouldn't that get them off the ground sooner than the higher listed speed? As soon as he rotated wouldn't it basically leap into the air using less runway?

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

But they wouldn’t initiate the rotation until the higher speed has been reached. Thereby increasing the time spent on the ground 👀

[@cyklandetidsoptimisten]

V1 149kts Vr 157kts at flaps 20 Vr 164kts at flaps 10. Since they changed from flaps 10 to flaps 20 they got a 7kts lower Vr, meaning they could rotate and lift off earlier than if they had stayed with flaps 10. I would assume that was the pilots reasoning for changing flaps configuration? Shorter rwy -> chose a higher flaps setting to get airborne earlier. I just don’t get the reasoning behind the conclusion made in this video. Please enlighten me.

[@cyklandetidsoptimisten]

To clear things out I read the report and as mentioned at the end of the video, the pilots did not calculate the new V1,Vr speeds, so they waited beyond 157kts which was to actual Vr speed at flaps 20. They were still aiming for the flaps 10 Vr speed of 164kts to be achieved before rotating. They did however initiate take off rotation at approximately 160 or 161 knots because the end of the runway was, "... coming up at a very rapid speed" and not because the aircraft had reached the calculated 164 knots rotation speed. The confusion from my side and others making comments comes from the information @1:45 in the video where it is incorrectly stated that the crew actually had the flaps 20 V-speeds.

[@FreemanVashier]

@@cyklandetidsoptimisten my question was tho, as soon as he rotated why didn't the plane leave the ground almost instantly since the speed was above the lower speed needed

[@HolySoliDeoGloria]

This is the first time I've heard of a displaced threshold being unavailable for takeoff (but I understand why, and the video explained it)-normally, you can do anything on a displaced threshold except land: You can start or end your takeoff on it, and you can roll out on it when you land on the other end.

[@HolySoliDeoGloria]

@didyuknowYes, that makes more sense than reducing the runway available for takeoff. I agree.

[@maxmiller3181]

Anyone else notice that the aircraft in the video is a 747-8i? I’d like to think if Pan Am were still around, they would have been the launch customer for the type ✈️

[@coca-colayes1958]

Sweet still love this channel

[@thomaskramer2266]

So why did you choose a 747-8 for the cgi?

[@DaBroofUrner]

Great video as always! A small advice: please tweak your voice a bit louder as you sound more quiet than most youtubers

[@donaldvincent]

Very informative. Thanks for posting. God I miss Pan Am 747's , TWA too. I guess I am getting old. We used to get real metal utensils and after dinner you could smoke if you liked. I am a non smoker but it was everywhere back then so I never minded at all.

[@miojobob]

Very nice video as usual !! Good Job !!

[@billiebobbienorton2556]

Tipped over?!?!? What? Looks like it was right side up in the picture with the evacuation slides. What is "Right Body Gear"???? Left one just missing??? If you're talking about "Landing Gear" say so. Various pieces or sections? Please explain.

[@ellenbryn]

Good grief. Your discussions are excellent as always. It seems like the end of the runways at SFO have caltrops, between the towers in this crash and the sea wall that that Asian jet (was it China airlines? I forget) came in low and tripped over a few years back.

[@randym9147]

No mention of the plane sitting just left of the landing 747 at 11:23 why?

[@douggodsoe]

I think there’s a confusion in the video between runways 10R and 01R. The discussion is on the length limit of 01R, which is perpendicular to the 101 highway, but the animation shows the flight taking off from 10R heading out over the San Francisco Bay. Not sure which one is correct.

[@michaelhackett3715]

1R was the actual runway used for takeoff and that's what is shown in the overhead diagrams. The post-takeoff views show a plane that departed from 10R, an unfortunate error in a video about failure to pay attention to detail. Very cool animation though.

[@Paiadakine]

I like how the wheels go into the runway on take off.

[@Plqnes]

Love ur videos

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Thank you so much

[@SleeplessSwan7]

killer video as always. Would like it if you add the status of the airplane or what happened to it after the accident (if it didn't blow up of course). Just a humble suggestion. Keep the goodies comin' mate!

