What is your closest encounter with an airplane crash?

Fred Swanson · 19-06-2018 11:43PM

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran · 20-06-2018 12:07AM

Engine failure on takeoff on my first flying lesson. Instructor took over, did a downwind landing and told me not to be put off by it....

A couple years later I ballsed up weight and balance, and as soon as I lifted off, the aircraft wanted to stand on its tail. Cue rapid forward stick and frantic trim adjustment.

The last was a race against time. Mountain flying is not safe at the best of times, and at night is basically suicidal. I messed up somewhere crossing the Sierra Nevadas (Ceiling of a 172 is lower than some of the mountains), and crossed the last ridge line just as light faded completely. Nerve wracking 15 minutes.

As they say, experience is a terrible teacher. It teaches you the lesson after you needed it.

WildWater · 20-06-2018 01:58AM

smurfjed wrote: »

@wildwater, one of the FR24 gurus looked it up and his response is...

They passed each other around Athboy. The UA 772 never passed directly over him and it was at fl320 and his flight was only at just over fl260

Thanks smurfjed. He's right it never flew directly above us. It was like it came across in front. In my terms, from about our 2 o'Clock to our 8 o'Clock (obviously I only saw it from about the 11 o'Clock position.

Now my reading of that data is we were at 26,000ft and UA 772 was at 32,000 i.e. 6,000ft above us (plus presumably a horizontal separation distance - if that makes sense). That strikes me as a pretty safe distance and not something that would make someone think twice about.

But indulge me a moment longer, if you will. 6,000ft means nothing to me but Google tell me that's ~1.8km. What strikes me as odd is, I am just casually looking out the window. I'm not consciously looking up and I'm certainly not making any head movement to look up and I don't have my head leaned towards or against the window. As best I can describe it, I'm just looking straight out the window. I see a plane, apparently flying 6,000ft / ~1.8km higher than us (but it looks like it's almost level with us - it looks dam close, dam big and I am not able to see the under side of its wings - to put it another way it is like I'm looking straight in their windows) for about a second and I have no problem picking out the livery on the tail. And this isn't livery that I am used to spotting regularly. Blue and yellow but I didn't get it confused with Lufthansa or Ryanair.

I don't expect anyone to believe me that it was closer than what the data suggests. But I've no reason to lie, it's not like I'm making up a super dramatic story and the core details I've provided have checked out. So, all I can surmise from this is:

I am Sh1t hot a picking out airline livery at elevated distances of 6,000ft when spotted at cruising speed for about 1sec. And
6,000ft vertical separation can appear, under some circumstances, to be almost level.

or
Can there be discrepancies between what FR24 records and what actually occurs?

Anyway thanks for the follow through.

faoiarvok · 20-06-2018 07:50AM

WildWater wrote: »

Thanks smurfjed. He's right it never flew directly above us. It was like it came across in front. In my terms, from about our 2 o'Clock to our 8 o'Clock (obviously I only saw it from about the 11 o'Clock position.

Now my reading of that data is we were at 26,000ft and UA 772 was at 32,000 i.e. 6,000ft above us (plus presumably a horizontal separation distance - if that makes sense). That strikes me as a pretty safe distance and not something that would make someone think twice about.

But indulge me a moment longer, if you will. 6,000ft means nothing to me but Google tell me that's ~1.8km. What strikes me as odd is, I am just casually looking out the window. I'm not consciously looking up and I'm certainly not making any head movement to look up and I don't have my head leaned towards or against the window. As best I can describe it, I'm just looking straight out the window. I see a plane, apparently flying 6,000ft / ~1.8km higher than us (but it looks like it's almost level with us - it looks dam close, dam big and I am not able to see the under side of its wings - to put it another way it is like I'm looking straight in their windows) for about a second and I have no problem picking out the livery on the tail. And this isn't livery that I am used to spotting regularly. Blue and yellow but I didn't get it confused with Lufthansa or Ryanair.

