When Automation Goes Horribly Wrong | The Crash Of Iberia 1456

[@antoniobranch]

This shows the pilots, nature and automation where all fighting each other.

[@kurtbuck99]

I'm sorry, I can't let you do that Dave. --HAL 9000

[@gomphrena-beautifulflower-8043]

Oh my gosh, what memories you stirred. I went to see 2001: A Space Odyssey at Belle Meade Theater in Nashville when it opened! I was about 10 years old; most of it was over my head at the time! But I understood it when I got a little older. Definitely before its time, this one.

[@karllegrand]

"I UNDERSTOOD THAT REFERENCE"

[@dennismayfield8846]

Spot-On, K.B.!

[@cryptoslacker-464]

LOL. See now way the Airbus was nicknamed the scarebus 🥶

[@PeterSwinkels]

While you would hope something like this never happes, at least everyone survived.

[@boyman999]

Loved MSFS footage such an easy game to look at! Keep up the awesome work!

[@manojbala6870]

As an A320 trainer, things take us by surprise even now. Please don’t blame the crew Edit: Hurts to see people blame the crew. Ask the people if they can understand Aoa, more less the formula. Dear captain, If you’re reading this, you got caught in Murphy’s law

[@JamesF0790]

I mean to be fair the fact they were both flying the plane directly seems like a failure of CRM isn't it?

[@DaveChimny]

That same question came to my mind immediately after hearing it: Was there any reason to make inputs on both sides? I'm just an armchair pilot and don't know the full functionality of an Airbus cockpit but what I know is that there's no feedback of what the other pilot is doing with his sidestick. So I think it's mandatory to call out "My control!" or "I have control!" when you want to intervene. This should be the same procedure in a Boeing cockpit but the advantage is that you have the yoke in front of you clearly showing what the other pilot is doing.

[@neillp3827]

That damn plane is far too automated. Pilpts are basically trained as software trouble shooters rather than pilots when trained to fly this bird

[@DaveChimny]

​@@neillp3827 I'm not a fan of Airbus, but even I wouldn't agree here: The hardest part of being a pilot today is to understand systems. And that's the same on Airbus, Boeing or Embraer. You have to know what a plane is capable and what it can't do. That's why the pilots of Asiana 214 crashed - they didn't understand the auto throttle system of their 777.

[@patrickmollohan3082]

I'm not going to blame the crew for anything. They rode it out as it came. My problem.is with Airbus!! Making their planes think that they know more than pilots do. If the automation would have completely given ALL aspects of the controls to the pilots, even cutting off the Stall protection, they wouldve had the fine elevator control to.let the crew ride it out completely!! Those guys were basically being fed a big shit sandwich as it was!! They couldn't properly do a Go Around, nor could they land w/o the nose gear slamming the runway. I say "well done men" considering what the plane was doing. It could have easily went the other way.✈✈

[@matthewrowe9903]

As some one with decades in aviation accident research you do a fantastic job great vids informative and detailed keep up the good work

[@AurioDK]

Surprised not to have seen this in the Aircrash Investigation episodes, good narrative.

[@atakorkut5110]

I haven't watched in a couple week sorry I've been busy but I'm loving the new videos man catching up now and they're great to keep it up cant wait till u hot 50k subs. i always share videos with my dad and all his mechanic buddies at the airport

[@gilbertfranklin1537]

Hey, Mini ACI, it was thoughtful not to get the math too complex for us - but I have the impression that you are personally very good at it - correct?

[@cryptoslacker-464]

It was clear as mud to me 😆

[@Jet-Pack]

When the angle of attack is too high the wing won't produce any lift. Incorrect, it should be "less lift" than just before the stall. The lift during a stall is significant and non-zero. Look at an airfoil plot for the lift coefficient Cl over a 360° angle of attack range. The only times the lift coefficient reaches zero is when the angle of attack is near zero (or slightly negative) or when the airfoil is at near 180° flying backwards.

[@pilotopolar8641]

IT'S THE FIRST TIME I WATCH YOUR VIDEOS, AND I SEE YOU'VE DONE A GOOD WORK. CONGRATULATIONS AN HERE, I AM A NEW SUBSCRIBER

[@yaysimonsays151]

9:35 oh wow perfect timing that fix will definitely be important for a few days

[@dennismayfield8846]

'Spoiling' us, with near-flawless, visual-audio-journalism!

