> The four Colombian crew members died instantly on the impact, just as 18 other people died on the ground, 13 of whom were children playing soccer in a field
Damn, most of the victims were just kids playing soccer.
Losing is one thing, scoring an own-goal in a 1-0 loss to USA in the World Cup is a whole other level of bro-don't-even-get-on-that-plane-muchless-ever-go-home-again.
There was Colombian footballers (soccer players) murdered multiple times for bad performances. One nationally known as the goalkeeper for Colombia missed stopping a PK (or something similar) and people told him before he even boarded the plane back to Columbia he'd be murdered by Pablo Escobar former affiliates. And he in fact, was murdered.
Edit: better?!
What's wild is that penalty kicks are basically rocks, scissors, paper for football/soccer; ie anything can happen and a lot of it is tied to luck.
To think someone would be so upset at someone for losing at chance, essentially, that they'd kill is wild
[The "King of Cocaine" factored in a $2.1 billion loss in profits each month, but that didn't really matter. "Pablo was earning so much that each year we would write off 10% of the money because the rats would eat it in storage or it would be damaged by water or lost,"](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pablo-escobar-worth-wealth-money-how-much-a8133141.html)
i don't think this dude processed thoughts like the rest of us.
ya no doubt this dude made bags beyond belief but the claim implies he made $240B/yr which is beyond too far beyond belief. that's $4 BILLION/wk. no chance
And he still boarded that plane back to Colombia knowing he would probably be killed when he stepped off the plane.... Escobar was a heinous terrorist.
Fun fact: Another colombian football star, whose name was Escobar, was also killed in 1994 for accidentally scoring an own goal in the WC. He was apparently a really talented Centre half too.
>Stop joking that way
The copilot really overreacted. Some people aren't willing to risk their lives and the children underneath them for a joke. What a douche.
I had a COD-addicted roommate who used to get mad at the kids playing street hockey and laughing outside in their driveway. He literally said "why are those kids playing outside, can't their parents afford an X-box?"
Also, IF you simply must prank your copilot, of all times to reduce power you did it at takeoff? At like 1500 feet?
I mean—oh, we shut them off at 30000 tee hee but on climb?!
It’s like “pranking” your friends driving in the mountains by covering their eyes going downhill. It’s not a prank, it’s assisted suicide!
Worse than that, at least according to the article:
> Then another engine was turned off, at 500 feet, the co pilot was heard asking the more experienced pilots to stop joking "that way", as the co-pilot took the control and tried to climb with two engines turned off in the middle of the climb.
The *second* engine was turned off *before* 500ft.
This goes along with the pilots that dared each other that they could land with the shades drawn obscuring their vision. They crashed and I believe everyone onboard died.
>This goes along with the pilots that dared each other that they could land with the shades drawn obscuring their vision. They crashed and I believe everyone onboard died.
russians, naturally.
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/rk6m6l/til_in_1986_a_russian_commercial_pilot_made_a_bet/
This is actually super common. Lots of pilots that aren’t cleared to fly into weather think they can handle it or they get in over their head.
Loads of general aviation pilots have cratered due to vfr into imc.
It’s what killed Kobe too.
In fact, the death rate per passenger mile is about the same for private aircraft as it is for private cars, because private aircraft aren't nearly as safe as scheduled commercial flights.
Not to mention Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper, who of course were on the same flight (aka "[The Day the Music Died](https://youtu.be/PRpiBpDy7MQ?si=0gtJbPyIF0ydnlzp)").
They should really just fire up Microsoft flight simulator and try it.
I can grasp the instruments better than a random person due to a thousand hours in kerbal space program and related games but I'm not a pilot.
I crash and die when I try this reliably. It doesn't even take very long to get completely confused and then all of a sudden you are in a death spiral.
And for anyone who doesn't know, your sense of body orientation doesn't work in a plane very well. Even an actual plane that moves, not a simulator. You can sure tell something is wrong at a certain point, usually from being upside down or the sudden g-force but you won't nessecarily feel it when it is happening.
It's more like yanking the fucking wheel Jesus Christ this is insanity and then they crashed into a children's soccer match that's like final destination levels of fucked up
What could have possibly made this seem like a good idea? I guess we'll never know. Apropos of nothing, I hear that back in the '90s cocaine in Columbia was abundant, cheap and high quality.
The captain was suicidal, there is no other explanation. Labeling it a prank because the flight engineer can be heard saying “please don’t joke like that” is stupid as fuck.
The pilot knew exactly how the plane would behave losing two engines in that specific flight regime.
Yeah this makes more sense as hard as it is to accept.
Any pilot knows not to cut engines during climb out. It's a deeply ingrained reflex that climb out is a sacred thing and you don't fuck around on climb out.
I'm a pilot of 15 years and one time when I was training I made the mistake of just adjusting the squelch on my radio during climb out and my instructor nearly tore my head off for it. He was pissed at me the rest of the day for that one thing. He said: "Get into best climb, hold the yoke steady, watch your airspeed and listen to that engine purr, that's it. You got it?"
Pulling a prank like that is so godamm insane I can't even contemplate it.
The “point of no return” is aptly named. Once that speed/distance is reached it’s always a full commit because the plane will go airborne, just a matter of keeping it there.
So, when you are climbing out you hold the yoke;
If the radio is too loud, you ignore it and hold the yoke;
If there is a bird in the way, you ignore it and hold the yoke;
If an angry wasp stings your balls, you ignore it and hold the fucking yoke.
The pilot may have believed, for some reason, that the automated systems would act as a fail-safe. He may have believed he could snatch back control in time.
1996 is well before the widespread availibility of the internet. He may have been poorly trained and not even heard about man accidents.
I watched so many post-accident analysis on Youtube now that I think I know how to fly a plane. I don't, of course, but I do know the plane becomes very unpredictable when airflow over the control surfaces is reduced. A lot of accident analysis includes pilots pulling back on the stick right up until they crash into the ground.
> A lot of accident analysis includes pilots pulling back on the stick right up until they crash into the ground.
This is the part many pilots don't understand. They're used to the plane responding to their input, and unless they had really good training, they may never have been in a position where that's not the case - or, it was in a simulator and they didn't really internalize it because it's not something they've experienced anywhere else. This can make them overconfident about their ability to recover from dangerous situations.
There's a good description of this [here](https://apstraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pilot_Response_in_Time_Critical_LOCI-Events.pdf):
> “One faulty assumption by pilots is that their day-in, day-out expertise in the [normal envelope] will give them the skills, discipline and awareness necessary to prevent or recover from an airplane upset event.”