I don't expect anyone to believe me that it was closer than what the data suggests. But I've no reason to lie, it's not like I'm making up a super dramatic story and the core details I've provided have checked out. So, all I can surmise from this is:
I am Sh1t hot a picking out airline livery at elevated distances of 6,000ft when spotted at cruising speed for about 1sec. And

6,000ft vertical separation can appear, under some circumstances, to be almost level.

or
Can there be discrepancies between what FR24 records and what actually occurs?

Anyway thanks for the follow through.

There can be discrepancies, but those figures are very believable. A 777-200 is longer than Liberty Hall is tall, and when you catch it out of the corner of your eye speeding towards you, your brain is probably going to look for all the information it can very very quickly.

Mollyb60 · 20-06-2018 08:11AM

smurfjed wrote: »

I'm getting jealous, 272 flights in the last year and not one missed approach/baulked landing......

I'm sure all your passengers are quite happy that in 272 flights you've not had any trouble!

All these stories would put a person off getting in a plane ever again. Even if it is more statistically likely that you'll die in a car crash.

knucklehead6 · 20-06-2018 08:14AM

Mollyb60 wrote: »

I'm sure all your passengers are quite happy that in 272 flights you've not had any trouble!

All these stories would put a person off getting in a plane ever again. Even if it is more statistically likely that you'll die in a car crash.

If everyone who posted here mentioned their uneventful flights I can guarantee you that the events would be far far outnumbered by the non events.

Look at the aviation herald website. For Monday there were 6 events posted. Worldwide. How many flights took off and landed worldwide??

Paddy Cow · 20-06-2018 10:18AM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

If everyone who posted here mentioned their uneventful flights I can guarantee you that the events would be far far outnumbered by the non events.

Look at the aviation herald website. For Monday there were 6 events posted. Worldwide. How many flights took off and landed worldwide??

The problem is, while I know that flying in a plane is safer than driving a car, if something does go wrong in a plane at 35,000ft you're probably fcuked. That's the fear people have. It's the safest form of transport until something goes wrong. Then you're just sardines packed into a giant tin, hurdling towards earth.

Captain_Crash · 20-06-2018 11:40AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The problem is, while I know that flying in a plane is safer than driving a car, if something does go wrong in a plane at 35,000ft you're probably fcuked. That's the fear people have. It's the safest form of transport until something goes wrong. Then you're just sardines packed into a giant tin, hurdling towards earth.

That's hyperbole, when something goes wrong, your far from f**ked... just go to the AVHerald website and see how many times things go wrong on any given day and yet you can count annual incidents causing fatalities on 1 or 2 hands.

If your cruising at 35K feet in a 777 and an engine goes boom, while its certainly not an ideal situation, its likely a safer scenario than hurtling down the M50 on a wet day and having a tire blow out.

Paddy Cow · 20-06-2018 12:33PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

That's hyperbole, when something goes wrong, your far from f**ked... just go to the AVHerald website and see how many times things go wrong on any given day and yet you can count annual incidents causing fatalities on 1 or 2 hands.

If your cruising at 35K feet in a 777 and an engine goes boom, while its certainly not an ideal situation, its likely a safer scenario than hurtling down the M50 on a wet day and having a tire blow out.

Call it what you want, but that's the fear people have. It maybe irrational but it's very real.

sdanseo · 20-06-2018 01:48PM

WildWater wrote: »

Now my reading of that data is we were at 26,000ft and UA 772 was at 32,000 i.e. 6,000ft above us (plus presumably a horizontal separation distance - if that makes sense). That strikes me as a pretty safe distance and not something that would make someone think twice about.

No need for any horizontal separation unless the aircraft is at the same level. 1,000ft (330m) vertical is fine. There are numerous protections against incorrect level such as using standard pressure settings above a certain altitude to prevent incorrect altimiter readings, as well as TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System). Both of these things are worth a google if you're at all interested.