[@mikehenderson631]

Wow man you went to a flight simulator that is so cool that you did that instead of using the videos of people send you for their up the airplane

[@cameronbooker445]

Thats a neat sentence. I'm hanging out drinking my own urine and smoking Clorox wipes trying to figure it all out.

[@Oops-IMeantToDoThat]

What I don't understand, and I've heard this on a number of crash debriefs, is why BOTH pilots are flying. There us supposed to be 1 flying and 1 monitoring. And, for some reason, NTSB never comments on it as a contributing or main cause

[@RubenKelevra]

Isn't there a warning "dual input" if two pilots use the sidestick to warn about that behavior?

[@busteraycan]

I think that alarm only triggers if the stick inputs are opposite.

[@RonakDhakan]

The sound volume on your videos is very low.

[@GuillermoSTD]

Hehe, I had to smile when I was watching this video and it mentioned Bilbao, as that's where I live. It's not that they're very high at all, about 2,200 ft at their highest point, but the city is more or less surrounded by small mountains, so I can see how this peculiar orography can create pretty difficult conditions for takeoffs and landings at our local airport. Glad to see that this scary incident prompted a response from Airbus and served to improve air safety.

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Thanks for the context!

[@sarahalbers5555]

Guillermo., isn't that in the Basque region? I have always be fascinated by that area, rarely hear it mentioned. Off topic, but I named one of my cats Basque name. Thanks Mini, this was interesting. I flew the A320 alot, I know it had some eccentricities. Keep up the great work.!

[@mitalibose1527]

Surprised that he didn't make any videos on Ryanair

[@imaPangolin]

Oddities like this sudden tailwind, human pilots can recognize and counter. I don’t think we are anywhere near close to pilotless airplanes.

[@marvin4827]

No matter what you plan for, life don't go by the book...

[@Ghazibinhafiz]

In summary, the "protection" system of AOA has priority over pilot command of sidestick, prevent the pilots to take the correct action, which is to FLARE, last few seconds before touch down. Crew is not to blame in the case. However, Airbus should be blamed for this accident. Anyway, Software has been updated since then to convert aircraft to "Direct" law, which a term means the aircraft will be converted to "Normal" aircraft where the pilots have full authority to control the aircraft

[@JimDean002]

I'm not sure I go with the last sentence where we blame the wind. The wind has been blowing over there for a billion years. This is basically someone building an extremely complicated system which encountered landing conditions they had not programmed for. The end of the day the computer wasn't smart enough to know that it was pushing an aircraft nose down hard feet from the ground. That's a programming issue not a wind issue

[@johnpritchard5410]

The video is relevant to the story, which is not always the case here.

[@julianfierro7034]

Oh my god, I'm back in A320 Gen Fam

[@Yosetime]

I think this was a foreseeable outcome. Of course the "math" should have already included such variables as ground proximity and who's in control. Makes me think that formula was made by a mathematician without the input of actual pilots. When you take real-life circumstances out of the equation, you get conflict between automation and reality. Glad nobody does in this crash. They were so close!

[@karlnash7105]

Love it when your High-tech a/c helps you crash. Thanks Airbus. ;-)

[@spddiesel]

Seems like the easiest fix to this is to have the automatic stuff turn off below a certain elevation, say 200'.

[@DJea-ni2yk]

An AD, or, AIRWORTHINESS "DIRECTIVE", has NEVER once, "asked" for ANYTHING! YOU EITHER DO IT OR YOU DON'T FLY IT!.....PERIOD...I hope you UNDERSTAND THAT NOW!

[@rhettshipley4593]

what came after F

[@daniel3188]

Is this not exactly what happened with the 737 MAX?

[@patolt1628]

No it's different. In the 737 Max there was a sensor failure which led the computer to consider there was a stall situation. In this case there was no failure, the system doing just its job, protecting from a stall. Moreover they could have prevented it, using the priority switch before taking manual control and having only one pilot flying instead of 2 pilots acting on the controls simultaneously. However, these computerized aircrafts have to be flown on a different way and this might be an issue in a stressed situation indeed

[@isbestlizard]

Why are both pilots trying to fly the plane at the same time? That feels like something that shouldn't be happening...

[@castletown999]

I have never understood why the average of both stick inputs is ever going to be the right answer. Especially when one pilot cannot feel the input of the other. Essentially, when you have two conflicting inputs that plane does a seemingly random third thing.

