After noticing your your recently uploaded, interesting-looking videos, suddenly making a habit of making themselves seen in my recommendations, I finally watched a couple. I could hardly be more impressed - and to really top it off, I love that you aren't trying to sell any products to me, too! This tells me that you must not _need_ to read ads for money, **and** that you aren't just shilling crap anyway, because of greed. I really appreciate all of these things... In addition to my affinity for accurately-reported tales of aircraft accident investigation, and for adroit raconteurs, as well. However, with what I think is nigh-palpable irony, I simply have one pedantic, inane question for you, for the moment, regarding our mostly shared language, of all things. I've noticed you regularly - not excessively, merely more than twice so far - use the phrase "weigh up" (as in "they weighed up their options" or "it became necessary to weigh up the pros and cons," to approximate the sort of situations in which I hear you say it). Is this common in [what I presume is] the UK? The reason I ask is that, as an American, myself, I tend to only hear or say that turn of phrase sans the word "up." I had thought - or, I admit, it's possible I had simply _assumed_ - that it was standard English (on either side of The Pond™) to omit "up," on most or even all occasions when it became appropriate for one to describe "weighing the drawbacks" or "weighing the results of one's actions." The exception that springs to mind, or at least to _my_ mind, is a nebulous feeling I have about one specific contextual use case. Though I might totally be drawing on nothing but mere misguided imagination, I feel like it's reasonable to use, at one's own discretion, "weigh up" in a context of service or sale, in which one party could state that they've "finished weighing up that load of scrap metal;" or, for another example, "I'll have my guy weigh up a pound of brisket for you, so you can go ahead and head over there." Also, the modification "weigh out" gives me the same sort of feeling, of being equally appropriate to use in transactional circumstances, whenever "weigh up" would work. However, at least to this Yank, as yet, it sounds odd to my ears every time I hear you say "weigh up." Am I just unfamiliar with average vernacular 'round your way? Are you goofing up, and only now realizing it upon my inquiry bringing attention to it? Do you have some alternative answer to humor this new¹ subscriber/fan/commenter? ¹New, but certainly here to stay, if your work continues its nascent tradition of excellence! Also - edit: hit "post" too soon

​p

I was in this flight

Why were they allowed to take off in the first place? Seems there were failures from early on? Should they have returned to their original airport due to technical difficulties?

Fr bro, the second I heard that..

It's a sequel!!

@@Simmlexsequels never live up to the original, as this video shows…

Fr

I also got shocked for a second.

He knew he had to be. There were 357 people on that malfunctioning bucket of bolts depending on him for their lives, starting with his own. They lived because that pilot and his crew were good, and so were those ATC people. They ended up having to ferry the plane back to India. It couldn't be fixed on the ground and flown out safely.

So what happens when we get rid of pilots and make everything automated ? Lesson learned don’t take pilots out of the flight deck.

@@johncate9541 I doubt that that was the reason. This plane is build in the USA, they have the parts. But when you let a other nation fix the plane they will also get a inside on what went wrong, and when the airplane is under-serviced it might lead to a investigation in the airworthiness of the 777 from Air india. I also do not agree on the great pilots. I think a LNAV VNAV landing should be part of you're training. Alternate landing sites should be prior to flight being investigated and noted. Last but not least, if half a dozen systems fail and you're option are low due to fuel, you have to report Pan Pan. > No emergency, but at least urgency call.

@@contrarian604 It was clearly stated that it wasn’t known in advance that the ILS was not functioning until they were coming in for landing. Also they flew over the North Atlantic not the Pacific, so no they didn’t fly over the entire continental USA before getting to NYC - they would have faced the same weather issues at most or all alternate airports.

Not loud enough

Uhh iii ahhh

I'm pretty it's Kennedy Steve. He's fairly well known and usually pretty funny when not in an emergency. He's been a controller since the 90s I believe.

@@cheekywitch Amazing! Thank u!

@@cheekywitch Kennedy Steve was a ground controller. He retired a couple of years ago.

@@maesc2001 Yes primarily. He did an interview and mentioned he did all roles including center but preferred ground.

