Home » Commercial » Boeing » Boeing 747 » The Laptop Error That Crashed A Boeing 747 | MK Airlines 1602

Simon Pyul:https://www.youtube.com/user/Sim19yul
The Boeing 747 is a massive plane and getting it off the runway is a massive undertaking requiring a massive amount of things to go right in order for this behemoth to get off the runway.
When things don’t go according to plane you have an air crash and with the plane being as massive as it is, if something were to go wrong with the plane then the resulting air crash would be truly destructive. See what happens when a small error snowballs into a something that leaves a Boeing 747 completely destroyed

This is the story of mk airlines flight 1602. If you look back over the videos that ive made you’ll see that I’ve never featured one very popular aircraft, the boeing 747 the queen of the skies. Today we’ll be looking at an interesting crash featuring the 747.

The 747 is a versatile aircraft it can do a lot of things well. From ferrying cargo to being a passenger plane. That’s why its been in service for over 50 years, The plane is loved by its pilots, the passengers that fly on it and of course us, the aviation lovers.Over the course of the last 50 years the 747 has been in a lot of high profile accidents from the collision at teneriffe to japan airlines flight 123.

Mk airlines flight 1602 is one of those crashes that has been more or less forgotten today lets revisit that crash and see what went wrong on the 14th of october 2004. This particular 747 was a freighter.We join the airplane as it lands in bradley international airport. The plane had just landed from Luxembourg-Findel Airport, Its cargo was unloaded and the plane was reloaded with more cargo. Carrying a few delays the plane left bradley international airport bound for Halifax International Airport at 4:03 am in the morning. At 5:12 am the plane landed at halifax international airport everything still going smoothly, all according to plan. On the ground The plane was refilled with cargo. Lawn tractors this time.

The 747 could really carry a massive amount of cargo to haul all this weight the ground crew fueled the plane with a mind boggling 90,000 tons of fuel. They were all set to go! The load master filled out the paperwork making sure that all the cargo is placed in the right places. Mis placed cargo can really throw a plane off balance. When a weight shifts in an aircraft its center of gravity changes as well. So if some cargo were to move at a critical phase of flight like landing or take off a crash is all but certain.
With everything in order the crew began to taxi to runway 24. The plane enters the runway at taxi way delta and then backtracks to the threshold of the runway. The plane does a 180 degree turn at the end of the runway. I want you to imagine the massive plane turning around to face the runway.

At 6:53 am and 22 seconds the throttles were advnaced and the huge plane began to roll down the runway. The engines roared as the plane sped down the runway the plane went through 80 knots and then at 130 knots the control column was pulled back by about 8 degrees to gently lift the nose up into the air. The nose slowly rose into the air. Something was wrong, the plane wasnt responding fast enough. The pilots pull back on the column a bit more hoping that this would get them airborne.

8000 feet down the runway and the plane still wasnt airborne. The nose is up so high that the tail drags along the runway. With less than 600 feet of runway remaining the throttles were advanced to 92% power shot up but the plane was still on the ground. With 420 feet remaining the tail struck the runway again. The aircraft over ran the runway going 152 knots. The plane left a scar on the earth it overran and 670 feet after the runway ended the plane became airborne.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • I remember when your channel was growing a little slow, but now your channel is growing really fast. To be honest, I'm really happy for you man. Awesome

  • 15th anniversary of this tomorrow. I used to work at MK, started about 18 months after this happened. This incident was an elephant in the room there. Very quickly forgotten by a company culture that put profit over safety – albeit to a lesser degree than in the past but that feeling of being pressured to press on was always there, and many of us were powerless to stop it.

    • Unfortunately that’s a lot of airlines these days :/. It’ll take another tragedy to spur them into action

    • in my opinion, MK airlines was a very shady company, especially it's founder Michael Kruger. i've seen some 747's standing there to rot at EBOS, waiting to be scrapped. They are nog long time gonenow btw, but there has been too many accidents on a relatively small fleet. I don't blame the pilots and crew, but this company was in some very dark business from time to time. (there have been rumours about illegal weapons transports etc..) especially into Africa. Don't know if i'm right, but i have read some reports on the internet..

  • Wouldn't a slow to rise plane and a tail strike indicate the need to abort?Sounds like they were taking shortcuts and in a hurry because to use the same settings as they did earlier should have jumped out at them. If they were loaded to the max they should have expected to need max takeoff settings.

  • this is just me but i think the 747 would have better chance of taking off or at least stoping on the bigger runway see the runway it was on was around 7'200 feet but the long runway was around 10,200 feet so thats just me.