[@tomstravels520]

What’s the alternative for sidesticks that aren’t linked?

[@indahooddererste]

Well the plane tells you when multiple Input is done.

[@castletown999]

@@tomstravels520 Good question. One answer might be: At any one time only one stick is active. Then the other one goes floppy and loose telling the pilot that it isn't connected to the plane.

[@aseem7w9]

@@tomstravels520 Hope Airbus learns from Bombardier's A220 on how to make good side sticks

[@tomstravels520]

@@aseem7w9 why’s that? The sidestick on A220’s are also passive

[@jamesstuart3346]

This sounds suspiciously like 737 Max

[@TimothyChapman]

Seems Airbus is always running into problems with their automation systems. At least this time, everyone survived. It's a shame that Boeing decided to go down that same path.

[@catrachocolo]

Airbus has repeatedly run into problems because, when introduced, their automation systems were highly advanced and in many ways breaking new ground. As a consequence, there often was no experience or established knowledge they could have used to base their work on and avoid mistakes. Over time, they learned the hard way - through incidents and accidents. And the systems became better and safer. Boeing has run into problems because their automation systems are half-assed and violate industry standards. And because they decided to simply ignore decades of experience and established knowledge. That is a fundamental difference!

[@aerofiles5044]

Yeah, it goes to show that automation isn't the answer. Boeing had a pitch perfect balance of automation and manual control. But they soon found out the hard way that their airplanes just aren't built for it.

[@davidbingaman4303]

Here's a novel idea - when pilots take manual control close to the ground on landing...disable the software and ya know let them fly the plane period - and do as the pilots command.

[@dunbar9finger]

That's not the Airbus way. The Airbus way is to assume programers writing software several years ago at desks know the situation you are in right now better than you do, because you know, they're all clairvoyant.

[@SuperHeatherMorris]

@@dunbar9finger The Airbus protection systems are very good, the idea being to protect the aircraft from being asked to do things it can't. One thing that does seem very odd about this is the dual input from both side sticks. I cannot understand why the First Officer would interfere with the Captains flying in this way. The aircraft would have been shouting "Dual Input!" warnings and the glare shield warning lights would be on. The aircraft is not designed to be hand flown by both side sticks and the rule is if you want to take control you press the red button on the stick (it also disconnects the autopilot) and the aircraft will reply "Priority Left (or Right)' and give that sides tick full control. Bilbao is well known for its strange wind conditions that can suddenly result in an unexpected tailwind.

[@vinniegravano8136]

I think Einstein couldn't understand that one.

[@sharoncassell9358]

It needs a rocket scientist and I'm sure he'd be confused and baffled.

[@tomstravels520]

So it’s not a failure of the automation as it did exactly as it was programmed. More like a design limitation due to the people who wrote the code not foreseeing this happening

[@sivalley]

What part about poorly written software is so hard to understand that the software IS the automation? Design failure would be a piece of hardware not being adequate for the NORMAL loads of use. Automation is NOT the controls, it is the CONTROLLER. Also, nice posting the same thing twice.

[@PatrickRyan147]

It's a no-brainer that AOA protection should always be automatically disabled by the computer when the plane is trying to land. Bad programmer 😡

[@fchanMSI]

This sounds like the MCAS issue in 737 but in this case all people lived, except for serious injury.

[@harrw3168]

I am not a pilot However, disconnecting auto pilot would render the craft to be manually piloted. That is, any input by the pilot should not be interefered by a computer. If the pilot and co-pilot pulled the stick back, that command should have total priority, especially when TOGA was invoked. I have never heard the autopilot enabling TOGA. I may be wrong.

[@tomstravels520]

If they had total priority there is a chance they could have stalled and crashed anyway. That is what the computer is trying to prevent but the original design meant it was the same whether it was at 200 ft or 2000ft. Stalling is NOT something you ever want to do. The autothrust will engage alpha floor protection which means activating TOGA thrust even if engines are at idle to prevent the stall

[@quasarsavage]

Tf bilbao is Spanish? Sounds se asian language town name lol

[@emanuelmarquez3015]

Do as y commercial planes let the “pilot” fly?

[@andyharpist2938]

SO who decided to not have visible control columns but tiny play-game 'imput' side sticks. Then to make them a mini accidents in waiting by over complicating them. These things brought down Air France from South America.

