Airbus A320 CRASHES during AIRSHOW! | Air France flight 296

Get 68% off on the Two year deal with Nord VPN and a further month OFF using this code 👉🏻 www.nordvpn.org/pilot or use the coupon code “pilo

The women that went back into the airplane to try to save that little girl is a HERO. May her heroic actions never be forgotten.

That whole scenario was crazy right from the start. “Maximum attack angle” at slow speed at 100 ft in an airliner full of passengers is nuts.

I remembered the news report saying there were three fatalities and had at the time assumed it was the flight crew. I would never have thought passengers would be onboard during an airshow.

"I have full confidence in the safety of the aircraft" proceeds to disconnect safety systems

As a wheelchair user one of the scariest things for me about flying is the thought of being in a “survivable” plane crash but not being able to get out because I can’t walk. How awful for the two children and the woman who weren’t able to escape 😔

It's weird how the woman who risked her own life and sadly perished with the girl isn't mentioned more when you look up this incident, she's a brave soul that knew life is too short and the little girl had not enjoyed half of it.

What a woman, to not leave this child alone in total fear,she decided to comfort her, that is unbelievably tragic but it makes me proud that there are still people that put there own lives at risk for children. Those poor humans.

It's absolutely unfathomable that this flight - basically a joy ride - was ever allowed to take place with passengers on board.

12:00 - What astonishes me to this day is that at no point did anyone involved in Air France's planning of the exhibition flight, including the flight crew, bother asking Airbus themselves - and their test pilots in particular - what their own exhibition flight parameters were. As I recall, Airbus's standard procedure was to perform a low-speed flypast demonstrating alpha protection somewhere between 600ft and 1,000ft (depending upon conditions), then circle back and perform a high-speed flypast at a lower altitude. If Air France had presented their intention to combine the low-speed alpha demonstration with a low-altitude flypast to Airbus, the likelihood is that Airbus would have done everything in their power to persuade Air France not to go ahead - even Airbus's own test pilots wouldn't dream of cutting margins that close. And that's without even touching on the fact they had passengers on board.

It's actually remarkable how many people survived this. I remember seeing it on the news that evening and seeing the huge fireball I was thinking there wouldn't be many survivors.

Some more insights from this crash (a little long! ☺️), as I was partially “concerned” about it at that time: At that time all commercial engines needed 8 seconds to go from Idle to Full thrust (standard at that time; economy). I worked at SNECMA in R&D who produced the CFM56 (GE-SNECMA corporation) and was, at that time, working in a new Low Pressure Turbine (5 stages instead of 4, CFM56-5C) for the future versions of the CFM56 (now I am a Professional Pilot). We thought, right after this accident was announced, that “our” engine was the reason of the crash. Then we realized that the time the pilot took to go from Idle to Full thrust was one of the main reason for the aircraft accident, because the computer calculated it couldn’t give the thrust it needed to accelerate (more speed to climb without stalling the aircraft). So, the computer “decided” to descend to give the speed it needed to then climb (the computer doesn’t integrate where the plane is in relation to the ground or obstacles). Increase in thrust (through the throttles) in an Airbus should be considered increase in speed (especially in relation to the Power Curve), not just increase in power. We calculated that the pilot should have increase power from Idle to Full (at least 60%) before turning toward the “runway”. If you are on Idle and increase the power to Full on the engines WHILE being at or very near to Stall Speed, the computer will make the aircraft pitch down (even if you pull up on the joystick) to increase the speed to avoid the aircraft to stall until enough speed is enough to level off and then climb. I understand that some pilots will say that’s not safe, but in fact, it’s way much better than to stall the aircraft by pulling on the joystick without the power needed to accelerate and then climb (the Power Curve is of main importance in this low speed conditions). That ultimate computer safety actually saved most of the passengers and its crew. A test in a simulator proved that without that computer safety, the plane would have stall and the crash would have been fatal for all. Also, right after that accident, all modern engines were programmed to go from Idle to Full thrust in 6 seconds (now 5 seconds), instead of 8 seconds. It doesn’t seem a lot, but in that case the accident may not have happened, because the aircraft wouldn’t have go down as much as it did, giving more margins in altitude to be finally able to climb. This “show” was the worst flight “demonstration” ever done. No serious preparation and having passengers on board, including handicapped people (for a good cause). All these passengers have been “lucky” to fly in an airplane which, in a way, saved their lives, no thanks to the pilots and Air France which authorized this ridiculous “show”; tragic for those who died. The Captain was also known to be a “know-it-all” and a show-off; no excuses for him! Real air show pilots are always doing rehearsals before performing and always timed their manœuvres, including altitudes and positions relative to the ground, speed and power needed to accomplish them safely, with the weather (cloud ceiling) and the terrain/limitations in mind. .. and, most of all, knowing the limits and characteristics of the airplane they fly. Again, those pilots were just “amateurs”, not air shows’ pilots. It shouldn’t have been authorized in the first place; shame to Air France managers of that time. Showing off in aviation is not for “amateurs”!

Who the heck leaves children behind... That woman is a hero and her name should be remembered. May their three beautiful souls rest in peace.

I kept thinking "They didn't take a load of passengers for the fly-by, did they?" That alone seemed like a BAD idea.

My heart goes with those who passed away, Still considering the gravity of crash it is relieving to know that 133 occupants survived...

Let's all take a moment to reflect on the bravery of the woman who heard the little girl and gave her life to try and save her.

So plan A (when people had the luxury of time in the office to discuss it over coffee) was to disable a safety limit, ride the next safety limit, ignore aircraft terrain warning announcements... at 100ft and idle power on an unsurveyed flight path through a forest in a new/novel airplane with PAX onboard. The negligence involved deserved a lot more gaol time.

The woman who went back for the kids is a hero, even though neither of them made it out alive.

How incredible that after the accident the pilot blamed the plane instead of accepting responsibility for his actions. He was reckless beyond belief and the 6-month prison sentence was way too short. I'm sure the passengers were not aware that their captain was going to disable the safety systems designed to keep them all alive. If a pilot had ever told me pre-flight that he/she was planning such tomfoolery in a commercial plane, I would never get on board.

He's the kind of a pilot I fear. Why do they have to show off? And only a 6 month sentence!