WildWater wrote: »

But indulge me a moment longer, if you will. 6,000ft means nothing to me but Google tell me that's ~1.8km. What strikes me as odd is, I am just casually looking out the window. I'm not consciously looking up and I'm certainly not making any head movement to look up and I don't have my head leaned towards or against the window. As best I can describe it, I'm just looking straight out the window. I see a plane, apparently flying 6,000ft / ~1.8km higher than us (but it looks like it's almost level with us - it looks dam close, dam big and I am not able to see the under side of its wings - to put it another way it is like I'm looking straight in their windows) for about a second and I have no problem picking out the livery on the tail. And this isn't livery that I am used to spotting regularly. Blue and yellow but I didn't get it confused with Lufthansa or Ryanair.

Perspective can really confuse you. When the aircraft turns at low altitude you feel and often think you see the turn to be steeper than it is, when in fact at maximum it's around 15 degrees.

WildWater wrote: »

I don't expect anyone to believe me that it was closer than what the data suggests. But I've no reason to lie, it's not like I'm making up a super dramatic story and the core details I've provided have checked out. So, all I can surmise from this is:
I am Sh1t hot a picking out airline livery at elevated distances of 6,000ft when spotted at cruising speed for about 1sec. And

6,000ft vertical separation can appear, under some circumstances, to be almost level.

or
Can there be discrepancies between what FR24 records and what actually occurs?

If you are far enough away 6,000ft will seem level. Aircraft are large, seeing one out the window does not mean it's too close.

As for FR24, yes is often wrong and often much more obvious errors than altitude!

Captain_Crash · 20-06-2018 02:08PM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Call it what you want, but that's the fear people have. It maybe irrational but it's very real.

Absolutely not doubting for one second that its a genuine fear people have, I wouldn't even say it irrational, its almost logical.. I was just giving context to how safe aviation really is!

Monkey Sampan · 20-06-2018 02:11PM

My Grandmother's house was close to Cork Airport. Back when I was a kid in the very early 90's, (1991/1992-ish) there was a small yellow Cessna type plane nearly hit it.
Had the house been two storey instead of a bungalow it would have crashed right into it, as it flew stupidly low, barely clearing the roof and the trees.

Double checked the story with my mother, as it's one of those odd memories that has always stood out, but I wasn't certain about.
We were at the end of the drive about to head off, so nobody would have been in the house, had it crashed.

There were plenty more low passes over the years with similar small aircraft, but nothing as stupidly low as that.

My first time on a plane was interesting. An Aer Arran flight from Cork to Dublin, (Flight RE 624 on 14/7/09) back when you could do that flight.
The crew seemed to be having some trouble with closing the door, so we sat in the tarmac for 30/45mins.

We touched down in Dublin for a few seconds before they aborted the landing and climbed sharply.
The next 10/15 mins were spent circling north Co.Dublin at a pretty sharp right angle (of course my window seat was facing the ground below)
I can only assume they missed their landing slot and had to wait.

Although the worst part of that journey was being stuck next to an American who wouldn't shut up.

Flying over Paris with a window seat is not for the nervous types. You'll see lots of jets above, below and beside you flying in the opposite direction.

I know someone mentioned the approach to Nice airport being sea...sea...sea...runway, I'd say they were sitting on the right hand side,
as the approach from the left is stunning, you fly parallel to the coastline for the final 10mins.

cameramonkey · 20-06-2018 03:33PM

Saw a Cessna 152 crash in the early 1980s.

The pilot was doing I think a stall turn and didnt have enough height when he went to pull up at the bottom of the drop. The aircraft I remember bounced slightly and broke.

The pilot was pretty badly injured but survived.

Samsgirl · 20-06-2018 10:10PM

Flew through the tail end of Hurricane Rita going into Philadelphia in 2005. Terrifying. Sky was black, plane bouncing around. Cabin cew visibly scared.

_Dara_ · 20-06-2018 10:41PM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

There were so many factors in this one but ultimately the pilot of KLM was at fault. Apparently he was highly regarded in his field and had a huge ego complex. When he wanted to refuel and his subordinates questioned his decision he basically shot them down by saying "I'm the Captain, I'm in charge". When they were taking off, the flight engineer wasn't sure the other plane had cleared the runway but he was shot down by the Captain. The Captain's arrogance cost the lives of nearly 600 people.

