Air Crash Investigation - New Series 9pm Mondays, National Geographic
 

I find this a very interesting series, however, the new series currently running on Monday nights on National Geographic Channel doesn't feel very new.


So far, whilst they may technically be new documentaries, they are of crashes where documentaries have already been made. The first episode was of the British Midland crash at Kegworth and tonight it is of the Concorde crash.


Am I missing something or are these 'new' episodes just rehashes of old ones?

Yes, know what you mean. Interesting although still very tradjec to hear actual accounts from investigators/ATC etc I found.

Next week (26/01) John F. Kennedy Jr Piper Saratoga crash off the coast of Martha's Vineyard in 1999.

I think these new episodes look familiar because the Kegworth and Paris accidents have already featured in the old "Seconds From Disaster" series.

I think you could be right on that, L1649, but it still seems strange to go to the expense of making a documentary about something that has already been covered.

The program Wiki page is very good and gives details of forthcoming episodes including those still in production.

List of Mayday episodes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMHO, the "Mayday"/"Air Disasters" series are far better done and less sensationalistic than the other series. I've seen a few "Mayday"/"Air Disasters" where I had first hand knowledge of the incident/accident in question (e.g. Gimli Glider) and had no issues with what was presented (not always the case in the other series).


The latest "Mayday"/"Air Disasters" series hasn't started yet in the USA (Smithsonian channel) - I just saw a teaser the other night that the new series would premier in February. I see the second episode is Lauda 767 - that could be pretty uncomfortable to watch (I was directly involved in the accident investigation - not a pleasant experience to say the least).

tdracer,
The current series episodes are up on Youtube at the moment and I just finished watching the Lauda episode,it is extremely well done in my opinion.
You could try this link-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A513...8IVzL-H0bzUKly

if you are interested in watching it before it gets to tv over there.

I have to agree with that. Seconds From Disaster tries to inject false jeopardy and hype (and tends to repeat the story two or three times during the programme) whereas Aircrash / Mayday tends to be more factual and rely on the intrinsic drama of the circumstances. Without going for stereotypes, maybe it is because Aircrash is Canadian, and SFD is US produced.

Different producers - or do you suggest in another field that because Boeing produce a 150 seater narrowbody no-one else needs to?

I agree with what has been said about the style of ACI and Seconds From Disaster and I think that the narrator has a lot to do with it, although I guess he doesn't write the script.


Even the continuity announcer on National Geographic Channel seems a bit OTT at times.


@MidlandDeltic - I appreciate that it is a different producer and team etc, but I'm not sure that the link to the production of the planes themselves is all that relevant.

AnAussieNut - thanks much for that link. Turns out that what is being shown in the US on Smithsonian network is a season behind - we're just getting season 13, not season 14. So watching Lauda (and the rest of season 14) via youtube is my short term option.


I just watched Lauda, and I have some nitpicks, but overall pretty accurate. There was some natural timeline condensation. For example we did some dedicated wind tunnel testing ~3 months after the accident to determine the accurate reaction to the deployed reverser - it wasn't until we'd completed that testing that it became clear that the aircraft wasn't controllable (the first time Niki tried the scenario in the simulator - before the new coefficients were available - he thought it was controllable and there must have been more to it).
Also, most of the people involved in the investigation do not think the deployment was the result of a short circuit, but the more probable scenario would have been difficult to explain in layman terms, while a short circuit is easy to grasp.

The episode of ACI they are showing at the moment is of Continental Connection Flight 1407 which crashed six years ago today...


However it's probably a coincidence that National Geographic Channel are broadcasting it tonight.

Sorry - I may not have made my point clear. What I was trying to point out was that there is no reason a different production company should not produce a programme on the same accident as one already produced elsewhere. The aircraft type was an attempt to keep it "on topic", but perhaps I should have added a smilely :) Given the different focus of the series, I see no reason ACI should have steered away from Kegworth.

