I really hope it doesn't turn out that they simply shut down the wrong engine and panicked and tried to get it on the ground ASAP, without going through the checklists, which is why they had no flaps or landing gear.
True, the only way to explain no flaps, no gear downs but fly control still effective, the engeine took bird had air brake deployed but the other one didn't. Damn it might be totally fine if they didn't turn around and approaced in the first place...
The most upsetting fact about this accident is that they did make the runway and stayed on the runway and then bam and the passangers, who only moments ago quite possibly felt a slight sense of relief, are all gone in the blink of an eye.
@@DeFiDuke It's not the engineer, it was a political decision. I heard from the locals that the previous antenna was damaged in one of the local Taifuns. And as a reaction there was a political decision to reinforce localizer antennas with concrete, so that they don't get blown away by a strong gale.
Sorry, but some of your info. on Muan airport is incorrect... While, yes, that particular route run by Jeju Air, between Bangkok and Muan, was brand new, the actual airport has been an international airport... Maybe you're confused with Guangju?
Flight Attendant here. I admire your compassion and sensitivity on this very sad tragedy. Your insights on the accident was very helpful especially to those who are not well versed in the aviation industry. Whenever someone asks me about what I think happened about the crash, I just advise them to watch your channel. Thank you and Happy New Year! Praying for those who perished that they may rest in eternal peace and my heart goes out especially to the flight and cabin crew. This hits home.
If you see the impact video in hi-res slow-mo, you can kind of make out what appears to be human bodies being ejected and flying at the moment of impact and fireball as the fuselage gets blown up. This kind of hits you differently from those combat footages of active warzone, in a closer sense of 'that could have been me on a random unassuming flight.'
@@JakeCKim-sh6dz they found corpses and body parts hundreds of feet from the crash site. The impact forces of that crash was beyond human belief. Those planes are incredibly tough and it just disintegrated in a second… they were killed instantly, and those two in the very back who made it out alive were incredibly lucky.
Yea man same here but watching it skid down that runway, watching them make it down that far to where even some of the worse emergencies crashes like United 232, loss of all hydraulics in a 1 in 10 million accident have somehow at least half their passengers survive...watching it actually get to the runway only to keep going, if I didn't know what the outcome was before I saw the video I'd think they'd most likely be ok, but for them to crash at the end into an explosion that really as cliche as it is to say it, it really is miraculous anyone survived even for minutes let alone to possibly go on to live more life...that slide of hope only to catastrophic explosion is something I'll never forget
737 Captain here. The only time I would make the decision to put it down so quickly like this would be dual engine failure or catastrophic smoke or fire. If the airplane is maintaining flight, you have time to do it right. The manual gear extension can be difficult as you need to slide your seat all the way back and not something you'd do unless a QRH checklist directs it. If you feel time pressured, it wouldnt be easy to do. 0 flap is another question. The alternate flap extension takes a long time but would still be available. I would take a longer final to make sure I get them out. Something made these guys feel the need to get on the ground NOW! Following this closely with so many questions.
I have the feeling they forgot the gear after the first go around and did the second attempt with the option of another go-around in mind. Then, they had no gear and were stuck.
@@raygun1414 I would avoid water. More likely to survive on land in a controlled crash. Airplanes tend to break apart in water when ditching. Now you have a bunch of people with injuries drowning in water. Even if it doesn't break apart, you still have to get everyone out and receive rescue. Airports are equipped with emergency services. Everyone I know who's done an underwater egress course will say the same thing. They'd rather put it into the trees under control than water.
Im not a pilot but I know some facts. They landed about 2/3 down the runway They touched down at about 200 knots They were not in landing configuration Stall speed is about 128 knots with no flaps This is very concerning because if they lost both engines, they had WAY too much momentum. Also the tear maneuver loses a LOT of speed or altitude. So that means they were going above 200 knots when they executed it. They had enough momentum to land, so much so they fliated 2/3 down the rubway 70 knots too fast. Id be extremely surprised if the outcome wasnt pilot error.
It's just hard to imagine any pilot really messing up a landing that badly, without something catastrophically wrong. Seems like they had extreme pressure while in the air to land quickly, without running through safety checks.