@@cheekywitch +3

Gravity... 😁

Passengers are considered stupid by pilots, as a dr would consider umcomplying patients to be stupid

I mean they landed at the wrong airport so something definitely wasn't right and most passengers likely caught up to the situation

@@harshvardhan5893 what on earth makes you say that? I'm a pilot, I don't think my passengers are "stupid"... They don't know the technical details of the aircraft or how to fly a plane sure but I'm not some sinical egotistical elitist who thinks their passengers are "stupid". I can say the same for the vast majority of pilots I know. You sound as though you've got previous experience with a rude pilot or something. Why the uncalled for insult and generalisation?

@@elliott7268 Dont over analyze it bro, the dude is just a low iq individual. Theres alotta them.

Yeah, and the people in charge of scheduling maintenance for Air India should be on that flight, in the cockpit, with no seatbelts.

Dude...the crew must be statisfied realising they were alive and made kept all passengers were alive too.....super heros dont need money

Absolutely!!!

It is my opinion that many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders (required for ILS landing), and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. Cost-cutting on a 777?? The pilots should have known what the plane could and could not do as soon as they took off, not waiting 15 hours until they are out of fuel and trying to land in New York with far worse weather. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 yup...u ain't wrong....but being one of the saddest countries ig you should let it slide 😭

"allowed"???

@@watchgoose Yes, in so many videos the computer prevents the crew flying, my English is not perfect but I think 'allowed' is correct

This is one of the very best videos I've seen! I mean, it is really tense! Without being over-dramatic. What a situation those pilots had to deal with! The video brings it all to life, communicating as clearly as the pilots did, no "emotional additives".

The computers did not let the plane down, it is poor and delayed servicing and replacement of parts at Air India. The plane only made it down because of the ATC, not the pilots, all four were incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel said that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

fyi, WampusCat is a real 777 pilot, and posted this five months ago: Well done and interesting video. However, plenty more to the story we’re not being told. As you might expect there are some high-time 777 guys out here to question these decisions and, today....well, that guy happens to be ME. First, I bet my life that triple ILS radio failure is 100% impossible on the 777. We have three ILS receivers and, they’re completely independent systems, after all. My money is on the all-encompassing and ever popular “operator error” in this case. Second, to critique your comments on the radio altimeter; It is absolutely NOT “more accurate” than a barometric altimeter, mainly because the two different types of altimeter measure two completely different (and only occasionally coincident) values. Also, at no point did I hear the crew mention they were in the throes of a real live Fuel Emergency. This is important for the controllers to know, and Kgs of fuel on board means absolutely zero to someone who is not a 777 pilot. This measure is presented in hours and minutes of duration aloft. The trusting passengers and crew survived this harrowing ordeal with licenses and lives intact despite the obvious lack of competence in the cockpit.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it 🙏🏼

Very True 👍

The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel said that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@GreenDotAviation GDA, I understand you "hearting" or "Liking" comments that thank or commend your effort in putting the video together, but wholly do not understand your doing the same in "liking" comments that mindlessly commend the aircrew or pilot for doing such a wonderful job of landing the plane, when their abysmal performance, poor foresight and lack of planning in the 15 hours leading up to a known/expected difficult landing was what put their plane and passengers in such jeopardy, with very few options remaining at the time of final scheduled approach. Just because the pilots landed the plane, does not mean they performed their job well, and just because 99% of the comments are mindlessly praising the pilots, does not mean that the aircrew is deserving of such praise. As the person in charge of this channel, I would expect you to be more discriminating, and objective in your presentation of what obvious oversights or errors took place, whether it be for planes that ultimately crashed, or for planes that ultimately landed only through dumb luck or the grace of god. 1% of the comments are entirely correct in being critical of the incompetence of the four pilots who wasted 15 hours in failing to prepare for an expected difficult landing with known faults. It is these comments that need follow-up and highlighting, perhaps in a follow-up video. It's shocking how so many comments are mindlessly praising these pilots, when their oversights and incompetence is clear to see to anyone who actually watches the video and thinks about how all of this could have been avoided far earlier, and far more easily.

@@contrarian604 are you an airline pilot yourself?

These guys are great at flying. I like their situational awareness. I also like how they aviate, navigate and communicate. This displays good crew resource management. I am just a Jamaican farmer anyways. When I saw the aircraft burst through the cloud and the run way was visible I was in joy..😹 reminded me when I save my first kid on the farm. Thanks to ATC as had it not be for them none of this would be possible.