The only saving grace in this tragedy is that none of the passengers could have seen it coming. They thought they were making a normal take off and ....

Oh man, Paddy, I just reread about the crash. It really does bring the swiss cheese model for air crashes to the point of absurdity, doesn’t it? But yes ultimately Johnny Big Balls KLM Captain was to blame.

The most heartbreaking part for me was when the ATC and Pan Am utterances cancelled each other out. Such hard luck as either would have got the attention of the KLM crew.

But even after that, the KLM first officer asked if the Pan Am crew was clear, only for Big Balls to say “Oh yes!”. The first officer seemed conscientious at least.

bear1 · 21-06-2018 10:30AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Oh man, Paddy, I just reread about the crash. It really does bring the swiss cheese model for air crashes to the point of absurdity, doesn’t it? But yes ultimately Johnny Big Balls KLM Captain was to blame.

The most heartbreaking part for me was when the ATC and Pan Am utterances cancelled each other out. Such hard luck as either would have got the attention of the KLM crew.

But even after that, the KLM first officer asked if the Pan Am crew was clear, only for Big Balls to say “Oh yes!”. The first officer seemed conscientious at least.

What gets me about that crash as well is the utter fate involved in it.
Nothing was going to stop that crash from happening.
It's also said that because the KLM captain insisted on filling the tanks that the plane was too heavy to take off quickly. If he had taken the fuel to simply island hop then he may have it over the PanAm.
That being said.. if the terrorist group hadn't bombed the airport none of it would have happened.

_Dara_ · 21-06-2018 11:32AM

bear1 wrote: »

What gets me about that crash as well is the utter fate involved in it.
Nothing was going to stop that crash from happening.
It's also said that because the KLM captain insisted on filling the tanks that the plane was too heavy to take off quickly. If he had taken the fuel to simply island hop then he may have it over the PanAm.
That being said.. if the terrorist group hadn't bombed the airport none of it would have happened.

And the refuelling delay also allowed the weather to deteriorate. AND the full tanks insured that there was an instant fireball on crashing.

Also, Pan Am requested to stay in a holding pattern rather than landing at Tenerife but their request was denied.

Interestingly, one person did not reboard the KLM flight in Tenerife, a tour guide who lived on the island.

Graces7 · 21-06-2018 05:03PM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The problem is, while I know that flying in a plane is safer than driving a car, if something does go wrong in a plane at 35,000ft you're probably fcuked. That's the fear people have. It's the safest form of transport until something goes wrong. Then you're just sardines packed into a giant tin, hurdling towards earth.

When the sky is clear and blue, I gaze up in sheer disbelief at the contrails, at the tiny dot that is a great plane, that there are people in it.

In younger days I did enjoy that moment when the engines roar just before the plane starts down the runway! That LIFT OFF moment!

I was never afraid.

It was still a novelty then

Dunroamin! Here we have a chopper as Air Ambulance and that is one flight I do not want to make

_Dara_ · 21-06-2018 05:12PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

That's hyperbole, when something goes wrong, your far from f**ked... just go to the AVHerald website and see how many times things go wrong on any given day and yet you can count annual incidents causing fatalities on 1 or 2 hands.

If your cruising at 35K feet in a 777 and an engine goes boom, while its certainly not an ideal situation, its likely a safer scenario than hurtling down the M50 on a wet day and having a tire blow out.

It’s the lack of control thing. I overcame a crippling fear of flying (and I really mean crippling, no exaggeration) but at my worst, it was that I was entrusting my life to faceless pilots. That was a big part of the fear. Rightly or wrongly, knowing the car driver made it different from taking a flight.

somefeen · 21-06-2018 05:25PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

It’s the lack of control thing. I overcame a crippling fear of flying (and I really mean crippling, no exaggeration) but at my worst, it was that I was entrusting my life to faceless pilots. That was a big part of the fear. Rightly or wrongly, knowing the car driver made it different from taking a flight.