28 years in the airlines as pilot and I have flown the 737 for 11 years. You bring up very good questions and make good points. I have the same questions
1:28 The footage was taken by a local flight instructor who was staying at a hotel near the airport. He was sleeping in his bed when heard the loud unusual noise. Being a pilot, he knew something was wrong and so jumped out of his bed to film it. 1:43 This bird warning/strike at Muan Airport is a HUGE issue. So this Muan Airport was constructed in year 1997, under the push by local politicians who wanted, yup you got it right, votes. There was already another Airport nearby but LOSING money due to not enough usage. Not only that, the location of the Muan Airport is near multiple wetlands (I heard 4) with wild bird sanctuary. The amount of bird strike/warning at Muan Airport is 5 TIMES of other airports in S. Korea like Gimpo Airport. Muan Airport shouldn't have been built in the first place but was pushed through by politicians who wanted votes. And this Muan Airport stayed in the red for a long time. Again, the construction of the airport did not make sense but was pushed through by local politicians who wanted "votes". Hey look, as a politician of yours I am getting us a new airport! 8:48 I just saw a local news snip where one person (didn't join the trip) is the only survivor of an extended family and 18 others in his extended family perished in the crash. Lot of local residents who bought tour packages to enjoy vacation over the Christmas holiday. That particular group of family left for Thailand right before Christmas and were returning home. This Muan Airport was designated as domestic only airport for awhile. However, there's rumor that the airport was approved as ready for international flight early Dec 2024, and that this change was pushed when some special interests lined up. This includes a tour company that sells packages mostly to the local province and the airport being declared international would make their packages more attractive. Tourists who use the package can cut down the time needed to go to an international airport, most likely Incheon airport. The Jeju Airline planes were chartered from Dec 2024 to March 2025 to fly between Thailand and Muan Airport. Jeju Airline nornally does not have scheduled flight between Muan Airport and Thailand. 28:08 The landing localizer that was the real source of the catastrophic loss of life was rebuilt 1 - 2 years ago. The question is who designed it that way and who in the regulatory body approved it.
Climate change may be a factor The airport was constructed near major bird habitats and feeding grounds, such as the Yeongsan lake and the mudflats of the southwest coast. The development of the nearby land had caused local birds to take increasingly erratic routes, and climate change has led to many species of migratory birds becoming resident birds. The Chosun Ilbo reported that environmental impact assessments had recommended the deployment of sound cannons, lasers and warning lights at the airport. However, their implementation was delayed due to runway extension work
@@hoytoy100 Dirt/ground would've slowed it down before hitting water. And I'd definitely prefer hitting water at slower speed versus hitting a concrete block at 150 miles (heard that was the speed when it hit the concrete block).
Simply not true. This obsession with this berm is a complete red herring, and generally it’s spotters/enthusiasts who have no idea what they’re talking about making the statements.
Pilot error... when they declared a missed approach they had control of the aircraft, climbed on a good engine, and flew 6 minutes making a steep 180 turn back to the runway.
Agreed, having such an obstruction is a guarantee that ANY overshoot will be a serious crash! While there are sound reasons for some form of catch fences being a safety hazard for extracting the passengers and crew, there are times when they ARE required, such as if there is a residential or natural hazard at the end.
I'm a former USAF 2A671C (if you know, you know) who's primary A/C was the C5 A&B models. I was also in FE school prior to my departure from the Service. I've watched endless videos about this doomed flight and am thoroughly confused. I've seen videos/ stills of this plane both completely slick AND with gear/flaps deployed. Why didn't they just continue on their original approach instead of reapproaching from the North?? The area to the airports North were construction sites, instead of a freaking brick wall. Why shut down what I'm assuming was a functioning #1, thus negating any ability to use that hydraulic system? How about the APU?? Was that running?? It's obvious that #2 was running, as the T/R was deployed. Plus, the head in video shows Ground Effect perfectly. And, I'm wondering why the F/E position has been relegated to the history books on larger aircraft? I realize computers are awesome, but, it doesn't replace a thinking, breathing human who might be able to take the workload off the Captain and the FO? Sorry if this comment is kinda scattered, but, I'm just thoroughly confused over this crash. Hopefully, with the NTSB and Boeing engineering on scene, some closure can be brought to this horrific situation. As an aside, the TF39 powerplant on the "old " C5s were almost stupidly resilient. More than once, during my boroscope inspections in ISO, some of these engines had birdstrike damage that would've caused other engines to be dropped. That being said, having to clean birdparts out of an engine is not fun. Great video guys- first time I've watched your channel, and am thoroughly impressed! Subscribed!