[@tomstravels520]

They did not bring down AF447. The pilot stalling the plane in the first place brought it down and both pilots either didn’t hear or ignored the DUAL INPUT warning and neither pressed the priority takeover button. The safety guards are there, no one used or listened to them

[@andyharpist2938]

@@tomstravels520 Why didnt they press the button to give "priority takeover" because they expected the controls to work and not to give further decisions about who was flying. They ignored the safety guards because they were scared out of their minds...overcomplicated and dangerously fatal.

[@tomstravels520]

@@andyharpist2938 take a look at Atlas Air 3591 and see what happen when you have a yoke and the 2 pilots end up fighting over control. The plane still crashed

[@andyharpist2938]

@@tomstravels520 Yokes can be faught over that is true. My friends Merc was taken over by his cars PC when he passed by a lorry without indicating... you change the nature of control at your peril.

[@jonathanfriedman234]

Are you sure this is not a Boeing MAX? Airbus have always been over controlled.

[@colin-nekritz]

Airbus suuuucccka

[@rrknl5187]

No matter what sort of fancy math is programmed into the computer, the end result here is that the computer overrode the pilot and crashed the plane. I've never flown a fly-by-wire plane, I never will. If I pull back on the yoke, joystick or whatever, I expect the nose to rise and I have no tolerance for any computer, no matter how 'smart' to override my control inputs.

[@johnfaassen1890]

Hmmmmm - AOA sounds similar to MCAS!

[@janipt]

Has nothing to do with MCAS

[@couchetard1984]

Seems like "don't pitch down at low altitude" should have been an obvious instruction for Airbus to include.

[@lst141]

What about the saying “I have control”

[@jjaus]

The Captain should have pushed the priority button and said that.

[@RubenKelevra]

@Night Rider nope. You can override the computer if necessary

[@supertekkel1]

Sidestick controls alway's intrigued me; The control collum as in Boeing aircraft is much more intuitive. Each pilot can see what the other is doing, plus it gives manual feedback on what the plane's automation is doing. Think only of Airfrance flight 447.

[@Top_Weeb]

I really like how you also cover accidents like this one that result in no fatalities.

[@RadioactiveSherbet]

Yeah, I was thinking that the computer shouldn't command a nose down when the plane is relatively level, and at too low an altitude. I can't see any situation where that's a good thing.

[@misham6547]

Aerodynamic stall because your not going to recover anyway without doing something right now

[@RubenKelevra]

Well it's kind of correct. The airspeed dropped suddenly and the angle of attack was very high. So a stall was kind of imminent. This system is in place cause pilots can do errors as all humans. In this case the wind basically fouled the planes computers long enough to cause it to take the wrong actions.

[@Milesco]

@@misham6547 : But you can't have the computer pitch the airplane down when it's so close to the ground, impending stall or not. And the pilots had commanded max engine power, so that in itself would help to avoid a stall. And if it isn't enough -- well so be it, but when you're close to the ground, the last thing you want to do is pitch the plane _down._ It's the difference between a possible crash and a certain crash.

[@ronniewall1481]

11 VIEWS A MINUTE. YOU DO GOOD YOUNG MAN.

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Thank you kind sir!

[@steves659]

Attempting to make a plane that is 'idiot proof' has been shown to be a factor in and of itself that leads to accidents. Would be interesting to see just how many times the technology saved the day versus causing the issue. Personally, I preferred the Boeing philosophy that gave us pilots the direct control of the aircraft.

[@FelixIsGood]

Pretty sure automation saved the day more than causing issues, also flights are now much more safe than 50 years ago. As human you can't keep an eye on every parameter in the cockpit a computer will always keep an eye on everything. As a computer scientist i can tell you that we even might be able to let an AI completely start, fly and land in a way which no human can do. It's more like a matter of time and a matter of the humans accepting it.

[@steves659]

@@FelixIsGood As an Airline Transport Pilot will say that humans make lousy monitors ... yes you can feed a monkey enough bananas to fly an airplane but the pilot is there for judgment.

[@FelixIsGood]

@@steves659 That is the misunderstanding most people have about AI. AI is much more capable than any human, if you are interested you can look up Deep-Mind or OpenAI, both are solving taks on a super-human level. Don't get me wrong there might be situations where 0.001% of humans are better than the AI, but they are still much better than the most. Judgment is by logic nothing only humans are capable of.

[@mathewcherrystone9479]

@@FelixIsGood AI today is only better than humans in specific tasks and only if it was trained for this exact task and often enought only for the data it was trained on. If anything unexpected happens the AI is usually screwed and doesn't know what to do.