  • This reminds me of a saying I've heard:
    To err is human but it requires a computer to really foul things up.

  • Very good writing and good job delivering the narration, but I do find it a little distracting to be looking at Airbus planes while talking about the 747. I know it's hard to find matching footage, but there has to be some better footage. Still, I enjoy your work!

    • Hey Don yeah you're right back when I made this video the visuals were an afterthought I didn't really expect this to get this much attention this quickly so going forward I will be using more contextually appropriate videos where I can find them

    • @Mini Air Crash Investigation I've been in film & video over 40 years, and more than once I've wanted to try and get away with just color bars… Kidding, but it can be hard. I wasn't trying to overly criticise, and I really like your vids. You just look at things with more enthusiasm without getting so technical it becomes a bore. Some people just seem like they're some genius because they can tell you what color Kapton insulator is used in the block two Apollo command module for Apollo 14 to protect the … yadda, yadda, yadda… You seem to remember that this isn't aeronautical engineering, it's also entertainment.
      Keep up the good work!

  • I do not understand why you show aeroplanes in the video, which had nothing to do with the crash, while you speak. Very distracting.

  • What a strange effect this guy has. He sounds like a stereotypical presenter of children’s stories, but he’s talking about airplane crashes. He’s so upbeat and cheerful as he delves into the gory details.

  • So this wasn’t a computer error as the title suggests, but a computer user error. That’s something quite different. I would think even being in a fatigued state, one would be very alert to these critical takeoff numbers, and that especially one would be very alert to takeoff weight in cargo operations, or indeed in any operations.If I had sensed the plane was accelerating too slowly and had not reached a given airspeed by a certain distance down the runway, I would have either 1.aborted the takeoff if below V1 or 2. Gone for 100% power as best as I could, at or above V1, guess the proper throttle setting, or even pushed the throttles to the stops and then backed them off as the power increased with airspeed, to try to keep them at or only slightly below maximum EPR for the conditions.It’s better than sitting and waiting for a miracle.

  • If you don’t put subtitles is very difficult – always miss somethings. Tks

    • Skeptic Cat A friend once said to me/thought
      that a plane taking off would be better with a
      tail-wind as it helps push the plane along

    • Mr MEMé A head wind provides more air speed over the wing, which in turn creates lower pressure over the wing greater than the pressure beneath the wing which equals lift. I learned that in a fluid dynamics class long before I began sailing and flying. Its called the Bernoulli Principle applicable to all fluids, including air which is a fluid.

  • Your video shows Air Canada and Air France planes that have nothing to do with this incident. Couldn't you have dug up video of some actual MK Airlines aircraft?

    • I did but I can't use them without permission of the person who owns the footage. If I do that without explicit written consent, I could have my channel deleted. Thanks for your feedback

  • 747 the finest airplane ever (excluding the Concorde) it should never have gone out of production, it could have been modernized. Sadly airlines no longer give a damn about passengers or passenger comfort only their bottom line.

    • Well, Boeing DID modernize the plane – it's called 747-8. Nobody was buying (almost), except a few freighter versions. Don't blame Boeing, blame the airlines, or rather those pesky passengers demanding more point-to-point connections.

  • Interesting!! The rumor around Halifax at the time was that the pilot did not go to the end of the runway and turnaround. He started the takeoff run from where the taxiway met the runway and ran out of runway. The computer error makes sense as they were definitely overworked.

  • For too much completely irrelevant footage being used. Far better if you switch to using Flight Simulator or something similar to give viewers a visual interpretation of want is happening. As it is, it's a monotone monologue which gets boring rather quickly.

    • Hey thanks for the feedback. There are primarily two reasons I don’t try to recreate accidents. 1) I don’t have a gaming pc and 2) I blow through the accident in about 3-4 mins so the recreation ends with that and the rest of the video is a deep dive so I won’t have anything to show then. But on my latest videos I have been using more contextually appropriate videos. Thanks for your feedback

  • It was NOT a laptop error at all! It was a simple PILOT error! He did not USE the laptop correctly. The laptop is there as an aide. It's the PILOT who should have made sure that it was correct

  • Im glad you are starting to use more footage from the actual events. I would maybe offer that you should try to use more "plane appropriate" footage (i.e. an investigation about 747s with 787 and triple7 plane footage, but then actual crash photos). Guys with huge channels use Sims like Alek Joshua Ibay or The Flight Channel, but with a little work and diligence I could see your channel taking off. Do you ever travel to large airports to take your own stock footage? What part of the world are you in? Maybe theres a decent hub not to far away and then you would have your own royalty free stock footage. Also as a fellow video editor, maybe some light suspenseful music or jet sound effects could deepen the emotion of your work?? Just trying to offer constructive feedback. Youre doing good man, keep it up.