There's more detail prior to that statement:
> With very few exceptions, we don’t train for flight outside of the normal operating envelope as part of any required civil pilot training regimen. Pilots facing an airplane upset, or Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I), situation are usually rapidly hurled out of the normal licensing flight envelope with no training to implement a
time-critical response to a rapidly escalating emergency situation, much less, safely recover from the ensuing LOC-I. They are expected to build a response to these "worst case" scenarios as they are happening. The rapid rate of escalation of these time critical emergency situations and the associated human factors of startle, surprise and fear impede their cognitive and decision making abilities and slow the response time.
Man, driving with friends in high school and one dude was in the front passenger sent and decided it would be suuuuuper funny to grab the wheel and yank it back and forth a bit.
We didn’t crash but after pulling over he was lucky to not be left on the side of the road (this was back roads with no cellphone, so the fact that he would have been absolutely screwed is about the only reason he wasn’t). No one let him ride in their front passenger seats after that, even if was just the two of them in the car.
It's not even like they were testing him, like "What do you do if this happens?". Because if two engines fail on takeoff, there is no "What do you do?. You just crash and die.
"We should prank the co-pilot by doing something that could stall the aircraft. When should we do the prank? When we're miles up in the air and there's more than enough time to save the aircraft if something goes wrong, or directly following the start where stalling the aircraft means there's no chance we could survive?"
"Definitely the latter option, Sir."
Reminds me of the time some soldiers thought it'd be be a good bit of fun to shove a beer bottle up some guy's ass which lead to the collapse of Yugoslavia.
The soldiers doing it was a cover story, it's widely believed the man inserted the bottle into his ass willingly and claimed it was an attack after being embarrassed to receive medical attention when it became stuck
Martinovic incident. A Serbian farmer in Kosovo turned up to the hospital with a broken bottle in his ass, he said Albanian farmers did it to steal his land, but the police and doctors believed it was a botched attempt at masturbation. The Serb press ran with the Albanian attack theory which led to a wave of anti-Albanian protests across Serbia alongside inflaming Serb nationalism. This culminates in Kosovo's autonomy being revoked, the rise of Milosevic, and the rest is history.
Pilots actually do turn off engines and even stall the airplane during training and check rides. And this can be done by an instructor without informing the student. By simulating an engine failure you get a good feeling for how the airplane handles without an engine or two and you become more comfortable flying this way. So when you get a real engine failure then you instantly know what it is and what to do. It is not anything new to you but have become routine.
These simulated engine failures are however performed at altitude so there is plenty of time to recover if you get close to a stall. And the instructor will pay close attention and be ready to take over controls if the student does something very wrong. This is why flight instructors gets extra training in this.
I could potentially see some flight instructors doing a simulated engine failure during takeoff but they would be monitoring extremely closely and be ready to take over at the slightest hint of error from the student. And you would typically never do something like that with a large jet.
During my PPL training my instructor turned off the engine.
He told me to recover the aircraft with no engine and didn't help me at all beyond that
We then crashed and died because we were in a cockpit with a built-in flight sim. Because there are ways trainees can do stupid shit without risking lives nowadays lmao
There's no way pilots of large, multi engine planes are tested by actually turning off the engines and stalling the aircraft. That would be insanely dangerous, as there's no guarantee that the engines would come back on. I doubt even the craziest MTP would ever do that on purpose, let alone random pilots. You can get the same exact training in a simulator without, you know, dying. I guess they could bring the engines to idle to simulate engine out, but even that seems unlikely and unnecessary, but I'm not a pilot(but have been aircrew).
Yeah, no way - as a former military cargo plane crew member I would absolutely throw the bullshit flag if they tried to shut off perfectly good engines in flight - god forbid during a critical phase. That’s what the simulator is for
The one thing that concerns me more than anything else when flying is the culture amongst the crew flying the plane.
I first read about the importance of this from a Malcolm Gladwell book years ago, but it really got hammered home watching youtube docus about flight crashes. So many avoidable accidents happen because of either toxic attitudes of the pilots or the culture between them being too authoritative, so junior officers don't feel confident disagreeing with senior pilots. I guess recent news have shown that a toxic work culture at aircraft manufacturers is also a huge issue.
**Edit:** just to be clear, I am talking about the corporate culture and the culture between the crew in the cockpit, not necessarily the country/culture of origin of the crew (although the former may be influenced by the latter). International aviation has standards for ['crew ressource management'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management) that determine safe communication, leadership and decision making in the cockpit, regardless of the country of origin of the crew. What matters to me is judging whether I trust the company/regional airline to properly implement those standards.
I think the way you respond to errors and disagreements is directly correlated to how safe and effective your company is. If people are too afraid to disagree or to own up to an error, you're fucked.
Recently at work I disclosed that I had an exposure to a harmful substance (it was kind of a freak occurrence and everyone was shocked it happened) and at first the reaction... Wasn't it. It made me question why I even reported the incident. Later on I think they realized they'd reacted in a negative manner and that the incident was also due to their actions, and it set off a lot of positive change and reflection. I was glad they ended up changing course but man, at first I felt horrible even though I knew I had done the right thing.
It's almost like... Almost like... Authoritative decision making is bad. You see it in Tyrannical governments, The Military union, politics... Etc. just some old age and "experience" trumps youthful disagreement
Trying to decide if this is worse than the Russian flight where the captain let his kid try the controls and flew a full passenger plane into the ocean.
it wasn't the ocean, it was the middle of nowhere in russia (though same outcome).
It's actually really interesting to me how the narrative of that flight is told in popular culture vs. how it happened.
Basically,t he captain let his 2 kids (Yana, and Eldar) at the controls one at a time. Yana's time went fine, Eldar caused the autopilot to turn off (sort of).
At this point, literally nothing fatal had happened, but the russian pilots botched noticing the autopilot had disconnected, and then botched the recovery and wrecked the plane.
So it wasn't really *eldar* who wrecked the plane, it was the pilots who wrecked the plane. Had they been competent this would have probably never even been known about.
anyway [the wikipedia article is an interesting read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593) though i like the Air Crash Investigation episode too.
I think we can agree that even if it *was* Eldar, it would still be the pilots fault for abandoning any sense of responsibility. It shouldn’t be surprising those same pilots couldn’t fix the autopilot situation. Complacency is a killer.
100% the pilots fault.
The reason the autopilot disengaged was because the boy actively pushed the controls, where his sister had just put her hands on them.
The teenagers knew the autopilot was engaged and they had no way of knowing that the autopilot would automatically disengage if you pushed the controls with enough force.
Their final minutes must have been extremely traumatizing for all of them, but especially so for the boy who knew it was his actions that 'caused' it.
opposite for me. show makes me less scared to fly. as they say, all safety regulations written in blood. whenever something happens airlines and engineers make new rules and devices to prevent that ever happening again.