[@MotorcycleWrites]

@@FelixIsGood AI is lightyears better than humans… at tasks which humans have to define and create the AI for. You can’t just throw a genetic algorithm at something like flying an airliner, you have to design each system deliberately and the pilots need to be aware of all of the things which the systems can and can’t do. It’s a nitpick because you’re right that we *can* design AI which is better than humans, that doesn’t mean we always actually *do*.

[@cmonkey63]

Tail winds are no joke. In 1990 I was flying from Ottawa to Vancouver. The jet stream winds (headwinds going west) were so strong, we had to make a stop in Calgary for extra fuel. At night in a snowstorm with -14C. We were on final approach, so low you could make out the cars on the ground, when we suddenly dropped for a full 3 seconds. Quick thinking by the pilots got us back up, but my confidence in air travel never recovered after that.

[@GaryNumeroUno]

Sounds like CRM broke down... the First Officer was pilot flying. The Captain should not have interfered or instead made the call... "I have control". Hopefully lessons were learnt.

[@franciscotrigo9656]

Very well explained!

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Rhaman68]

Well, as a former Airbus Capt U must comment. The issue was not automation but crew coordination and discipline. Early in training the dangers of both pilots using the side stick and the nose wheel control simultaneously. The video explains the reasons why. Why were both pilots flying the plane when only one is supposed to be the flying pilot, the other monitoring?

[@michaelmcintyre8250]

As a retired A-320 (and other) Captain, I agree that the PNF should have kept his hand off the sidestick. Nothing good can come from having two pilots making inputs. Air France had a similar problem over the Atlantic several years ago.

[@tissuepaper9962]

Forcing the plane to nose down while in landing configuration, at low altitude, and in mostly level flight is a serious bug in the automation. The dual inputs were a contributing factor, but the primary issue was with the automation. Stalling out early over the runway and landing hard on the main gear seems a lot better than hitting the runway nose first and collapsing the nose gear.

[@Milesco]

Ramon Cardona said: _"Early in training the dangers of both pilots using the side stick and the nose wheel control simultaneously."_ [sic] Then why does the Airbus design allow it?

[@Milesco]

@@michaelmcintyre8250 _"Nothing good can come from two pilots making inputs. Air France had a similar problem over the Atlantic several years ago."_ Exactly right! Indeed, that very crash prompted me to wonder at the time why Airbus would ever allow both pilots to control the airplane at the same time. That's a recipe for disaster. "No man can serve two masters." Matthew 6:24

[@tissuepaper9962]

@@Milesco I think the reason they have the automation consider both inputs is for "oh shit" moments when the PM can't keep him/herself from grabbing the stick and yanking back because the situation is so critical and scary. If both pilots give the same input at the same time that's a good indication to the plane that, whatever that input was, it needs to be acted upon *now* and not balanced against safety factors etc. by the automation. The other reason that I see as plausible is that most smaller planes have the pilot/copilot controls physically attached together, so the pilot/copilot can feel and resist each other's inputs if they're both on the controls. Airbus might have wanted to emulate that kind of dynamic when no priority is set. The situation I'm imagining is that the pilot has become incapacitated with his hand pushing the side stick full forward. If priority is set, the copilot can't really react to the pilot's erroneous inputs without flipping a switch (I think priority is set with a physical switch, I can't remember). If no priority is set, the copilot can use the sidestick to "cancel out" the inputs from the incapacitated pilot while trying to find and flip the switch.

[@ianjones3562]

Excellent content once again - your research is always top notch. Would love to hear details on the Korean Air 747 cargo 8509 crash that happened at Stansted UK on 22nd December 1999 . I was in the area at the time at a supermarket and heard the engine sound from having just taken off .

[@gettothepoint2707]

5:21 Traumatic High school flash backs. 😂😂😂 Thanks for that 👍

[@smcdonald9991]

Differential equations in high school?

[@cherriberri8373]

Damn, automation really fucked up that flight huh

[@Talguy21]

Thankfully, nobody had to die to teach this lesson.

[@VexifyGaming]

Woke up just in time

[@eucliduschaumeau8813]

Mountain-effect rotor winds have been known to down aircraft on more than one occasion.

[@stormtrooper7177]

I like how it takes KZbin 13 hours to notify me about your videos...