That's the cause of my fear of flying to. I'm not crippled by it, but I am generally tense around take off and landing.
Most crashes are pilot error so I think its understandable.
The lack of control thing definitely makes it worse. If I'm on a sinking ship I at least have some ability to save myself or decide how I'm going to handle the situation.

whomitconcerns · 21-06-2018 05:28PM

Pennsylvania September 2001 (9/11 for those half asleep). Went past the plane crash site. No debris anywhere to be seen. But there was a smell of jet fuel in the air

_Dara_ · 21-06-2018 05:31PM

somefeen wrote: »

That's the cause of my fear of flying to. I'm not crippled by it, but I am generally tense around take off and landing.
Most crashes are pilot error so I think its understandable.
The lack of control thing definitely makes it worse. If I'm on a sinking ship I at least have some ability to save myself or decide how I'm going to handle the situation.

Exactly.

_Dara_ · 21-06-2018 07:26PM

This is really scary. 135m from the worst air disaster ever. And interestingly, what went wrong here is also what went wrong in the Uberlingen mid-air collision a year later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Japan_Airlines_mid-air_incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V-NURlZ0Jc

Fred Swanson · 21-06-2018 08:06PM

This post has been deleted.

Cmar-Ireland · 21-06-2018 09:45PM

I was at the Irish Parachute Club the day that the plane crashed, killing the pilot and a 7 year old boy.

Paddy Cow · 22-06-2018 12:28AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's protocol now to follow TCAS instructions rather than ATC.

I read a very sombre comment which went along the lines of "airline regulations are written in blood" and it's so true. Each crash highlights vulnerabilities on the part of the pilots and the planes and they learn from it. It seems to be one of the few industries where "lessons learned" are taken seriously and implemented.

_Dara_ · 22-06-2018 12:40AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

It's protocol now to follow TCAS instructions rather than ATC.

I read a very sombre comment which went along the lines of "airline regulations are written in blood" and it's so true. Each crash highlights vulnerabilities on the part of the pilots and the planes and they learn from it. It seems to be one of the few industries where "lessons learned" are taken seriously and implemented.

I was just saying that to hubs. Every crash is in some way instructive. We’re all still guinea pigs in a way. But it’s a chance we’re pretty much all willing to take.

With the Uberlingen crash, I can’t understand why the Russian pilots didn’t explain their predicament to the controller. Was there too little time? The documentary there doesn’t give a good sense of the timeline of events at the critical time.

Paddy Cow · 22-06-2018 12:53AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

This is really scary. 135m from the worst air disaster ever. And interestingly, what went wrong here is also what went wrong in the Uberlingen mid-air collision a year later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Japan_Airlines_mid-air_incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V-NURlZ0Jc

That was unbelievable and could've been much worse.

Taking this thread off topic for a second, I have to say kudos to whoever makes the videos for TheFlightChannel. They are informative and gripping and the first time I came across one of them, I can honestly say I was never so engrossed in a video for 10mins that I was on the edge of my seat and feeling every moment of the flight, without one word being spoken.

zuutroy · 22-06-2018 06:02PM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

It's protocol now to follow TCAS instructions rather than ATC.

I read a very sombre comment which went along the lines of "airline regulations are written in blood" and it's so true. Each crash highlights vulnerabilities on the part of the pilots and the planes and they learn from it. It seems to be one of the few industries where "lessons learned" are taken seriously and implemented.

Yea one of the lessons from the Canaries crash is that all over the world, the word takeoff is never used in any communication except the one which gives you explicit permission to do so, and the acknowledgement of that clearance.

Bussywussy · 22-06-2018 06:48PM

i've been on a B737-300 Post maintenance Test flight over the Atlantic where there was a depressurization carried out(albeit not a very high delta p but still uncomfotable), stall tests, engine relight and a very steep go around and turn out

Ive also been on new aircraft demo flights with more stalls etc, walking(trying) up the cabin during an alpha protection check is some craic.

this stuff is not for the faint hearted when the pilots are allowed have the freedom to have a bit of a laugh with no passengers

What is your closest encounter with an airplane crash?

Comments