Vvvwery good

Respect ✊

Thanks sunny its capt vikas🙂

The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel said that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

Easy. He got enough Karma to go to the next of the fourtyeightquadrillion cycles to come.

Obviously you haven't flown my flag carriet that much Your opinions would change

True

Don't worry mate AirIndia is now owned by TATAs.And they are known for their favouritism for their employees and not the market or the stock is change.Hope you have heard about Ratan Tata

They named a designated street after him in his village

SAME HERE!!! I LOVE KENNEDY STEVE

I know this is an older comment, but after looking up Kennedy Steve, I saw he retired in 2017, so wouldn't that mean this isn't him?

@@Rogerztheurbanlegend I found an article where it lists both 2017 and 2018 as his retirement year, so at this point I'm not sure anymore. It sounds like him but I may be mistaking his New York accent for someone else's.

@@unr3alGaming I know an air traffic controller who is called in from time to time even after retirement

They did fly manually. And saved everyone. But when you CANNOT SEE, flying blind is a huge risk too, that's why they were concerned to minimize all kinds of risk

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 lol this is the same comment in every comment section of the video. You've commented everytime someone has said something nice about the pilots. Hate much?

@@varsharao86 He's also just wrong. The early failure was the radar altimeter, and even at that they had one functional one left and it continued to function all the way to landing. In and of itself this has zero impact on "ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions". That part didn't happen until the ILS functionality went, while they were already on final approach in the NY area.

@@contrarian604 lol ok first you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

​@@Spooky_Platypus Looks like he works for Boeing and doing damage control. (Even though it doesn't seem as if it was manufacturer's fault).

He was an Air Force pilot before this. Perhaps that helps

fyi, WampusCat is a real 777 pilot, and posted this below, five months ago: Well done and interesting video. However, plenty more to the story we’re not being told. As you might expect there are some high-time 777 guys out here to question these decisions and, today....well, that guy happens to be ME. First, I bet my life that triple ILS radio failure is 100% impossible on the 777. We have three ILS receivers and, they’re completely independent systems, after all. My money is on the all-encompassing and ever popular “operator error” in this case. Second, to critique your comments on the radio altimeter; It is absolutely NOT “more accurate” than a barometric altimeter, mainly because the two different types of altimeter measure two completely different (and only occasionally coincident) values. Also, at no point did I hear the crew mention they were in the throes of a real live Fuel Emergency. This is important for the controllers to know, and Kgs of fuel on board means absolutely zero to someone who is not a 777 pilot. This measure is presented in hours and minutes of duration aloft. The trusting passengers and crew survived this harrowing ordeal with licenses and lives intact despite the obvious lack of competence in the cockpit.

@@contrarian604 lol ok first you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

@@Spooky_Platypus wow you've copied and pasted this comment as much as he has. You say "you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots" but he's quoting an actual pilot.

AIR INDIA IS A WORST AND UNSAFE Now TATA Owned it and it will be much better expected

It was owned by Government Of India, what else can be expected. Thankfully now it is privatized.

@@jimbim1623 yes now it’s owned by TATA and you will enjoy a secured fly 👍

I n my opinion, all four pilots were incompetent and deserve reprimand. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying clear the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel said that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 AIR INDIA was maintained very casually and not regularly when it was under Govt or f India! Now it’s very well maintained under proprietorship of TATA

I strongly disagree with your opinion that the aircrew was great. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying clear the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel said that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 whatchu tryna do? Stop copy/pasting shit everywhere. You don’t know better than people who actually fly planes or who have previously.

@@contrarian604 lol ok first you’re arguing with an ACTUAL pilot. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

​@@contrarian604You've the same hate comments in every thread. The whole world is praising them. Pilots, people from the industry. Surely they know they did a great job. That's why.

@@contrarian604your acting like in 15,000 hours of flying you wouldn’t make an error or two in that time

Only shows, you can either cut costs on maintenance or on pilots, not both ;-)

Actually very poor piloting

@@THWILIGHT_ACTION can you elaborate?

@@wassollderscheiss33 Agreed, but they ought not cut costs on either!