[@patjohn775]

It’s because this talks about death and youtube is a huge mess so they can’t figure out how to separate this from stupid videos.

[@swtcaroline93]

Why wasn't the plane in landing configuration, or was it? Wouldn't that cancel the AOA protections? I really enjoy your videos!

[@Soordhin]

It was, and no, landing configuration in itself does not cancel AOA protections, it just adjust the values used for the present configuration. After all, AOA protection is there to prevent stalling the plane, which would have helped Turkish Airlines with their 737 in Amsterdam for example.

[@swtcaroline93]

@@Soordhin True, that was pretty close to the ground. Didn't think of it that way.

[@tomstravels520]

Yes it was in landing configuration but at the time the AOA protections were the same no matter what the altitude. Now the AOA protections are only disabled at about 200ft I think

[@RubenKelevra]

Kind of strange to hear that the crew flew the plane together. This kind of makes sense if the control columns are linked and you can push the input a bit further or back if you train someone. But in normal operations there shouldn't be two pilots flying.

[@crazyjhey8050]

That is one thing about airbus that really sucks the side-sticks are like game controls u can’t feel what the other stick is doing or even what the aircraft is doing. There are some private jets that have side sticks that are in sync with the other but this technology has not been used on any airbus aircraft. Boeings control columns are mirrored and even on the fly by wire aircraft they seem to do way better on control feeling

[@RubenKelevra]

@@crazyjhey8050 well if you use both sticks on an Airbus you get an audible warning: "dual input". You also got override buttons which you can use to temporarily override the other stick (are both located in the same place). Also you do have feedback on the sticks. So not sure what you're complaining about. :)

[@crazyjhey8050]

@@RubenKelevra first of all I work on the aircraft so if u don’t then u only know what what ever u read about. The artificial fell on the on sticks is nothing more than a stiffer feel as u move the stick thru the range of movement. That fell is the same if u are on the ground or if ur cruising at speed it’s artificial and it doesn’t increase with speed. As far as duel input yeah the aircraft will bitch about it but in an emergency situation I guess u can discuss with the other pilot what exactly is going on right? If it wasn’t an issue no 1 would spent the money and time on technology to synchronize both side sticks would they? Idk if u realize it but aircraft have crashed because of this exact issue. Accidents that would been prevented if one pilot knew what the other was doing so it does seem like it might be a problem.

[@mann2520]

First notification this hour😁😁😁since I unlocked my phone

[@michaelbuckers]

All that system behaviour notwithstanding, it probably spared the plane of a much harder impact, seeing how it prevented a stall and a sharp descent rate spike right before touchdown.

[@nicholasjohnson778]

No offense, but that is not true and counters the findings from the accident investigation. The A-max protection kept the aircraft from even experiencing the buffeting from an impending stall. So there was still some performance the pilots could have squeezed out of that situation, but Airbus software blocked them. It also caused the plane to absorb the entire force of the hard landing on its nose wheel. What I would agree with is that a stall while in uncoordinated flight would have been a worse outcome. Since that would have caused one wing to stall first and impact the ground. However, the need in this scenario was to reduce the rate of descent as much as possible and for the main landing gear to absorb the impact. The automation failed at both of these.

[@isaaclao2380]

Yess, I am waiting for another video, keep up with the good work

[@janipt]

I dont understand whats the problem here. Automation absolutely cannot allow pitch up if the AOA is too high because then the plane would stall and crash. Maybe im missing something

[@gilbertfranklin1537]

Altitude - when you are virtually on the ground all bets are off.

[@haschid]

The pilots should have went around after the first updraft. It was an unstable approach. And why in the hell were they fighting for the control of the aircraft? Terrible CRM. As far as I understand, automation saved everyone's life in this case.

[@sharoncassell9358]

No way Jose'. A Tesla csr just crashed into parked cars as it driver was asleep. People have to monitor the vehicle automation & correct it if it goes awry. We will not be replaced by robots.

[@TrentFalkenrath]

Reducing stick angle to climb out? Sounds like releasing the brakes slightly to regain traction in a car. How interesting.

[@sivalley]

Instinctual reactions can be very hard to overcome. To use your example, that's exactly why anti-lock brakes are now standard and work exactly as you described.