  • …can only echo Who Ever…that technology SHOULD be our friend; but if not monitored and double-checked can have you flying right into the ground….

  • Appreciate the narration of your videos. Having always been fascinated by the various aspects of flight, including the associated risks, I find these kinds of channels very interesting and instructive. However, the caption only ones that have proliferated recently are tedious to follow with their small, hard to read print.

  • I've been a software Quality Assurance engineer the past half decade. This horrifies me! Software must be planned starting from all possible normal use case scenarios, and working backwards, same with testing. Otherwise you introduce all kinds of unintended combinations of features leading to disasters like this. This is why there needs to be so much focus on the end-user experience during all software development phases, from design to testing. And especially software being used for Aviation, you can't just write up something quick in Visual Basic without any testing or planning and then use that in aircraft. It seems like that's what they did here, the program looked very rudimentary and amateur. Even for the time.

  • Still surprised me I would thought that when wrong info enter the takeoff config warning would have sounded

    • at 01:38 he clearly says "90,000 Kilos" Even if the narrator said 90,000 tons, it must really be 90,000 Kilos, try filling 90,000 tons of fuel and the plane would not take off due to runway fuel inundation

  • 747 Video that hardly shows the 747. If its one of the longest serving most popular Aircraft you couldnt find enough Stock Footage of it? Come on thats just lazy Production.

  • Unacceptable!! They should have immediately noticed WITH 40% MORE WEIGHT to lift, that the configuration didn't look right at all: j mean, they JUST flew from Bradley before this trip, and HAD TO NOTICE IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SIMILAR

    • As a pilot, I tend to agree…….if you have a ton of time in a specific type of plane, you get a feel for what stuff like EPT, flap settings, speeds, etc., should be. On the other hand, if you're tired, it's really easy to just let the computer do the work and not question it.

  • You should put a disclaimer at the beginning of each video stating that most of the visuals are just of planes that are not related to the video, otherwise you’re gonna get a lot more whiners going forward. Of course if you did a simulation or etc that would be interesting, but just saying, so that half your comments aren’t “that’s the wrong plane” or etc as though it’s not obvious the visuals are not usually the plane in the video or necessarily the same model of plane. Otherwise you’re gonna get a lot of bitching about it in comments lol

    • Dude tell me about it. I made these videos just for the fun of it I didn’t actually expect it to get these many views

  • Not one single picture of the 747. There is enough footage of the crash sight And stock footage . I know. I shot it I was there that morning . The crash happened in Enfield

    • I suspect that very little of the footage is in the public domain. Investigative reports are generally not copyright, but public domain footage of planes can be hard to come by, especially given the fact that there are intellectual property protections for the liveries of various airlines. Some airlines are very generous with permission, others not so much.

  • Nice intention of investigation stories, but don't use stock footage of aircraft/airlines that have nothing to do with the story. Use flight simulation software (X-Plane, MS Flight Simulator, or PreparD) to generate the necessary imagery that matches the story. But nice story writing and narration though. Good job on that.

  • Really poorly conceived video. Showing a lot of plane footage that had nothing to do with the story made this quite unwatchable.

  • When he started telling abt the accident, the plane on the screen was NOT a 747. He was talking like we were looking at a 747 when it was a Dreamliner. (Air Canada)

  • Thanks about that software thing. I fully concur.
    FAA seems to be cash-flow focused as the example made with Boeing's Max8.
    Frankly that Org no longer implies "safety".

  • Back taxi, not back track. 747 in Afghanistan crashed after lift off because the load shifted. So you are talking about a 747-300 or -200? 747-400 and higher has digital EPR gauges.

  • 1. Would it have helped to give full thrust after noticing the problem?
    2. If 1=true than why didn't they? I'm only a sim pilot but I do it instinctively in such a case and I'm certain they are trained for unexpected scenarios as such!

  • They should've aborted even with only 600-800 feet of runway. Any reduction in speed is better then slamming into the ground at 130mph fully fueled.

  • The 747 has its hump on the top actually for cargo. It was ment to have cargo there and passengers on the lower deck. Making it more profitable

Log In

Aircraft Sale

There are no ads matching your search criteria.