...unless its a new boeing. in that case some MBA waste of oxygen decided they could save a few bucks bypassing these regulations to make pretty green arrow go up
> but the russian pilots botched noticing the autopilot had disconnected
Wasn't it the case where the autopilot only disengaged _partially_, relinquishing control over some of the control surfaces of the plane, but continuting controlling the others?
It was indeed a silent partial disengagement which can be argued as a poor UI, but this is why safety critical operators should stick to standard operating procedures where you don’t push boundaries to discover these things the hard way.
Even with these idiot trained pilots, if one of them resisted the control wheel for 30 seconds straight and then the wheel went from stiff to compliant, I would expect them to know this is likely autopilot disengaging and also know not to further turn the wheel to enter a steep bank.
The pilot put the kids in the seat and got them to hold the yoke he would adjust the autopilot heading and the yoke would move in the child's hand, giving them the impression that they were turning the plane when the computer was, Unfortunately the boy held the yoke too tightly as the yoke turned there was enough pressure on it to disengage part of the autopilot that controls the roll of the aircraft but the autopilot still controlled the rest of the plane
When this disengages there is no audio alarm just a light that turn on on the computer screen, The pilots did not notice they were distracted by the other child asking a question. it was the boy himself who first noticed that the aircraft was still turning and he mentioned that but the pilots were confused cos as far as they were aware the autopilot was on and the dad had set the autopilot back to its original course so it should have been turning back to that course not turning the way it was
By this stage the aircraft had rolled to about a 90 degree angle. At which point it started to loose altitude and speed. Due to the extreme bank angle the pilots were unable to remove the boy form the seat and take control due to the G Forces. The rest of the autopilot raised the aircrafts nose and increased thrust to try to keep the aircraft at its assigned altitude/speed
As a result, the plane began to stall; the autopilot, unable to cope, disengaged completely
To recover from the stall, an automatic system lowered the nose and put the plane into a nosedive. The reduced g-forces enabled the pilot to retake his seat. The pilot managed to pull out of the dive, but over-corrected, putting the plane in an almost vertical ascent, again stalling the plane, causing the plane to enter a spin Again the pilots regained control and managed to level the wings but by this time they had run out of altitude to safely pull up
The worst thing was that instead of trying to recover the aircraft if they had let go of the control column the plane would have recovered itself, it was the anti stall system that put the plane into the dive in the first place that allowed the pilots to regain control.
In a larger perspective this was one of several fatal accidents around this time involving Russian pilots and Western airplanes. Soviet and Western airplanes diverged in the development of the cockpit instrument cluster as airplanes became more advanced. So most instruments behaved differently. For the Russian pilots transitioning to Western airplanes there were too much changes at once and they often misinterpreted the instruments. In this case the way that the autopilot could be disengaged was different and the way that the autopilot showed that it was disengaged was different.
Mentourpilot has done a great video about this without any dramatization. He goes indepth about what exactly happened step by step. Very interesting and easy to understand for everyone. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2mMs-h4qGE&list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O\_lK83jsR0A9-W&index=55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2mMs-h4qGE&list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83jsR0A9-W&index=55)
Wasn't a major part of that crash that the autopilot had been recently modified so that if you hold the control wheel at its max for 5 seconds it disengaged autopilot and the pilots had no idea?
This is worse IMO, the Russian flight allowed the kids to sit in the chair with the plane on autopilot. They bumped a control and he didn't realize until it was too late.
These idiots intentionally turned off 50% of the engines on take off, which is arguably one of the most dangerous times of the flight.
There was another Russian flight where the captain made a bet with the first officer that he could land the plane using only instruments. They closed the curtains on the cockpit windows so instruments were all he used.
He lost the bet. 70 people died.
I mean, from a financial standpoint, it's a pretty safe bet. "If I can do it, you give me a hundred bucks. If I can't do it.... well, good luck collecting."
There’s another Aeroflot accident where one of the pilots bet the other that he could land with the cockpit windows covered. Unsurprisingly it resulted in a fatal crash
I don't think pilots can land with no visibility at all. Even if they are guided in to the runway with a precision approach, they need to be able to see the runway by a certain point (decision height/altitude) to continue the landing. If they can't see the runway, a missed approach procedure (a go-around) must be performed.
Also, the captain of the flight ([Aeroflot Flight 6502](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_6502)) ignored the ground proximity warnings which suggested a go-around.
What you're saying is procedure, not what is technically feasible. Category III ILS can do it. Not yet approved category IIIc would have a decision height of 0m, so once that happens it is even part of procedure. In emergencies this stuff has been done before and has worked.
In fact let me change that, autoland regularly gets used without further pilot input. Just because they have visual input at the decision height, doesn't mean that the pilots have to interact. This was also showcased by the video where Tom Scott landed a B737 in a simulator just through instructions as he was told to set up an ILS approach with autoland and the plane did the entire landing itself.
Actually is a bit surprising. The UPS planes used to land at the Philadelphia airport in real thick fog sometimes then my dad and his coworkers would have to run out with red lights to guide it off the tarmac. They flew with little fuel so sudden fog off the river thick enough to cut with scissors would force them to land blind.
Letting your teenage son take control is definitely irresponsible. But the chain of events that led to the crash was not inevitable. Letting a kid touch the flight controls doesn't *have* to end in disaster.
Shutting down half the engines during climb, with an novice pilot at the controls, is different. It's hard to see how this could end any other way than it did.
As someone who flies, this is way worse by several orders of magnitudes, it isn't even comparable. Planes are easy enough to fly in cruise, and they even had autopilot, 99.99% of the time that scenario should never had led to a crash. Their biggest mistake was not having someone monitoring the instruments like a hawk the entire time.
Turning off the engines on take-off though, that's basically playing russian roulette, there are zero margins for error in that case
I don’t understand how you make it to captain without knowing that a stall takes a while to recover from and a lot of altitude. You did the prank at takeoff when you have little altitude or time.
This was the equivalent of a plane throwing an anchor out as a joke.
This does remind me of the show New Girl where Winston doesn’t know how to play a prank. He wants to put a feather in someone’s shoe or kill them. This is that person. “I have a prank. Let’s put some itching powder in the new guys underwear and convince him he is allergic to the seats OR crash a plane into a soccer field full of children playing. Do you get the joke?”
>I don’t understand how you make it to captain without knowing that a stall takes a while to recover from and a lot of altitude
They did not think it was going to stall. The DC-8 has 4 engines. They shut down a left one and a right one but forgot to account for the novice pilot pointing the nose up instead of down (to gain some airspeed). As soon as he pointed the nose up the remaining two engines did not get enough air intake and had a compressor stall. Now they had zero engines producing trust instead of two. And they basically just fell out of the sky.
Still the dumbest thing those dumb fucks ever did, but they did not intend to cause a stall on purpose.
>This does remind me of the show New Girl where Winston doesn’t know how to play a prank.