@@ersandy4u Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be severely disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel said that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail. 1

Glad you enjoyed it, Gary!

VasAviation covered it as well

@@kemwilson2046 I watched thier video.

@@GreenDotAviation Just wondering why not a water landing? If they are near water?

@@coolboy5428 water landing isas hard as surface landing for a fully loaded airplane

I've heard the opposite

Seems true.

Qantas pilots are the best! Safety records from the past 100 years prove this also. But mad kudos to these air India pilots well done guys, awesome work, great aviation!

@@justindrew9702 I've heard the opposite

Air India now, I don't know after tata takeover, but it was infamous for its shoddy maintenance

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail. 1

@@contrarian604 stfu. ATC did the job, lmao. Giving vectors to land is not the same as flying a crippled plane and managing to land it. It was the pilots that flew the aircraft, not the ATC.

@@contrarian604 I think at this point you’re just racist and that’s pathetic.

​@@contrarian604 stay mad, and wrong

I was on a flight to Edinburgh airport several years ago and some people from Glasgow were driving to Edinburgh to pick me up. The plane hovered and circled in the skies for quite a bit and eventually they told us that they couldn't land due to the thick fog and that they would be going to Glasgow airport. Well I, like a spoilt brat, was huffing and heeing thinking about the people waiting for me at Edinburgh airport who had driven all the way from Glasgow ... I am ashamed of myself now after watching all of these videos as I now know that I was in expert hands. Better to have caused inconvenience to those friends of mine than to end up dead in a plane crash.

full of asians

True😂i noticed that too

Well laid? 😅

​@@eUK95 Something to live for :D

EXACTLY! I'm a 40 y/o Captain in the states and laugh whenever someone tells me that pilotless airliners will be here before I retire in 25 years. Not a chance. Even single pilot airliners is an INSANE notion to me. I can't begin to tell you how many times I have seen an autopilot do something so completely crazy out of the blue... And regarding single pilot ops, i have met airline pilots who I wouldn't trust for a myrisd of reasons. The modern system is safe because of the safeguards, checks, and balances built into it. Take one thing out of the equation and it all breaks down.

@@BobbyGeneric145 I can see single pilot ops going real badly. Too high of a workload, especially when something goes wrong.

@@BobbyGeneric145 I’ve just completed my commercial pilot training which was mostly single pilot Ops but having gone through a multi crew cooperation course on a narrow body airliner sim it’s absurd to me that anyone would even consider single pilot Ops for passenger jets, god knows how many accidents have been averted thanks to the 2 crew principle. Just look at the number of pilot incapacitations that occur every year, each one of these could potentially be a tragedy without the second man in the cockpit. I don’t even want to think about the German wings type tragedies that may become more commonplace

What do you do sir? I am asking this bcoz i cant figure out whivh carrier to choose in life.

I used to always say hello and joke with them a bit ( " you all are in good mood, right, you all are well rested, right?" etc.) when I boarded but that is not too welcome after 9/11...I do still thank them as I'm deplaning though.

@@hardikmishra9410 Get professional counselor to help you choose your career. Many a times you get a particular education and immediately jump to a job not much of your liking. An professional aptitude test will tell you, what is your potential in a particular talent and then work 35 years to achieve success and fame. Good luck

I try to but often the flight crew is hidden behind heavily secured doors.

Are you guys all crazy here? The only one greeting passengers when they board and deboard, are the flight attendants. The pilots are typically locked in the cockpit dealing with pre-flight protocol, or working on the turnaround return leg for short-haul flights. I haven't seen a pilot unless it's a VERY small plane, or since before 9/11.

I find it funny how he says uhh so often, it seems like something most uh pilots do

@@speen9430 That's because they are not reading rehearsed lines or from an autocue. Record one of your normal telephone conversations sometime, and you'll find that most people do the same in everyday conversations, but we normally "tune it out" and don't notice.

Also English is not his first language and he is in a high stress situation

@@speen9430 The pilot is not a native English speaker.. I have heard even a few native speakers say uhh while speaking.. so there is nothing funny about it..

@@speen9430 Spoken like a guy who has never used a filler in his life.