[@Milesco]

According the Allec Joshua Ibay's video of this incident (link below), the plane (N747PA) was fixed and returned to service, where it continued in service until Pan Am went out of business in 1991. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oaKQqo2aZrGBpZY

[@michaelscott356]

With a NON-killer ending was the best part!

[@grmpEqweer]

I'm late! Oooh! At least the flight's still boarding!

[@TheScrappingJeahaha]

Human factors are an very interesting topic. They are known for almost a decade now but they will always remain a factor as long as there is a pilot in the cockpit

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

Known for almost a decade? I took a Human Factors class in 1974, and it was "old" by then. The discipline, sometimes called Ergonomics, really came into its own during and after WWII. Transport aircraft, in particular, saw cockpit layouts became somewhat standardized (crashes during the Berlin Airlift caused in part by pilots flying multiple dissimilar aircraft one after the other) and checklists were introduced (B-17 that they forgot to removed the control surface locks from). More recent contributions include things like Cockpit Resource Management.

[@Houshalter]

Most of your other videos feature comical negligence, but there's no error in this story that I couldnt have made if I was a pilot.

[@richardmcavoy6413]

First time one of your episodes leaves me confused. So they hit the poles because they waited to reach the 10 degree flap setting rotate speed (164) instead of attempting to rotate sooner? (Because they hadn't recalculated Vr. of 157).

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

They basically initiated the rotation too late and went in doing so went through too much runway

[@richardmcavoy6413]

@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation Thank you.

[@68MalKontent]

@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation But why do you say at the beginning of the video, that they talked with the despatcher and then read out from the charts the V1 and Vr speeds for flaps 20, which was the correct value of 157? Something doesn't add up here. They seem to have had the correct Vr noted down, and not the 164 for flaps 10, not recalculated for flaps 20 as you suggest at the end of the video. Either I'm missing something here or the explanations aren't clear. English isn't my native language, so I may have misunderstood something, but I feel confused.

[@johneyon5257]

@@68MalKontent - you're right - there's some confusion in the narration - at 1:43 the narrator says the pilots "read out" the V speeds for Flaps 20 - but at 10:36 - he says the pilots "should have recalculated the V speeds " but "they didn't" that second statement seems to be the correct one - the pilots seemed to overshot the Flaps 20 VR cuz they were using the Flaps 10 VR - that meant they were on the runway longer than they needed to be i think that the issue of the runway length (9,500 ft total = 1,000 ft displacement + 8,500 usable runway) also added to the confusion - since the 747 could take-off on an 8,500 ft runway - altho maybe by knowing the actual length of the runway - the pilots might have been more alert - maybe

[@Nelson-Man]

The animation suggests that the plane struggled to take off bouncing back onto the runway. But from what's said it should have taken off easily being even faster than its actually rotation speed. Or am I mistaken here?

[@bobkile9734]

Well….when they hit their target rotation speed, they were out of runway. Don’t forget to account for the momentum of a fully loaded 747. They got the nose up, but the plane didn’t lift up right away. The momentum still carried them into the lights. Also animation is a re-enactment done in flight simulator, not an animation he can edit every frame of. He does his best, and it’s certainly impressive, but he can’t be expected to perfectly replicate the flight.

[@liz9147]

Love this channel!

[@jerrylawson4463]

What happened at 11:23? I can't believe with almost 2 hours of flying to dump fuel, and trying to find out what still worked on the plane, that ATC would allow another plane to land on 28L or taxi across it. what happened?

[@laurasalo6160]

Why isn't this a Mayday episode!? This is an incredible incident, and miraculous! I'm damn sure id recall this one! I know them all almost by heart.

[@geoh7777]

I made a series of mistakes like that when I left in my car for a long trip. Not far after departing on the trip, my car fell through the pavement. I do not like flying or boat travel. However illogical that is. I know I'm not alone.

[@ursodermatt8809]

yes, i am sure there are many other nuts roaming around