[@dunbar9finger]

It's not the same. It's the opposite. In a car when using brakes manually is when you back off the brakes to find the optimal achievable deceleration and when using ABS you just intuitively jam the brake pedal down. This is the exact opposite. With the airbus software the automation *causes* the need to do the counterintuitive thing, rather than implementing a naturally occurring counterintuitive thing for you so you don't have to like ABS brakes do. Here the counterintuitive thing is that the autopilot will not let you take control unless you let go for a second, letting the controls zero out first right at the moment you need to wrest control away from the autopilot that's doing everything wrong. The autopilot software made the mistake of not realizing that unlike when you're high up, when you are just above the ground about to land keeping the nose up is more vital than stopping the stall the sudden tailwind is about to cause. A hard landing on the main wheels because you stalled out a bit higher than you should on final flare is better than a hard landing on the nose wheel. The usual logic of "it's better to dive a bit than start a stall" is not true when your altitude is just a few feet above the ground on final touchdown.

[@sarowie]

Toyota had an "unintended acceleration" "issue". When for what ever reason (that part could never be figured out) the microprocessor freaks out, the supervising microcontroller will not restart the Control task, as long as there is either gas or brake paddle active. So... brilliant. When the micropocessor task freaks out and the car accelerates full throttle, all you had to do was simple fully remove the foot from gas and breaks and then break "as normal". Note: *Fully* release the break paddle while the car accelerates full throttle. If you think that made the jury sympathize with the victims, well: Lying to NASA (yes, NASA was involved in the investigation) about a fact (Error Correcting RAM for the processor) was also on the criminal chargers and you do not need technical expertise for realizing that lying to investigators is not a good thing.

[@theMoerster]

Ah yes...Bilbao Baggins Airport.

[@lucas29476]

So this is the exact same issue as the (very minor) one affecting the last moments of the Hudson ditching?

[@Musikur]

No, in that case, Sully intentionally used the α-max protections to keep the nose as high as possible so they would touch the water at the lowest possible speed. Alpha protection was a hero on that day.

[@JamesF0790]

The tail already dug in on the Hudsun landing, if there hadn't been for the alpha protection when Sully ordered the plane nose up it would have hit at a steeper angle, dug in more and likely would have torn the plane apart.

[@moiraatkinson]

Sounds as if, rather than having a Flight Engineer onboard, planes nowadays should travel with a Systems Analyst..

[@planespotting8727]

I really like your videos. ❤️👍🏻 I am a planespotter and have tons of pictures taken mainly at Arlanda Stockholm. Let me know if you wanna use my pictures in your videos. If you’re looking for a specific aircraft, airline, type or general images. Just let me know 👍🏻

[@melglobus]

I actually really loved the maths, thanks for taking us through the AOA calculations that the computer code does!

[@LunaticTheCat]

Me too! I got really excited when he pulled up the formula lol

[@Milesco]

@@LunaticTheCat Nerds! NERDS!!!!! _;-D_

[@LunaticTheCat]

@@Milesco Guilty as charged lol

[@faz_the_plane_guy1027]

Great video keep up the good work

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Wait this video isn’t live how’d you find it 😂

[@faz_the_plane_guy1027]

I don’t know 😂

[@coca-colayes1958]

I woke up to this video ,great way to start My day

[@kilroy1964]

And the complicated part is that AOA is relative to the direction of the air flow? Not. Good vid though!

[@CuratedPile]

One thing that the average person doesn't understand (I didn't until I learned) is that constant, horizontal wind does not affect airplanes, regardless of wind speed. The plane is moving in that airmass and it has no effects other than navigational - that is it may require course (heading) adjustments to get to the intended track over the ground, and the speed over the ground would be impacted. As such, winds of 55 knots below 6000' are not an issue by themselves and cause no stresses on the airplane. Now, add gusts and vertical movement and you will affect the airplane. This case looks like it was the vertical winds that caused the trouble.

[@PeteHartley]

Thanks very much for these great videos!

[@MIchaelArlowe]

The wind hit it and the front fell off?

[@campbelldutch75]

And hundred years from now and thousands more LIFES we will still be learning from mistakes lol

[@togathrust1047]

Excellent video!! You know what video I'm waiting for :) Keep up the great work!!

[@casparcoaster1936]

Jesus H. I went postal (in my mind) when I couldn't find disable button for my Lexus key fob,; kept locking me out! If no cockpit overide for Boeing by wire, I'd go after the CEO (in my mind).

[@tissuepaper9962]

I lose my shit when my car yells at me for opening the door with the engine on, I would love to be able to get it to STFU. I know about CO, car! I'm not stupid enough to leave the engine running in a confined space! Just stop pestering me!