Good question. I wonder the same. I guess we'll never know 🤷‍♀️

@@varsharao86 kzfaq.infoBmc9NFfhx74?feature=share

I don't appreciate not being told myself. Recently our plane was not landing and going in circles. I know this was just a holding pattern, but why can't they just tell us?

I've been on a few planes that have jerked around violently upon touch down. Now I know why. I think it's better not to alarm the passengers .... I always look at the cabin crew to see if I can detect anxiety in their faces but they seem to be able to hide it

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The ATC is the only reason why this plane had even a chance of landing safely. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 if it was done by Mr. sully. then Yea 😍 we will make a hollywood movie. as they were Indians, its negligence right? Get a life man 👍

@@nerdnero9779 Wrong. Race has nothing to do with it, and Mr. Sully in the Hudson River has nothing to do with it. Indian or White, I really don't care. You've got four pilots, flying to the limits of their fuel load, failing to check alternative landing points when they know they have inadequate equipment to perform an instrumented landing, and every airport on the east coast has similarly bad weather. That's just plain f**king incompetence, Indian or not. And, i've got lots of indian friends, and have been to Jalandhar, Punjab and Delhi. The above comment by gora24 is correct: "helpful and communicative ATC was quite a relief amid that stack of failure." That stack of failure included the plane, and the four pilots' collective lack of recognition they were flying a defective plane. Read the comments, as i've read them ALL----some are pilots, and other former passengers of Air India that have stated they will never ever fly with Air India. 99% of the comments here are seals clapping their flippers at what a wonderful aircrew this was. I'm part of the 1% calling BS on the praise for the FOUR pilots (two shifts of two pilots each)---just because they landed the damn thing doesn't mean they didn't exhibit gross incompetence. They had fourteen hours to recognize that a difficult landing was coming up, without proper instrumentation to make a non-visual landing. The weather was similarly bad up and down the entire east coast---they didn't stop to ask themselves until final approach if they could land the thing?? I've known pilots in my day, they want certainty and stacking the odds in their favor. These four pilots displayed callous disregard for their plane, their passengers, and themselves. fyi, WampusCat is a real 777 pilot, and posted this below, five months ago: "Well done and interesting video. However, plenty more to the story we’re not being told. As you might expect there are some high-time 777 guys out here to question these decisions and, today....well, that guy happens to be ME. First, I bet my life that triple ILS radio failure is 100% impossible on the 777. We have three ILS receivers and, they’re completely independent systems, after all. My money is on the all-encompassing and ever popular “operator error” in this case. Second, to critique your comments on the radio altimeter; It is absolutely NOT “more accurate” than a barometric altimeter, mainly because the two different types of altimeter measure two completely different (and only occasionally coincident) values. Also, at no point did I hear the crew mention they were in the throes of a real live Fuel Emergency. This is important for the controllers to know, and Kgs of fuel on board means absolutely zero to someone who is not a 777 pilot. This measure is presented in hours and minutes of duration aloft. The trusting passengers and crew survived this harrowing ordeal with licenses and lives intact despite the obvious lack of competence in the cockpit." THERE ARE MORE comments critical of the aircrew, so I'm not the only one calling BS on the unjustified praise. I will repeat the last sentence posted by WampusCat above, a real live 777 pilot: "THE TRUSTING PASSENGERS SURVIVED THIS ORDEAL WITH LICENSES AND LIVES INTACT DESPITE THE OBVIOUS LACK OF COMPETENCE IN THE COCKPIT." I rest my case.

@@contrarian604 racist lol ok first you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

​@@contrarian604 stay mad, and wrong

Now they do.

Let's hope they watch this video and realise how lucky they are to have been in such safe hands.

Air India is in severe Debt which is why they are cutting Costs and the government sold air India to one of the most biggest grouped in the world TATA Group

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 racist copy paster lol ok first you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

​@@contrarian604 stay mad, and wrong

I'd put the "management" personnel of Air India on a flight duplicating all the failures, and let them try to land.

Query for you---do you not believe that the aircrew could have done far more to prepare for the eventual landing and discuss weather, options, and alternative airports well before running on fumes? Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying clear the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 ---- Good analysis that the video didn't touch on.