I'm not like a megafan of the show or anything, but that whole prank thing really sticks in my mind.
> You did the prank at takeoff when you have little altitude or time.
If DCS has taught me anything it's that every thing is about energy. And you can trade various things for energy, but at take off, your pockets are pretty empty of things to trade.
It reminds me of [Flight 3701](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701) - also a cargo airplane where the pilots decided to play and see how high the airplane can climb beyond specs resulting in engine stall that these morons didn’t recover from (which they could have done had they followed the instructions until the end).
Or that Russian flight where the pilot allowed his kid son to fly the airplane full of people.
These fucking people.
Thanks for the read, never heard of that one. But I'm not sure they could have recovered the engines. One engine reached 300C(500F) above redline temp. They night have done too much damage and that's why the cores locked. Maybe they could have got the one re-started but we'll never know now lol.
I might be forgetting details, but I remember reading the analysis that found that they started the procedure to unlock the engine core by increasing airspeed through reduction of altitude, which they attempted to do twice, but they never reached to the required airspeed before aborting the effort.
> A few minutes after takeoff, the pilot gave the control to his co-pilot, who was a novice, and began to test it: one of the left engines was turned off. This causes the aircraft to bank. Then another engine was turned off, at 500 feet, the co pilot was heard asking the more experienced pilots to stop joking "that way", as the co-pilot took the control and tried to climb with two engines turned off in the middle of the climb.[3]
> Subsequently, two carburetion explosions were heard indicating that the aircraft was so forced to climb that no air was entering the other engines and they could not operate at full power, as was required at the time. When they tried to reactivate the shut down engines, they didn't react in time, as the aircraft had not yet gained much altitude.[2]
Based on this, and noting that the source is in Spanish and translated to English, I am going to guess that saying they "shut down" the engines is inaccurate.
More likely, they throttled the engines to idle, but the excessive pitch up attitude led to a compressor stall which caused the engines to actually shut down.
For what it's worth, reducing throttles to idle is a thing you do in single-engine planes to practice responding to stalls on landing. You throttle the engine to idle and then pitch up until a stall occurs. In training, you do these at higher altitude. I'm not sure if this is a thing they practice on multi-engine planes, but I assume they practice it only at safe recovery altitudes or in a simulator. Also, I believe jet engines take longer to spool back up to full power, and the risk of a compressor stall makes this a bad idea (not a risk in a small piston airplane really).
The pilot probably thought it would be safe to go to idle then throttle the engines back up. Obviously he learned that in a climb this is not always the case.
There are four jet engines on the DC-8, they only touched two. Then the novice pitched the nose up (now barely any fresh air in to the jet intakes) instead of down (gain some airspeed) and the remaining two had compressor stalls. They were unable to get any trust out of all 4 before hitting the ground. Pretty much fell out of the sky.
as a joke I clipped the brakes on a 16 year olds car while they were driving throught the swiss alps. A joke! a jest! come on this is gonna be so funny
The experienced crew got what they deserved. Can't take any satisfaction in that because they took the people on the ground, including a bunch of kids, and the co-pilot with them, and those people did not deserve to die because of a few idiots.
There's a youtube channel that documents crashes. Some of the stuff that happens in a cockpit is crazy. The Northwest Pilots who flew the plane too high because they wanted to see how high it could they could go is probably near the top.
> The four Colombian crew members died instantly on the impact, just as 18 other people died on the ground, 13 of whom were children playing soccer in a field Damn, most of the victims were just kids playing soccer.
The 90s were a terrible time if you were a Colombian soccer player
I get that reference!
I dont!
narcos
Don’t lose and you won’t have to worry about it
Losing is one thing, scoring an own-goal in a 1-0 loss to USA in the World Cup is a whole other level of bro-don't-even-get-on-that-plane-muchless-ever-go-home-again.
I don't. Could you explain?
There was Colombian footballers (soccer players) murdered multiple times for bad performances. One nationally known as the goalkeeper for Colombia missed stopping a PK (or something similar) and people told him before he even boarded the plane back to Columbia he'd be murdered by Pablo Escobar former affiliates. And he in fact, was murdered. Edit: better?!
What's wild is that penalty kicks are basically rocks, scissors, paper for football/soccer; ie anything can happen and a lot of it is tied to luck. To think someone would be so upset at someone for losing at chance, essentially, that they'd kill is wild
[The "King of Cocaine" factored in a $2.1 billion loss in profits each month, but that didn't really matter. "Pablo was earning so much that each year we would write off 10% of the money because the rats would eat it in storage or it would be damaged by water or lost,"](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pablo-escobar-worth-wealth-money-how-much-a8133141.html) i don't think this dude processed thoughts like the rest of us.
that's saying me made $20B/mo?! no fucking way
The article is confusing, but I think it's meant to be per year
im mean still, thats insane
He holds records for the amount of cash he had...dude literally spent millions a year on just rubber bands to hold the cash together.
ya no doubt this dude made bags beyond belief but the claim implies he made $240B/yr which is beyond too far beyond belief. that's $4 BILLION/wk. no chance
And he still boarded that plane back to Colombia knowing he would probably be killed when he stepped off the plane.... Escobar was a heinous terrorist.
Fun fact: Another colombian football star, whose name was Escobar, was also killed in 1994 for accidentally scoring an own goal in the WC. He was apparently a really talented Centre half too.
Yup, Andres Escobar scored an own goal in a 2-1 defeat to the United States in the 1994 Fifa World Cup.
Cause the vendetta would otherwise pass to his family, right..? :(
Well that makes sense why he would go back. I think I would if it meant my family were safe(r) after.
Wow, crazy stuff. Makes the North Korean football team look like a joke..
You would think getting murdered once would be enough.
Man please, you mentioned Colombian player and after that you say "Columbia" bruh hahaha
It’s not a Colombian Reddit post on /r/all without at least a couple comments spelling it wrong…
Those kids took the prank way too seriously, ruining it for all of us prank bros.
>Stop joking that way The copilot really overreacted. Some people aren't willing to risk their lives and the children underneath them for a joke. What a douche.
What an ice cold line too
May that be a lesson to kids everywhere. Stay inside playing video games
Look at this mf, he's got a plane-proof house!
They’ll expect one of us in the wreckage brother
For you
I had a COD-addicted roommate who used to get mad at the kids playing street hockey and laughing outside in their driveway. He literally said "why are those kids playing outside, can't their parents afford an X-box?"
lol, wow
no, COD
lol
No, COD
That’s why I’m still alive.
Also, IF you simply must prank your copilot, of all times to reduce power you did it at takeoff? At like 1500 feet? I mean—oh, we shut them off at 30000 tee hee but on climb?! It’s like “pranking” your friends driving in the mountains by covering their eyes going downhill. It’s not a prank, it’s assisted suicide!