Super balanced respectful non-sensationalized takes. Good format letting each person speak for a while. Wombat had some great discussion points coming from a different aircraft. 💯
Guys I’m a retired Navy pilot, airline captain and FAA APM on the 737-8 MAX. There were reports late last night that the right engine thrust reverser deployed after the bird strike and that they took birds in both engines. We’ll find out when the NTSB runs the DFDR exactly what the sequence was but this scenario would indicate that the left engine was producing minimal power and the right TR deployed so their only option was to stick the jet on the ground. Cheers Pieces
Interesting. The ocean was near by...would it make better sense to slide on the water instead of the runway? I'm pretty sure the watch tower controllers see that solid wall every day on the south side of the runway.
Still does not explain landing without gear and flaps at all ! They might not have the time to go through all check lists in this scenario, but you will not forget the gear
Great video guys, I am an ex 787/777/744 driver and you are the most accurate on your comments so far. Keep in mind that Korea is a very specific pilot population (I spend 5 years on the 744 there) and I could write a book on what I went through with these guys…
Fastest 40 mins ever. Your concern, respect, knowledge, articulation, and compassion was so refreshing. Your insight made me think of nothing but being patient and waiting for the report to give us the facts, not web sight speculation and rumors. And not being an airline pilot I learned some of the tedium of the job but also "why" it is tedious... in case of a Sully situation. I want my pilots to be borderline bored until they need to do "some of that pilot shit!", then I want Maverick in those seats.
My heart goes out to flight crew who may have been distressed and panicked they are human.also heartbreaking for passengers and families .My condolences from Scotland ,i have been in tears over this .
Blancolirio shows how long it floats in ground effects, way down the runway before touching down. Why weren't the crash trucks running down the sides? They didn't have time to foam but still, they should have been rolling.
As a 737 captain, the only scenario which makes sense to me is Loss of Thrust on both engines, whatever the reason for that. That would be the only situation I could think of to put it on the ground in this configuration. Considering being afraid not to make it to the runway and keep it clean. We did some OPC training on this and it’s just very very difficult to do. Considering manual gear and flap extension at the last moment, which is almost impossible. Only the flaps take about 2 minutes to extend to flaps 15. I hope there already will be some useful analysis in the preliminary report.
Cessna 172 pilot here lol, I totally get holding on adding drag but once they knew they had the runway, I don’t know why they didn’t drop gear and at least try flaps. Maybe both pilots were distract or both were busy fighting something else. In the 737 max 8 crash both pilots were fighting over 100lbs of force trying to keep the nose pitch. But I can’t fathom in this case what would have required both pilots full attention and strength so they “forgot” to pull the gear. Is the gear release only on one side? Maybe only on the pilot flying side vs pilot monitoring?
After seeing the video, I saw a subtle puff of smoke from the left motor as well. It appears both motors experienced strikes. I am tired of reading comments about the pilots shutting down the wrong motor. There are too many amateur experts who watch Mayday.
The Jeju Air captain has 6800+ hrs flight time. Former ROK Air Force Captain, started as a F-16 fighter pilot and over 10+ years commercial airliner experience. Lets show some due respect to the veteran pilot and the co-pilot who left behind a fiance. RIP.
Korean here. The entire country is mourning right now. I saw a clip of young lady sobbing and said she lost her entire family. The parents and the bother and his family. They were coming back from the family trip. 😢
i've flown on a Jeju flight 737 back in 2012, i've seen a lot of messed up tragedies. This one seriously blind sided me and is super sad. I hope the families will find peace.
Some of the most intense expressions I’ve seen from Mover, Gonky and WOMBAT. Thanks for spending the time to discuss this at length. It must have been a difficult topic to discuss.
Just say it dudes…. It was the “Perfect Storm” A) Bird Strike B) Pilot judgement (Panic / fatigue / incompetence) and the rush to put the plane on the ground C) A wall at the end of the fricking runway
@@markuc the plane engineering has nothing to do in this case... had that wall not been there we would be seen another happy video where a plane belly lands and everybody makes it intact and yet another for the news .. the result would been same with an Airbus or Embraer or Tupolev
I saw another pilot analyzing this and he speculated that the pilots might have shut down the wrong engine. That would explain the loss of control on flaps and the landing gear if both engines were down. They acted in a hurry based on the timestamps of events, there was only about 8 minutes between the loss of data from the flight radar and landing. They didn't have time to do all emergency checks I guess. For some reason they rushed and tried to land asap. However we can also hear an engine and thrust reversal was in fact deployed on the second engine.