@@davesmith5656 I can't believe how many mindless people are on this forum, saying "what a great aircrew", and "what great pilots", and "I want them to fly my plane!!!" when the four clowns in the cockpit only landed despite themselves, due to sheer dumb luck and the efforts of the ATC.

@@contrarian604 Well you are rough: this aircraft had several failures all along the flight but none to let them think that they could not land normally at their destination. I feel that they could not predict this accumulation of problems in the same time at the worst moment. When you mention that the 777 has 3 "radio transponders" I presume you refer to radio-altimeters: it's a very accurate instrument used in final approach but the same ILS approach can be performed without the radio-altimeter like in the old times, you must just monitor the altimeter carefully but it's feasible. Anyway they had still a functioning radio-altimeter. Unfortunately it's not sufficient to perform an autolanding (the system needs 2). Regarding the weather: of course they were informed of the weather but it was not yet an issue: 200 ft ceiling is not a big deal with modern airliners. The problem they faced was the failure of the ILS in the approach phase and this was not good. In this case you can still land, performing a non-precision approach but, as trouble never comes alone, even the alternate airports had the same kind of weather and, for obvious reasons, a non-precision approach has higher minimums than an ILS. So they went in a situation where they could not land anywhere unless there would be an improvement of the ceiling somewhere. Moreover thay had also an indication of a landing gear malfunction, etc ... Things were really interesting, to say the least and in the mean time they were burning fuel! Hard day ... They could maybe have had some more fuel but I'm sure they were respecting the usual fuel requirements. However when things are going South like this, burning a lot of fuel in low altitude in go-arounds ... not that simple, you must make decisions quickly. Keep in mind that you cannot plan everything, you have sometimes to react fast to the unexpected. Note also that everybody is smarter in an armchair than in a cockpit... So, all in all, I still think they did a great job.

What did I say about maintenance oversight??

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

fyi, WampusCat is a real 777 pilot, and FYI posted this five months ago: Well done and interesting video. However, plenty more to the story we’re not being told. As you might expect there are some high-time 777 guys out here to question these decisions and, today....well, that guy happens to be ME. First, I bet my life that triple ILS radio failure is 100% impossible on the 777. We have three ILS receivers and, they’re completely independent systems, after all. My money is on the all-encompassing and ever popular “operator error” in this case. Second, to critique your comments on the radio altimeter; It is absolutely NOT “more accurate” than a barometric altimeter, mainly because the two different types of altimeter measure two completely different (and only occasionally coincident) values. Also, at no point did I hear the crew mention they were in the throes of a real live Fuel Emergency. This is important for the controllers to know, and Kgs of fuel on board means absolutely zero to someone who is not a 777 pilot. This measure is presented in hours and minutes of duration aloft. The trusting passengers and crew survived this harrowing ordeal with licenses and lives intact despite the obvious lack of competence in the cockpit.

@@contrarian604 ok dude you don’t need to keep replying to a comment from 5 months ago.

@@Lingboysc2 I watched the video a month ago. There's a few of us here pointing out the crew were incompetent, in contrast to the 99% of comments clapping their hands like trained seals stating "the pilots did very well, I think", like yours truly. The kids are simply pointing out the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Sometimes the majority is wrong.

@@contrarian604 I do not care. this is a youtube video for entertainment and from the facts presented I felt that the flight crew reacted to their situation as best they could. Your life must not be very interesting if you spend all this time trying to convince strangers on the internet that pilots from 1 incident were incompetent. It really seems like you have a personal vendetta. If I wanted to know for CERTAIN what happened I would read the official final report, not watch youtube videos or read youtube comments from strangers.

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 you’re obnoxious and a racist bye lol ok first you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

​@@contrarian604 stay mad, and wrong

First timer i thorougly enjoyed this video, well presented. Bless the pilot and crew and ATC.

He might have, his fuel planning kinda did not.

Thank you! Delighted you're enjoying the videos :)

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 you’re fake news lol ok first you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

I hope the maintenance improves. Why did'nt Indian news get the report using freedom of Information Act, I wonder. It was a government airline.

Usually government subsidized airlines have a very tight group of pilots and mechanics. There is no accountability. Things are resolved in a private home or at a club. Airplane parts are substandard or disappear from the warehouse. Work Orders are signed by the same person , their uncle and cousin. In-flight crew play cards and could care less if a passenger got a shoe sole for dinner. I hope it improves. I hear that the Tata group bought it. Look at Land Rover, what a turn around!