[@DelfinaKS]

Great video. I am just an aviation enthusiast. However, if I understand it correctly form your videos as well as those by other aviation educations, this particular issue would not have happened in a Boeing aircraft as the side stick and rudder inputs are direct and not automatically adjusted by the flight computer (except in the infamous MCAS used in the new MAX). I am not sure why manufacturers are going for more and more automation that is difficult to override.

[@shi01]

Well, statistically most aviation accidents happen because of human error. We always tend to think of the cases where the pilot(s) heroically safed the plane in one way or another and tend to blank out the cases where simple pilot mistakes where the main reason for a disaster. We don't often hear about the cases where automation actually safed the plane because there's nothing interesting to write about. And even in cases that did get covered by media, we tend to praise the pilots. The best example for this is the miracle of the hudson. Because purely from a flying standpoint Captain Sullenberger would have stalled the plane i think on three occasions purely from the inputs he has given on the stick, and only the envelope protections of the A320 keept the aircraft flying/gliding. Sullenburger did a great job no question, but it wasn't all his skill alone that safed the plane in the end.

[@DelfinaKS]

@@shi01 Automation is helpful but the problem starts when you the automation takes over and refuses to allow the person flying the plan to control it. If automation is given as a tool to help the pilot, that is good. If it is used as a replacement for investing in pilot training (like they did with the MCAS), that is a horrible strategy.

[@shi01]

@@DelfinaKS Well, that always depends on the circumstances. There are situations when not doing what the pilot wants is the right solution. MCAS is actually a bad example for this, because it didn't depend on any pilot input at all. It was mainly designed to conform with FAA regulations and to do that as cheaply as possible. You can't really compare that to a fully fledged fly by wire system.

[@DelfinaKS]

@@shi01 My point is that it is just plain stupid to design a system that ignores pilot input and not even inform pilots about it in their training. That was the central issue with MCAS. If there are systems that ignore pilot inputs, there should always be a manual override to that and pilots must also be informed how the system works. Otherwise, you should just get rid of pilots and use software to fly planes, but it is inhumane to have a pilot be a mute witness to a disaster planned by a programmer who wrote the automation.

[@waitwhatdoyoumean]

You should make a series where your fans recommend made up plane crashes

[@svr5423]

Computer: Radio-Altimeter says I'm close to the ground, I'm also descending and in a nose-down attitude. Let me worry about the erratic AOA first, clearly the pilots should have other priorities than not crash into the ground.

[@donwald3436]

Airbus is HAL 9000.

[@tzadiko]

I don't understand why AOA protection doesn't seem to take into account extremely low altitude

[@supermaster2012]

I'm from Bilbao and this kind of wind pattern is super common when approaching Loiu Airport from either direction as the airport is essentially in the middle of a valley, parallel to its course. The airport used to be in Sondika where this wasn't that problematic but when the airport was moved to Loiu this became common. There's plenty of videos of aircradt landing at Loiu with almost 45 degrees of yaw just to couteract the wind.

[@MrDarkavenue]

This video was posted in 2020, but the crash happened in 2021!?!?!?? *EDIT:* Sorry guys, my YT was just glitching out.

[@PunishedValentine1871]

Hey dude, you should make a discord, would be awesome to interact more with you!

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

I do have one. It’s linked in the description of my videos. Except for this one I think haha

[@PunishedValentine1871]

@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation Thanks for telling me, will join

[@maxsido2149]

Man you need more Subs ps did my Sugesstons arrive on yours

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Did you suggest a video? I’m sorry I don’t know

[@maxsido2149]

@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation yes 2 of them

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

I’m sorry I didn’t get them can you post them here?

[@maxsido2149]

@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation the Panavia Tornado Droptank Incident and the Umea Gippsland 8 Crash

[@MiniAirCrashInvestigation]

Thanks! I’ll check them out!

[@rubybitesthedust]

When you first mentioned AOA my brain autocorrected it to AoE (Attack on Everyone) and I was so confused

[@gd8205]

MSFS2020 with replay. Nice. Videos are going to be so much better. Now you just need aaaall accident aircraft to be developed for the sim 🙃

[@darenbutler7504]

Great video. Very informative and excellent graphics. Well done. 😁

[@jrsleao]

The narrative does not match the images. it is confusing.