@@eckee I really hope that we find out that this was thrust reversal. I mean thrust reversal also needs hydraulic pressure. So if there were no flaps, spoilers and gear, why was there thrust reversal? I fear the cauling was just ripped open by the impact and they actually tried to go around after already hitting the engines onto the tarmac.
That’s the thing that bothers me about people whining and complaining about new regulations with trucking and restricting the amount of hours you can drive per day. When you are sleep deprived, you make so many mistakes. I truly think sleep deprivation is worse than drunk driving, to a certain level. I mean, if you’re absolutely plastered no, but just that borderline illegal buzz for sure.
What about traffic controllers? Shouldn't they have known that the runway had a barrier at the end and would have directed the pilot to land somewhere else?
do you feel the same away about the 1000s upon 1000s of time you , me and everyone else has watched the planes hit towers on 911? the impact is part of the story - it makes no difference whether it's shown or not. oh, but maybe it makes you feel less bad...
I spent 17 years working on Boeing airliners and to this day I am stunned that a bird the size of a chihuahua can completely take out a 10 million dollar engine. I’ve seen the video of GE or P&W engines on a test stand ingesting a frozen chicken and still running,maybe not full power but running. Incredible they are so fragile.
I don't think they are that fragile. Very few people know that, when "the miracle on the Hudson" aircraft hit those birds, the engines were still running all the way to the water and that Sully and the copilot (can't remember his name) set the power to idle, but never once tried to advance the power again. They went through the restart sequence over and over, because they didn't know they were already running…but they were running the whole time. This is from the actual NTSB report.
@@0101-s7v I don't believe that for one second. They were both experienced enough to know how to read the indications. If the engines are running you will see that on the MFD.
As a real world 78 skipper very sad to see what happened but very happy to see some intelligent discussion not the garbage flooding the web. Some great points guys well put together and very well discussed. The only reason i see for that immediate return is assuming competent crew etc is time. They had a larger issue than just hydraulics. By that i mean we know one engine was certainly damaged from video of the go around showing either a compressor stall or bird strike impacts. The only thing i imagine leading to a immediate return is loss of thrust on both engines. IE hits birds on go around immediate loss of thrust on right engine then subsequent loss of thrust on left engine at low altitude. Without altitude a immediate turn towards the airport OR commit to ditching. Without altitude you dont have the distance to get to normal touchdown zone, nor do you have altitude to give away putting gear down and realistically they wouldn’t have time to anyway. I cannot fathom how a professional crew irrespective of experience could balls up so badly and rush back in without some other more critical event unfolding. Even Jeju. Going to be an interesting report and it might only be days before the CVR is read and we find out if it was an enormous clusterfuck OR a crew thrown under a bus with a dual engine failure or even a single failure and limited thrust forcing an immediate decision to land. No situation id ever like to find myself in. Great stuff from the three bad boys.
I agree. According to Korean news reports, two days prior to the incident, passengers on the same aircraft complained about multiple occurrences of engine shutdowns and power outages during boarding.
@@miaflyer2376 I personally find it hard to tell how much of that is engine noise vs. scraping. I did notice, however, the sound definitely changes once it leaves the pavement. That being said, based on the near-head-on footage, the No2 engine is definitely running from the obvious heat blur. Whether it's producing useful thrust is another question. Even at ground idle there's a lot of heat coming out of the exhaust.
I fly widebodies now and flew the 737 in both seats for about 8000hrs. I just cannot conceive a set of circumstances, other than a dual engine failure or uncontrollable fire and/or smoke in the cockpit, that would put pilots in a position that they attempted to land under these circumstances. I’m baffled and intrigued in equal measure as to what has happened here but right now just feel sorry for all those poor people. As it always does, aviation will learn from what has happened here and hopefully put procedures in place to ensure it never happens again ps In my opinion, although never ideal, this berm at the end of the runway is an absolute red herring. There isn’t an airport in the world that just has endless clearway at the runway end. That aircraft was always going to hit something, and at the speed it was going the ultimate conclusion would very likely have been the same. The QRH states ‘land at nearest suitable airport’, and a large part of that is ‘can we actually stop on the length on concrete we have available’. If we can’t we go elsewhere.