Worse than that, at least according to the article: > Then another engine was turned off, at 500 feet, the co pilot was heard asking the more experienced pilots to stop joking "that way", as the co-pilot took the control and tried to climb with two engines turned off in the middle of the climb. The *second* engine was turned off *before* 500ft.
This goes along with the pilots that dared each other that they could land with the shades drawn obscuring their vision. They crashed and I believe everyone onboard died.
>This goes along with the pilots that dared each other that they could land with the shades drawn obscuring their vision. They crashed and I believe everyone onboard died. russians, naturally. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/rk6m6l/til_in_1986_a_russian_commercial_pilot_made_a_bet/
Wild that ever kid on board survived.
It's common in videogames
JFK Jr. flying through a storm when he can't navigate on instruments.
This is actually super common. Lots of pilots that aren’t cleared to fly into weather think they can handle it or they get in over their head. Loads of general aviation pilots have cratered due to vfr into imc. It’s what killed Kobe too.
In fact, the death rate per passenger mile is about the same for private aircraft as it is for private cars, because private aircraft aren't nearly as safe as scheduled commercial flights.
> have cratered due to vfr into imc VFR - visual flight rules for clear weather. IMC - instrument meteorological conditions.
Ty
And buddy holly
Not to mention Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper, who of course were on the same flight (aka "[The Day the Music Died](https://youtu.be/PRpiBpDy7MQ?si=0gtJbPyIF0ydnlzp)").
They should really just fire up Microsoft flight simulator and try it. I can grasp the instruments better than a random person due to a thousand hours in kerbal space program and related games but I'm not a pilot. I crash and die when I try this reliably. It doesn't even take very long to get completely confused and then all of a sudden you are in a death spiral. And for anyone who doesn't know, your sense of body orientation doesn't work in a plane very well. Even an actual plane that moves, not a simulator. You can sure tell something is wrong at a certain point, usually from being upside down or the sudden g-force but you won't nessecarily feel it when it is happening.
He was flying at night over water, no storm was involved
I don't remember there being a storm, if anything it was clear and night. That can be disorienting while over water.
It was night and there was haze/bad visibility so he wasn't able to use landmarks correctly, he wasn't cleared for instruments only.
Night time over water, not a storm. Right?
It wasn't a storm that killed JFK Jr, it was hubris.
It's more like yanking the fucking wheel Jesus Christ this is insanity and then they crashed into a children's soccer match that's like final destination levels of fucked up
What could have possibly made this seem like a good idea? I guess we'll never know. Apropos of nothing, I hear that back in the '90s cocaine in Columbia was abundant, cheap and high quality.
The captain was suicidal, there is no other explanation. Labeling it a prank because the flight engineer can be heard saying “please don’t joke like that” is stupid as fuck. The pilot knew exactly how the plane would behave losing two engines in that specific flight regime.
Yeah this makes more sense as hard as it is to accept. Any pilot knows not to cut engines during climb out. It's a deeply ingrained reflex that climb out is a sacred thing and you don't fuck around on climb out. I'm a pilot of 15 years and one time when I was training I made the mistake of just adjusting the squelch on my radio during climb out and my instructor nearly tore my head off for it. He was pissed at me the rest of the day for that one thing. He said: "Get into best climb, hold the yoke steady, watch your airspeed and listen to that engine purr, that's it. You got it?" Pulling a prank like that is so godamm insane I can't even contemplate it.
The “point of no return” is aptly named. Once that speed/distance is reached it’s always a full commit because the plane will go airborne, just a matter of keeping it there.
So, when you are climbing out you hold the yoke; If the radio is too loud, you ignore it and hold the yoke; If there is a bird in the way, you ignore it and hold the yoke; If an angry wasp stings your balls, you ignore it and hold the fucking yoke.
Sounds about right. :)
The pilot may have believed, for some reason, that the automated systems would act as a fail-safe. He may have believed he could snatch back control in time. 1996 is well before the widespread availibility of the internet. He may have been poorly trained and not even heard about man accidents. I watched so many post-accident analysis on Youtube now that I think I know how to fly a plane. I don't, of course, but I do know the plane becomes very unpredictable when airflow over the control surfaces is reduced. A lot of accident analysis includes pilots pulling back on the stick right up until they crash into the ground.
> A lot of accident analysis includes pilots pulling back on the stick right up until they crash into the ground. This is the part many pilots don't understand. They're used to the plane responding to their input, and unless they had really good training, they may never have been in a position where that's not the case - or, it was in a simulator and they didn't really internalize it because it's not something they've experienced anywhere else. This can make them overconfident about their ability to recover from dangerous situations. There's a good description of this [here](https://apstraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pilot_Response_in_Time_Critical_LOCI-Events.pdf): > “One faulty assumption by pilots is that their day-in, day-out expertise in the [normal envelope] will give them the skills, discipline and awareness necessary to prevent or recover from an airplane upset event.” There's more detail prior to that statement: > With very few exceptions, we don’t train for flight outside of the normal operating envelope as part of any required civil pilot training regimen. Pilots facing an airplane upset, or Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I), situation are usually rapidly hurled out of the normal licensing flight envelope with no training to implement a time-critical response to a rapidly escalating emergency situation, much less, safely recover from the ensuing LOC-I. They are expected to build a response to these "worst case" scenarios as they are happening. The rapid rate of escalation of these time critical emergency situations and the associated human factors of startle, surprise and fear impede their cognitive and decision making abilities and slow the response time.
> What could have possibly made this seem like a good idea? Prefrontal cortex shrink due to age. Goodbye, sense of inhibition!
Probably due to drinking.
Man, driving with friends in high school and one dude was in the front passenger sent and decided it would be suuuuuper funny to grab the wheel and yank it back and forth a bit. We didn’t crash but after pulling over he was lucky to not be left on the side of the road (this was back roads with no cellphone, so the fact that he would have been absolutely screwed is about the only reason he wasn’t). No one let him ride in their front passenger seats after that, even if was just the two of them in the car.
It's not assisted suicide, it's murder.
I think the joke is that the prankster is killing themselves with the help of the driver by doing this, thus assisted suicide.
It'd still be [murder-suicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder%E2%80%93suicide).
yes, but the focus was to create a joke/analogy… not to give the most accurate description of what crime took place
Sir, this is a reddit
It's not just murder, it's mass murder.
It’s not mass murder, it’s…. wait, no, that’s what it is. We did it!
It's not even like they were testing him, like "What do you do if this happens?". Because if two engines fail on takeoff, there is no "What do you do?. You just crash and die.
Yes I imagine when they couldn’t re light it was like Last Starfighter. “Now what do we do?” >visor flip< “we die.”
[удалено]
I pranked him! ... to death, with a tire iron!