@Alfred Weber can't get any worse than it is now

@@iasciateognisperanza3267 agreed

@@sowmitriswamy6718 This incident was reported in Indian media. There were interviews of the flight crew too.

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 get a life

​@@contrarian604 stay mad, and wrong

Glad you’re enjoying the vids 🙏🏼 More on the way!

@@GreenDotAviation GDA, as the host of this channel, Why are you "hearting" simple comments that are praising the pilot crew for this Air India Flight 101? There are other dissenting views that believe the entire aircrew of four pilots was incompetent. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying clear the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel said that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

​@@contrarian604 When you are wrong but can't admit it:

Thank you! 🙏🏼

This one and mentor pilot are so freaking good

You are welcome! Glad you enjoyed it :)

Thank you! Much more on the way 😎

@@GreenDotAviation Can't wait! :)

Mentour pilot is too technical for me this is explained better

​@@GreenDotAviationyou seriously need to change the title. While yours is an older video with longer audio I got recommended another video on same topic first. Then as I searched for others I saw yours.

Hi! Yes, I got digging after you sent that email, and thought that since nobody has made a video about this particular Air India 101, I'd make this one first. I will very likely be making one about the other AIC101 as well in the coming months. Thanks again for the suggestion :)

@@GreenDotAviation Great! Looking forward to it! Thanks

@@GreenDotAviation Air India doesn't still run a flight 101 do they? You'd think they'd learn...

@@trekker105 , that is some coincidence that both incidents used the same flight number. The chance of that even happening would be extremely remote, but it happened.

@@bobby1970 Typically airlines retire a flight number after an incident; it's very strange to me that they didn't do it the first time.

this incident was covered by tv channels in India. All the 4 pilots were interviewed on tv and appreciated. India is too leaky to hide anything even if intent is their.

Many of the comments praising this aircrew are "fake news" fluffers from India. The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 ok , Abdul

@@contrarian604 whatever loser lol ok first you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

​@@contrarian604 stay mad, and wrong

They burn about 11 tonnes per hour at climb thrust. The pilots probably had enough fuel for another GA and re-approach, but nothing more

The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two pilot crews, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel commented that every 777 has three radio transponders, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment, and that he would never ever fly Air India. JohnCate on this channel commented that the plane could not be fixed in NYC and had to be flown back to India without any passengers for repair and service. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

No, because if it had crashed I would have heard about it before.

The flight crew was incompetent and should be disciplined. Two crews of two pilots each, each took a full shift and both knew for upwards of 14+ hours (assuming they spoke with one another) that their various systems were down, and adversely affected the 777's ability to land in less than ideal weather conditions. All warning lights came up as soon as cruise was reached, and the four pilots had 15 hours to discuss the landing, and any expected difficulties. Weather conditions at the target destination could have been queried in the hours as they approached, while flying across the entire continental USA. What were they doing in the meantime? Ceiling conditions could have been identified for an entire host of possible landing sites well before the airplane was flying on fumes, and weather at alternate landing sites checked. CaptainD on FlightChannel said that every 777 has three radio altimiters, and that having two down shows poor maintenance and delayed replacement of failed equipment. I agree that everyone was professional and kudos to landing the plane, that is entirely due to the efforts of the ATC. Geesus, it's not like the various failures happened on approach, and the weather conditions at the destination weren't known well in advance. Good grief, 14+ hours is a lot of time to waste, zero planning for the inevitable landing, and zero planning on route alternatives given that the fuel remaining could have been calculated in the final two hours to destination, alerting them to a potential fuel issue. Failure to plan, is planning to fail.

@@contrarian604 lol ok first you’re arguing with ACTUAL pilots. Second, you dingus, if you watched and listened you’d have learned that they couldn’t have known about this ILS failure until they came in to land. You can’t know that that’s failing over the ocean. How COULD you possibly know that over the ocean? Use your common sense.

There needs to be complete sobriety in the cockpit and the cabin crew as well. Actually if airlines could be totally alcohol free that would be highly auspicious and more safe all around. Some rowdy drunk passengers can create havoc in flight.