@@garritytome It doesn’t, because you would never conceivably be in that situation. Let me ask you a different question, how big a clearway is long enough?
If the wall wasn’t there it woulda been completely different! I’ve seen videos and it was flat and open for 2 miles after the wall! The wall being there was an atrocity
The wings were still loaded as they were skidding. They were coming in really hot; they had a ton of speed. There was something going on that you can't see in a video
Watching the second video, your like awe good they are down. I’m retired crash rescue my first thought was well they are not slowing down. Then the berm. Sucks. We used to foam the runway, we no longer do that because it wasted agent. Would not have mattered here. Thanks for your take. It is a dangerous business. You guys make it look easy but it’s not. Very unforgiving. God bless to all involved.
Perhaps the reason the person was filming the plane in the air was because they heard the sound of compressor stalls from a previous bird strike in #1 engine, and then pointed the camera up and caught the strike on #2 engine. Just speculation, but plausible.
Yep, that was exactly what I wondered. They experienced an initial bird strike on the left engine, (prompting the cell phone video to start) aborted the landing and began climbing and then suffered a 2nd bird strike on the right engine (while the plane seems pretty clearly to be climbing) which the cell phone video captured. With both engines damaged/non-functional, they had to put it down immediately and before they could manually lower the landing gear. In that case they did so well and would probably have saved a lot of lives, possibly all, were it not for the insanity of that totally unnecessary concrete structure atop a soil berm.
This makes the most sense so far that they got 2 bird strikes after each other and the camera got the second one because he started filming after the sound he heard.
The biggest question is why is there a wall blocking the runoff? When was the last time this airport/runway inspected and why was this not picked up as an issue?
Probably corruption. They are dealing with a lot of that in the country right now hence all the impeachments lately. This crash, the Sewol ferry accident, and the crush in Itaewon have highlighted for a lot of S Korean citizens that their country have lots of corrupt politicians.
@@Emolga6274 so that's why they are burying that wall discussion then, and they want to focus on the pilot and birds. The authorities want to save their own butts. Most of the mainstream media are also focusing on the pilot and birds.
Very true they overshot that runway by about a 1/2 a mile, Way too fast no flaps no landing gear... and they were coming in backwards. So if they were using a runway correctly, the wall would be in back of where they're landing. Unfortunately, a chain of a 1/2 a dozen unfortunate events I may the poor soul's rest in peace
So apparently one of the female flight attendant that survived recalled that there were smoke in the cabin before the explosion. No word from the other flight attendant. It's said that they're holding off on questioning them about the crash because they want to get in a good place physically and mentally before asking them about the tragic event.
Birdstrike can cause smoke in the plane, I cant remember which way round but its because of the intakes, one engine can cause smoke in passenger, the other cockpit
New facts are emerging, most likely they've got 2 separate bird strikes. Smoke in the cabin = engine shutdown, smoke in the cockpit = minimal thrust+reverser+glide config + get her down asap.
Jeju just had another plane with landing gear issues and returned safely to Seoul today 12/30/2024. It sounds to me they have been having maintenance issues related to their landing gear so with that knowledge I think the pilots were worried.
As soon as I saw Jeju Air, I thought about pilot experience, maintenance budget and aircraft age. My guess, inexperience pilots, poor maintenance and old aircraft. But the most critical aspect would be pilot training. Seems like there was panic in the cockpit, the worst thing to have in any emergency.
Great content guys you showed sympathy for the passengers . Theres a huge difference between having a problem in a sim then in real time in panic situation.
One of the pilots mentioned that the video of the plane hitting the birds may have been mirrored, but that is not the case because the position of the sun is on the opposite side of the plane as it is when it landed which is what would be expected since it turned around. So, it seems more and more likely that either the wrong engine was turned off or both engines were affected by the strike.
Reading some people's comments, I think that may have been bird strike 2...and that might be why someone started recording it, because they heard something peculiar regarding the aircraft. Dual engine bird strikes, or maybe wrong engine shut down. Both seem plausible.
Man it’s refreshing seeing professional pilots discuss this versus all the armchair pilots on social media that don’t know literally anything about airplanes. The Internet can just really suck sometimes.
People are free to express their opinions. There is a lot to discuss that doesn’t need a pilots experience. As long as you don’t pretend to be an expert….This video is absolutely great though, agreed.