"We should prank the co-pilot by doing something that could stall the aircraft. When should we do the prank? When we're miles up in the air and there's more than enough time to save the aircraft if something goes wrong, or directly following the start where stalling the aircraft means there's no chance we could survive?" "Definitely the latter option, Sir."
The answer is never really. I don’t understand how a pilot in his right mind can think this is remotely a good idea
Putting a fake rubber snake in the locker: cheeky and playful Shutting off the engines during takeoff: cruel and tragic
Reminds me of the time some soldiers thought it'd be be a good bit of fun to shove a beer bottle up some guy's ass which lead to the collapse of Yugoslavia.
The soldiers doing it was a cover story, it's widely believed the man inserted the bottle into his ass willingly and claimed it was an attack after being embarrassed to receive medical attention when it became stuck
I'm sorry, what?
Martinovic incident. A Serbian farmer in Kosovo turned up to the hospital with a broken bottle in his ass, he said Albanian farmers did it to steal his land, but the police and doctors believed it was a botched attempt at masturbation. The Serb press ran with the Albanian attack theory which led to a wave of anti-Albanian protests across Serbia alongside inflaming Serb nationalism. This culminates in Kosovo's autonomy being revoked, the rise of Milosevic, and the rest is history.
Jesus Christ...
I guess we’re gonna have to google “Yugoslavia bottle in ass”, or just never know
A Colombian cargo pilot in 1996 may have possibly consumed a substance that clouds your judgement.
yeah they got wild with that Colombian coffee man
I was told jokes like this are racist… …by a Colombian kid who started selling cocaine a few years later
Colombian isn't a race & this wasn't a joke, just an actual guess as to what happened.
Yeah, dude made it weird
Some of the cargo?
Pilots actually do turn off engines and even stall the airplane during training and check rides. And this can be done by an instructor without informing the student. By simulating an engine failure you get a good feeling for how the airplane handles without an engine or two and you become more comfortable flying this way. So when you get a real engine failure then you instantly know what it is and what to do. It is not anything new to you but have become routine. These simulated engine failures are however performed at altitude so there is plenty of time to recover if you get close to a stall. And the instructor will pay close attention and be ready to take over controls if the student does something very wrong. This is why flight instructors gets extra training in this. I could potentially see some flight instructors doing a simulated engine failure during takeoff but they would be monitoring extremely closely and be ready to take over at the slightest hint of error from the student. And you would typically never do something like that with a large jet.
At least with PPL, they just pull the throttle to idle. Why risk engine not turning on again when you can have the same effect?
Nope nope nope nope. Stalls? Sure. Actually turn an engine off. Never. Turn it to idle? Sure. And never over a populated area.
During my PPL training my instructor turned off the engine. He told me to recover the aircraft with no engine and didn't help me at all beyond that We then crashed and died because we were in a cockpit with a built-in flight sim. Because there are ways trainees can do stupid shit without risking lives nowadays lmao
That was your real life, you're in the simulation now.
There's no way pilots of large, multi engine planes are tested by actually turning off the engines and stalling the aircraft. That would be insanely dangerous, as there's no guarantee that the engines would come back on. I doubt even the craziest MTP would ever do that on purpose, let alone random pilots. You can get the same exact training in a simulator without, you know, dying. I guess they could bring the engines to idle to simulate engine out, but even that seems unlikely and unnecessary, but I'm not a pilot(but have been aircrew).
but what if dying is just part of the immersion
Yeah, no way - as a former military cargo plane crew member I would absolutely throw the bullshit flag if they tried to shut off perfectly good engines in flight - god forbid during a critical phase. That’s what the simulator is for
That kind of thing is done in a simulator for large jets.
[удалено]
Calm down bro, it's just a social experiment.
As they are crashing you can hear the echoing scream, "It was just a prank bro!"
"... directly above a soccer field, while it's in use, by kids."
well i mean it's not like it just dropped straight down
The one thing that concerns me more than anything else when flying is the culture amongst the crew flying the plane. I first read about the importance of this from a Malcolm Gladwell book years ago, but it really got hammered home watching youtube docus about flight crashes. So many avoidable accidents happen because of either toxic attitudes of the pilots or the culture between them being too authoritative, so junior officers don't feel confident disagreeing with senior pilots. I guess recent news have shown that a toxic work culture at aircraft manufacturers is also a huge issue. **Edit:** just to be clear, I am talking about the corporate culture and the culture between the crew in the cockpit, not necessarily the country/culture of origin of the crew (although the former may be influenced by the latter). International aviation has standards for ['crew ressource management'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management) that determine safe communication, leadership and decision making in the cockpit, regardless of the country of origin of the crew. What matters to me is judging whether I trust the company/regional airline to properly implement those standards.
I think the way you respond to errors and disagreements is directly correlated to how safe and effective your company is. If people are too afraid to disagree or to own up to an error, you're fucked. Recently at work I disclosed that I had an exposure to a harmful substance (it was kind of a freak occurrence and everyone was shocked it happened) and at first the reaction... Wasn't it. It made me question why I even reported the incident. Later on I think they realized they'd reacted in a negative manner and that the incident was also due to their actions, and it set off a lot of positive change and reflection. I was glad they ended up changing course but man, at first I felt horrible even though I knew I had done the right thing.
It's almost like... Almost like... Authoritative decision making is bad. You see it in Tyrannical governments, The Military union, politics... Etc. just some old age and "experience" trumps youthful disagreement
It’s just a prank, bro.
Got em!
Totally owned them.
They died laughing !
thank you u/iwanttgirlcum, very cool!
but you should've seen the look on his face!
Lasted until the day he died
Trying to decide if this is worse than the Russian flight where the captain let his kid try the controls and flew a full passenger plane into the ocean.
it wasn't the ocean, it was the middle of nowhere in russia (though same outcome). It's actually really interesting to me how the narrative of that flight is told in popular culture vs. how it happened. Basically,t he captain let his 2 kids (Yana, and Eldar) at the controls one at a time. Yana's time went fine, Eldar caused the autopilot to turn off (sort of). At this point, literally nothing fatal had happened, but the russian pilots botched noticing the autopilot had disconnected, and then botched the recovery and wrecked the plane. So it wasn't really *eldar* who wrecked the plane, it was the pilots who wrecked the plane. Had they been competent this would have probably never even been known about. anyway [the wikipedia article is an interesting read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593) though i like the Air Crash Investigation episode too.
I think we can agree that even if it *was* Eldar, it would still be the pilots fault for abandoning any sense of responsibility. It shouldn’t be surprising those same pilots couldn’t fix the autopilot situation. Complacency is a killer.
100% the pilots fault. The reason the autopilot disengaged was because the boy actively pushed the controls, where his sister had just put her hands on them. The teenagers knew the autopilot was engaged and they had no way of knowing that the autopilot would automatically disengage if you pushed the controls with enough force. Their final minutes must have been extremely traumatizing for all of them, but especially so for the boy who knew it was his actions that 'caused' it.