To move on, the episode "Third Time Unlucky" relating to the Cork "Manx 2" disaster was only shown in the Monday slot on NatGeo UK, and has since disappeared from the website epsisode list and the repeat showing on the Thursday and at the weekend replaced by alternative episodes. Does anyone know why - has there been some sort legal issue? I missed it on the Monday :ugh:

3rd Time Unlucky is currently available on Youtube but may not be for much longer if the copyright holder removes it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9wIS5KcfH4

Cheers

Paul

ACI dedicates way too much time to screaming passengers and the cutaways to the instruments are often comical "descending at 2000ft per minute" with the altimeter running at about 20,000ft/min.

I would agree with Hadley Rille about the screaming passengers and so on and it must be hard to cover in enough detail something as complex as a plane crash in 40 minutes.


This week they covered Asiana Airlines flight 214 which crashed in 2013, but they didn't say what happened to the two pilots who both survived as they did seem to be held at least partly responsible. I wanted to know if they are still flying, were they prosecuted etc?


Also they only featured one passenger, which considering all but two survived seems odd although I guess not everyone would want to take part.


For some reason I thought that that ACI would be more widely discussed on here, but it seems not to be the case.


Does it not have much respect here?

I found it interesting how the producers having researched the published report map out a program flow coupled with ideas for drama insertions, then fish for expert interjection to support the flow.

It's hard to find experts per accident type willing-and-capable enough to communicate effectively.

The best witnesses are those close to the accident (surviving passengers, crew families etc.) that any words they use draw us to watch the show though.

To be avoided are forced drama from technical experts.

I've seen cases where they had to redo their pre-conceived production flow when the technical expert wouldn't support it in their words. This gave me trust to continue watching more shows

O/P
Yes you are, you are watching repeats.

New Episode list...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._15_.282015.29

When you do watch these repeats, ask yourself again what has been done to prevent reoccurrence? The same Mark I pilot is in the front and the bits and pieces around him haven't changed much. But the pilots are now working harder, longer hours, have worse terms and conditions and in the majority of cases, no union representation whatsoever. For the airlines, the pressure on them has never been greater. Passengers are paying less, handling fees are greater, competition has never been so fierce and they, unlike any other form of transport, get fined if they are late or cancel. The regulators now hide behind huge desks somewhere in Euroland and expect the airlines to self regulate.

After each programme, ask yourself if air travel is safer?

MATELO - they weren't repeats when I started the thread ;)


Piltdown Man - I always ask myself if I think that airline travel is safer as a result of an accident, but to be honest (and I only speak as a passenger) I sometimes watch these programmes and see an overreliance on automation combined with the unrealistic scheduling. These things really make me question just how safe flying is.


There used to be a time when I thought that if anything bad happened then it would be the plane's fault. Nowadays I am less sure.

Systems and components rarely break leaving aircraft unflyable. It's the management of these failures that generally causes the problems. Our current training regimes have been pared back so much that we typically only concentrate on flying the aircraft automatically. But in real life, this is not always appropriate. Furthermore, many airlines prohibit manual flying and mandate full use of the automatics. BA is a case in point. Their Airbus fleet does (did?) not allow the use of manual thrust (see cowl flap incident at https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/airc...oe-24-may-2013). And they are not unique it's just that they were the ones who were unfortunate enough to have had this lack of experience highlighted and BA are one of the better operators. Furthermore, human beings are not very good monitors of inherently reliable systems. In fact they are dreadful. Yet our regulatory overseers expect us to look harder and pay more attention! So yes, you can say it was 'pilot error' but this really glosses over the bigger problem. The big problem is too little is being done to help the Mark I pilot operate in a fully automated world flying incredibly reliable equipment. The average pilot is not trained sufficiently to deal with the startle factor and the immediate consequences of that failure. At the same time, some of his basic skills will have so rusty through lack of practice they are basically useless. Fix these and we might all be safer.

Enjoy the repeats.

PM