My take is very different. People seemingly not able to accept that this accident was far more likely the result of pilot error that stemmed from the inability to manage what was never a catastrophic issue to begin with.
@@chrishewitt5826 See that is where I disagree: Causes of an accident is not a matter of opinion. If you don't have any in depth knowledge how a 737 or aircraft in general or flying an aircraft works, you keep your mouth shut and don't form an opinion and wait on what experts in the field have to say about it.
This applies to shoddy media reporting too. Check out SkyNews where they invited a person (Sally Gethin) with a background in business and travel journalism, and then labeled her as an "Aviation Expert". Sally's comments were an insult to those real pilots, aircraft engineers, and aviation forensics.
Stupidly sycophantic and generalising comment. There’s thousand of people on social media that know these aircraft like the back of their hands. You don’t have to have a TH-cam channel to have a valid POV.
Many people were filming the plane because there were multiple explosion sounds, for the first video as well he started to record as soon as he notices the plane after the explosion noise.. so the bird strike wasn’t just that one time and you can also see the little smoke from the left engine too before the bird strike. Something really bad might’ve been happened.. can’t be sure yet.
aviation expert that has since retired, who worked on accident sites, said everything was done right until the plane went into the concrete structure. The pilot got the plane down, level, no explanation for landing gear not coming down, but everything would have been fine had the plane not struck that structure.
@@stevemcgowen I really don't know on what basis people could be saying that berm was a good idea. It was painfully, dreadfully obvious the first time I saw the video that it was very much responsible for the severity of this accident. Antennae and lights are supposed to be on frangible structures. Even the cinder block wall at the perimeter of the airport would have provided little resistance while fulfilling its intended purpose. It would have busted through that like the Kool-Aid Man.
According to the flight data, landing was attempted around 11:58 pm utc, which would make it morning time in Korea. The bird strike footage shows the sun on the plane's right side (sun should be in the east in the morning) indicating that the bird went into the right side engine on a south to north 1st landing attempt. If I'm correct on this, then the camera footage is likely not reversed.
@thomasgrimm1664 You are 100% correct, sir. I came to say this exactly. Something I haven't seen anyone else mention is I swear there is a very brief moment - i think right before the big compressor stall - where you can see a couple of white wisps out of BOTH engines. It could be some other phenomenon, but I keep seeing it. If I can find it in this video I'll put up the time.
@@ddalzell509watched the video as well. Hard to tell for sure that it isn't some type of video compression artifact, but there is something behind both engines less than a second before the compressor stall. (You aren't crazy.... Lol) To me, this would explain the need to get the plane down ASAP; but, missing both gear and flaps for landing?
Very informative discussion on the possible things that could have been happening on the aircraft. Prayers for all the people who lost loved ones. It's heartbreaking.
@@Marilyn-s4d Unless some of them had been there before and knew about it. I bet one might have knew about the wall on that runway. So sorry for them all, RIP. Condolences to all the families.
17:29 The video is NOT flipped. This is the bottom view of the airplane on its initial approach from the south. You can see the sun at the south eastern side (down left), which is the proper place the sun would be at 9 o'clock in the morning. 21:53 There's a moment that lasts about a second, where the airplane is viewed from the side, there you can semi-clearly see the pilot reaching his arm up (bracing), the window to his left is very clear, with no sign of smoke fogging up the cockpit.
Yep, that (hotel) balcony is geolocated. It's a place outside the airport boundaries on the axis of the rway 01/19 (use Google Maps with "소나무 숲 펜션" and lookup the photos taken from that or other floor).
Thank you for taking time to put out such an informative video! I could feel all through your concern for the lives that are placed under your care! Great three of you with great insights!
Previous Korean airline crashes were determined to be caused by Korean seniority culture, that is the junior pilot can not question a decision made by a senior pilot even if it means the loss of the aircraft. This culture is deeply embedded in Korean society.