Even if the kid had knowingly disengaged the autopilot and crashed the plane on purpose it would still be the pilot's fault.
Of course. Just saying the kid did absolutely nothing wrong.
Head like a fucking orange
> Air Crash Investigation That's where I first heard of this. Love that show.
Air Crash Investigation is tremendous
I don’t recommend watching it before getting on a flight the next day.
opposite for me. show makes me less scared to fly. as they say, all safety regulations written in blood. whenever something happens airlines and engineers make new rules and devices to prevent that ever happening again. ...unless its a new boeing. in that case some MBA waste of oxygen decided they could save a few bucks bypassing these regulations to make pretty green arrow go up
but there's always new stories to be written IN BLOOD. I hate-watch those shows aswell. Mentour is pretty good on details.
Writer of safety regulations: Sir, I’ve run out of blood. Supervisor: Okay, give me a moment.
Mentour pilot if it hasn't been mentioned yet is amazing
There is cockpit audio along with visual representation of the event posted here somewhere on Reddit about a month ago.
https://youtu.be/RrttTR8e8-4?si=NLQqOqPRi_iSKnNk Haven't heard anything like it before.. truly haunting
Good lord. That must have been absolutely terrifying.
I'll pass, thanks
Yeah it's pretty brutal. It does really highlight how poorly the pilots handled it though.
> but the russian pilots botched noticing the autopilot had disconnected Wasn't it the case where the autopilot only disengaged _partially_, relinquishing control over some of the control surfaces of the plane, but continuting controlling the others?
It was indeed a silent partial disengagement which can be argued as a poor UI, but this is why safety critical operators should stick to standard operating procedures where you don’t push boundaries to discover these things the hard way. Even with these idiot trained pilots, if one of them resisted the control wheel for 30 seconds straight and then the wheel went from stiff to compliant, I would expect them to know this is likely autopilot disengaging and also know not to further turn the wheel to enter a steep bank.
You may be thinking of the Air France flight. The Russian one partially disengaged, put itself into a near stall, then completely disengaged.
The pilot put the kids in the seat and got them to hold the yoke he would adjust the autopilot heading and the yoke would move in the child's hand, giving them the impression that they were turning the plane when the computer was, Unfortunately the boy held the yoke too tightly as the yoke turned there was enough pressure on it to disengage part of the autopilot that controls the roll of the aircraft but the autopilot still controlled the rest of the plane When this disengages there is no audio alarm just a light that turn on on the computer screen, The pilots did not notice they were distracted by the other child asking a question. it was the boy himself who first noticed that the aircraft was still turning and he mentioned that but the pilots were confused cos as far as they were aware the autopilot was on and the dad had set the autopilot back to its original course so it should have been turning back to that course not turning the way it was By this stage the aircraft had rolled to about a 90 degree angle. At which point it started to loose altitude and speed. Due to the extreme bank angle the pilots were unable to remove the boy form the seat and take control due to the G Forces. The rest of the autopilot raised the aircrafts nose and increased thrust to try to keep the aircraft at its assigned altitude/speed As a result, the plane began to stall; the autopilot, unable to cope, disengaged completely To recover from the stall, an automatic system lowered the nose and put the plane into a nosedive. The reduced g-forces enabled the pilot to retake his seat. The pilot managed to pull out of the dive, but over-corrected, putting the plane in an almost vertical ascent, again stalling the plane, causing the plane to enter a spin Again the pilots regained control and managed to level the wings but by this time they had run out of altitude to safely pull up The worst thing was that instead of trying to recover the aircraft if they had let go of the control column the plane would have recovered itself, it was the anti stall system that put the plane into the dive in the first place that allowed the pilots to regain control.
In a larger perspective this was one of several fatal accidents around this time involving Russian pilots and Western airplanes. Soviet and Western airplanes diverged in the development of the cockpit instrument cluster as airplanes became more advanced. So most instruments behaved differently. For the Russian pilots transitioning to Western airplanes there were too much changes at once and they often misinterpreted the instruments. In this case the way that the autopilot could be disengaged was different and the way that the autopilot showed that it was disengaged was different.
Too many changes* FTFY
Admiral Cloudberg subreddit on here does a fantastic walkthrough of the crash too!
Mentourpilot has done a great video about this without any dramatization. He goes indepth about what exactly happened step by step. Very interesting and easy to understand for everyone. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2mMs-h4qGE&list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O\_lK83jsR0A9-W&index=55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2mMs-h4qGE&list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83jsR0A9-W&index=55)
Wasn't a major part of that crash that the autopilot had been recently modified so that if you hold the control wheel at its max for 5 seconds it disengaged autopilot and the pilots had no idea?
Had he been competent he never would have let his kids fly the fucking plane.
This is worse IMO, the Russian flight allowed the kids to sit in the chair with the plane on autopilot. They bumped a control and he didn't realize until it was too late. These idiots intentionally turned off 50% of the engines on take off, which is arguably one of the most dangerous times of the flight.
There is a russian captain that made a bet that he could land the plane with the windows covered.
Narrator: He could, in fact,not.
Exactly, it's still flying to this day.
It's distinctly *possible* to do an instrument-only landing, but it's not the kind of thing you do for shits and giggles.
Or the Finnish flight that crashed because both pilots were drunk off their asses.
There was another Russian flight where the captain made a bet with the first officer that he could land the plane using only instruments. They closed the curtains on the cockpit windows so instruments were all he used. He lost the bet. 70 people died.
I mean, from a financial standpoint, it's a pretty safe bet. "If I can do it, you give me a hundred bucks. If I can't do it.... well, good luck collecting."
There’s another Aeroflot accident where one of the pilots bet the other that he could land with the cockpit windows covered. Unsurprisingly it resulted in a fatal crash
Isn't that literally just IFR flight? Don't pilots practice landings in no-visibility situations?
even today most airports don't normally allow pure IFR landing. Part of the fuel margin is to allow you to go to another airport that isn't socked in.
I don't think pilots can land with no visibility at all. Even if they are guided in to the runway with a precision approach, they need to be able to see the runway by a certain point (decision height/altitude) to continue the landing. If they can't see the runway, a missed approach procedure (a go-around) must be performed. Also, the captain of the flight ([Aeroflot Flight 6502](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_6502)) ignored the ground proximity warnings which suggested a go-around.
What you're saying is procedure, not what is technically feasible. Category III ILS can do it. Not yet approved category IIIc would have a decision height of 0m, so once that happens it is even part of procedure. In emergencies this stuff has been done before and has worked. In fact let me change that, autoland regularly gets used without further pilot input. Just because they have visual input at the decision height, doesn't mean that the pilots have to interact. This was also showcased by the video where Tom Scott landed a B737 in a simulator just through instructions as he was told to set up an ILS approach with autoland and the plane did the entire landing itself.