that culture has now been significantly diluted... moreover, the actual captain was a relatively young veteran. It is unlikely that there was such hierarchical pressure
Glad you brought up the LRD. Ive found some patents on such devices going back to the 80s, so could be on the CFM56. Serious smoke in the cabin/cockpit makes sense for getting on the ground right now Also, props on taking about this respectfully, you guys provide actual insight for those of us with questions
Let's preface this with I don't work at GE, Safran, or CFM, and all this should be treated as speculation. For a bit more explanation on my estimated understanding of CFM LRDs: Background: After a large bird strike, a fan blade can be released, resulting in a massive imbalance in the fan rotor. This imbalance causes massive vibration loads on the engine and can be the highest loads an engine is designed for. LRD function: The LRD helps quickly reduce these vibratory loads by letting the main structural support for the forward main bearing of the low speed spool partially fail. This failure gives the bearing more radial motion than normally permitted. This allows the fan to rotate around a new CG that is not on the centerline of the engine, reducing these all important vibration loads. Additionally, the offset CG could allow for the fan blades to dig into the case surrounding them, accelerating the spool down process. However, a bearing failure likely means a bearing leak. The engine oil could make it into the flow path, and ingest into the high compressor. Temps in the HPC, even in the first few stages, are plenty hot to auto ignite the bearing oil or any volitiles in the oil. This burning oil could then get into the cabin/cockpit bleed air off takes located half way down the high compressor, and into the cabin/cockpit itself. Again, this is all speculation and based on patents and articles from the MAX cockpit smoke issues.
smoke would definite motivate a crew to get on the ground, but doesnt account for the deliberate flaps-up-gear-up config. IMHO, losing both engines is the only reason to keep the airframe clean and go for a crash landing. High probability they fire extinguished the wrong engine, or a very slight chance they ate a second bird. Losing #1 induced a land-now-or-die response with an and immediate dive for the runway. Irony is that the #2 engine was still providing thrust - full or partial - and when the aircrew realized this is going to be a huge question the FDR/CVR will answer. In the slight chance they did eat a second bird in #1, there is going to be an aviary holocaust of unprecedented proportions around that airport. Koreans arent going to play around.
I think they had the worst scenario possible. Lost one engine during the first approach, and lost the second one during the go around. But the nightmare they had is that one engine had its reverse thrust deployed in the air. The pilots had one option. To land as soon as possible with minimum drag. Any selection of the flaps will mean disaster. I think they did a great job. May their souls rest in peace.
Should have already been at flaps-15 in a 737 after the first engine lost power. Flaps-40 should have been selected on final, especially since they didn't put gear down and were going far too fast. Even leading-edge flaps weren't deployed. Lastly, they stayed in ground effect way too long, with a 2.8km runway they needed to touch down immediately at the far end [from camera perspective] to have a chance of slowing down enough, but if you look at runway markings and then look at the actual layout, you'll see they didn't touch down until about 2/3rds or more down the runway.
But they didn't deploy flaps even when they touched down , and it still doesn't explain why the hear was up, the pilots messed up they didn't do a great job ..
@@toksangtamang5335 yeh it should've been a sand pit at the end and not a death wall!. so frustrating this engineering was ever passed for construction. I blame that person. one who approved that wall.
I really appreciate y'alls candor and willingness to talk about how tough it can be to be on Redeye and how tough it can be when things go wrong. Like you all said, lets hope there's something the industry can learn from this high cost incident.
I’m in a different industry but I can relate to the comments about red eye vs performance. I flew a desk, and sometimes when I’d work 12 hours I’d come back the next day and find/correct my mistakes from the long shift. For me personally, I learned dont do anything important after 10 hours at work.
As a retired controller (US) I think this will come back as pilot error secondary to mechanical failure. I truly believe they simply panicked. They forgot the simple aviation part of the emergency procedure.
You can see the pilots clearly..and one pilot looks to be bracing himself for impact of retaining wall..if smoke was in cockpit..it was not thick..good job on this!
There are not supposed to be non-frangible objects near the runways. The concrete wall is not supposed to be there. This airport design is criminal...There was enough flat ground beyond the runway for them to stop and probably everyone would have lived.
I agree it shouldn’t have been there. But they were going pretty fast off the end of the runway. Wouldn’t take much to lose a wing or dig and start breaking up. But yeah, they would have had a better chance. EMAS would make sense too.
@@MeppyManyeah, there was another wall past this one, and even without those I bet it would take a mile to stop. 130kts and no spoilers. I certainly agree that wall shouldn't be there, but there were probably other factors that mattered just as much. You don't want to be overrunning at 130kts.