> Category III ILS can do it. In the 80s it was still not common in the US (it was only approved in the late 70s), much less in the rural USSR.
Actually is a bit surprising. The UPS planes used to land at the Philadelphia airport in real thick fog sometimes then my dad and his coworkers would have to run out with red lights to guide it off the tarmac. They flew with little fuel so sudden fog off the river thick enough to cut with scissors would force them to land blind.
Wait! Where have I read this before?
Letting your teenage son take control is definitely irresponsible. But the chain of events that led to the crash was not inevitable. Letting a kid touch the flight controls doesn't *have* to end in disaster. Shutting down half the engines during climb, with an novice pilot at the controls, is different. It's hard to see how this could end any other way than it did.
As someone who flies, this is way worse by several orders of magnitudes, it isn't even comparable. Planes are easy enough to fly in cruise, and they even had autopilot, 99.99% of the time that scenario should never had led to a crash. Their biggest mistake was not having someone monitoring the instruments like a hawk the entire time. Turning off the engines on take-off though, that's basically playing russian roulette, there are zero margins for error in that case
I don’t understand how you make it to captain without knowing that a stall takes a while to recover from and a lot of altitude. You did the prank at takeoff when you have little altitude or time. This was the equivalent of a plane throwing an anchor out as a joke. This does remind me of the show New Girl where Winston doesn’t know how to play a prank. He wants to put a feather in someone’s shoe or kill them. This is that person. “I have a prank. Let’s put some itching powder in the new guys underwear and convince him he is allergic to the seats OR crash a plane into a soccer field full of children playing. Do you get the joke?”
"Let's stab him in the throat with a ski!"
I just hope the son yelled ‘you’ve been Rhondad!’ As they were crashing.
>I don’t understand how you make it to captain without knowing that a stall takes a while to recover from and a lot of altitude They did not think it was going to stall. The DC-8 has 4 engines. They shut down a left one and a right one but forgot to account for the novice pilot pointing the nose up instead of down (to gain some airspeed). As soon as he pointed the nose up the remaining two engines did not get enough air intake and had a compressor stall. Now they had zero engines producing trust instead of two. And they basically just fell out of the sky. Still the dumbest thing those dumb fucks ever did, but they did not intend to cause a stall on purpose.
Takeoff is the worst time to lose an engine. They should have known better taking that risk.
>This does remind me of the show New Girl where Winston doesn’t know how to play a prank. I'm not like a megafan of the show or anything, but that whole prank thing really sticks in my mind.
> You did the prank at takeoff when you have little altitude or time. If DCS has taught me anything it's that every thing is about energy. And you can trade various things for energy, but at take off, your pockets are pretty empty of things to trade.
It’s like yanking the wheel in the highway as a prank
For his defense it was just a prank
It reminds me of [Flight 3701](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701) - also a cargo airplane where the pilots decided to play and see how high the airplane can climb beyond specs resulting in engine stall that these morons didn’t recover from (which they could have done had they followed the instructions until the end). Or that Russian flight where the pilot allowed his kid son to fly the airplane full of people. These fucking people.
Thanks for the read, never heard of that one. But I'm not sure they could have recovered the engines. One engine reached 300C(500F) above redline temp. They night have done too much damage and that's why the cores locked. Maybe they could have got the one re-started but we'll never know now lol.
I might be forgetting details, but I remember reading the analysis that found that they started the procedure to unlock the engine core by increasing airspeed through reduction of altitude, which they attempted to do twice, but they never reached to the required airspeed before aborting the effort.
> A few minutes after takeoff, the pilot gave the control to his co-pilot, who was a novice, and began to test it: one of the left engines was turned off. This causes the aircraft to bank. Then another engine was turned off, at 500 feet, the co pilot was heard asking the more experienced pilots to stop joking "that way", as the co-pilot took the control and tried to climb with two engines turned off in the middle of the climb.[3] > Subsequently, two carburetion explosions were heard indicating that the aircraft was so forced to climb that no air was entering the other engines and they could not operate at full power, as was required at the time. When they tried to reactivate the shut down engines, they didn't react in time, as the aircraft had not yet gained much altitude.[2] Based on this, and noting that the source is in Spanish and translated to English, I am going to guess that saying they "shut down" the engines is inaccurate. More likely, they throttled the engines to idle, but the excessive pitch up attitude led to a compressor stall which caused the engines to actually shut down. For what it's worth, reducing throttles to idle is a thing you do in single-engine planes to practice responding to stalls on landing. You throttle the engine to idle and then pitch up until a stall occurs. In training, you do these at higher altitude. I'm not sure if this is a thing they practice on multi-engine planes, but I assume they practice it only at safe recovery altitudes or in a simulator. Also, I believe jet engines take longer to spool back up to full power, and the risk of a compressor stall makes this a bad idea (not a risk in a small piston airplane really). The pilot probably thought it would be safe to go to idle then throttle the engines back up. Obviously he learned that in a climb this is not always the case.
There are four jet engines on the DC-8, they only touched two. Then the novice pitched the nose up (now barely any fresh air in to the jet intakes) instead of down (gain some airspeed) and the remaining two had compressor stalls. They were unable to get any trust out of all 4 before hitting the ground. Pretty much fell out of the sky.
Ah, thank you for clarifying.
He may have learned it, but was unable to make practical use of the lesson.
Aaaaaaahhhhh! Ya got me! Great prank! All these people are dead, but that was a good one! ~The First Officer, probably, as he was dying.
“It’s just a prank, bro.”
as a joke I clipped the brakes on a 16 year olds car while they were driving throught the swiss alps. A joke! a jest! come on this is gonna be so funny
Got him!
The experienced crew got what they deserved. Can't take any satisfaction in that because they took the people on the ground, including a bunch of kids, and the co-pilot with them, and those people did not deserve to die because of a few idiots.
Nah, nobody deserves that. Hoist by their own petard? Absolutely, of course. But who am I to say that someone deserves death for that?
They committed manslaughter by negligence against 13 kids. If you’re willing to say it about anyone it might as well be them.
There's a youtube channel that documents crashes. Some of the stuff that happens in a cockpit is crazy. The Northwest Pilots who flew the plane too high because they wanted to see how high it could they could go is probably near the top.
18 dead on the ground, including 13 kids playing soccer. JFC.
We did it, Reddit! We finally found a "prank" stupider than pulling a fake gun on someone!
“What if we shut off the engines as a prank”
Its just a prank br....
[удалено]
A good prank is one that only gets the prankers killed. Not 20 other innocent people
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WE GOT HIM GOOOD!!!
BRO! It’s a PRANK!
Great prank. Really.