@@hippoace My point is more that you can't design airports so that a plane can be going at VREF at the END of the runway without spoilers or brakes, and have enough space to drag to a stop without people dying. They needed another 5000-10000ft of runway more than what they had. No airport has basically an entire runway of empty space beyond the end of the runway. Sure, they shouldn't be putting walls there, but going at 130kts as you depart the end of the runway seems like a disaster just about anywhere but White Sands. At most airports you'd be crossing highways (possibly at a lower grade so you're hitting a wall on the far side), going into the ocean, going into swamps, hitting hangers, hitting other planes on taxiways, and so on. 130kts without spoilers in a large aircraft is just way beyond what runway ends were designed to accommodate.
@@RichFreemanwell you obviously have no clue what ur talking about . American airport have stoppers at the end of runaways designed to stop run away planes
First time viewer, Non-Pilot, have Subscribed. I love listening to the three different personalities, thinking out loud. Breaking down what could have caused this, and showing what to look at/for in this horrible situation. Hopefully, some good may come from it. One factor I'm not sure can alter the "wall" issue, it was a civilian/military airport. Do military have different standards for equipment etc??? As Pilots do the sim scenarios give you a type of muscle memory, where your body just acts quickly, without having to think??? Anyway, love your styles...Much love and respect to those who have lost someone; those investigating, and everyone involved in getting aircraft off the ground & back again, and again... safely. Also, Happy New Year, from New Zealand, the first (ish) place to see the New Year! Safe, Fun Flying, everyone!
"One factor I'm not sure can alter the "wall" issue, it was a civilian/military airport. Do military have different standards for equipment etc???" Don't put the military in this. Muan is an international airport. Military airports are on military bases. And, there is no concrete wall at the end of the runway.
Another interesting thing is something I noticed in the original video showing the impact, was the window to the cockpit. I saw something in the window that seemed interesting. I long object that was diagonal. Maybe one of the pilots was bracing for impact?
Excellent point about the possibility of a mirror (left/right swap) shot video. 🤔 We’ll definitely find out eventually. Well done video. RIP and prayers for all connected to this terrible tragedy.
I saw in a different video that the concrete barrier is contra to international standards for civillian airports. I'd go one further. Modern top tier (F1, Indycar, etc.) race tracks have energy dissipation features built in to all perimeter structures. I understand wanting some hard packed soil to "extend" the runway in case of a long takeoff, so gravel traps may not be the way to go, but at a certain point I'd put in linked water filled barriers like at race tracks to soak up energy before the plane hits things which don't move. It just seems criminal that anyone would build a concrete reinforced structure in the direct path of a runway. Maybe there should be some rethinking of the civil engineering going on at airports. Obviously coming in hot, long, slick, and wheels up makes almost any mitigating measure moot.
Finally I saw all you good looking Pilots. Thanks for this Pilot Forum. Are they maybe full of smokes? Just left that airport a week ago. It's not the plane or the Pilot I was scared of. It's that Rocket man nextdoor scared the heck out of me. God bless and a Happy New Year.
There's a video showing a compressor stall on the right engine and at that moment the flaps were already down, so they raised the flaps afterwards. There's zero chance a bird strike damaged anything else. This looks like pilot error in reaction to the compressor stall. 7 minutes was not enough time to run the checklist and land properly, it will be interesting to find out the history of these pilots as it sure looks like they panicked and failed to configure the plane for landing.
Can i ask you guys a reapectful question as a noob? Why don't they design airports with some kind of crash protection like a net or barrier or catch-wire or something? Shouldnt major airports have a dedicated "emergency runway" that planes can land at if they have a problem? They have run away lanes on mountain passes for semi trucks with no brakes. Formula 1 race tracks have sophisticated crash barriers. Etc.. Sorry if im being ignorant but it's the first question that came to mind when i saw the crash footage.
You can check out "runway EMAS" on the internet. I was thinking the same too. Why didn't the Muan airport thought of this, considering it being quite a newly rejuvenated airport.
@@howdyrogue Safety systems are only ever employed when sufficient blood sacrifices have been made. All safety systems are paid for in blood and it has to be paid in advance.
A suggested scenario: Climbing out full TOGA and beginning to go around, first the right and then the left engine as well, lose thrust completely. The previous bird strike had occurred to BOTH engines. With a few hundred feet of altitude and speed still low from the first attempted landing, they have seconds of glide time before they hit terrain. There is no time for checklists and configurations. The pilot decides to come in hard and fast with zero flaps and gear-up until the last possible second to not stall and crash short of the runway. 200 ft from the threshold they select gear down, but discover the right engine failure has taken out hydraulic system A and the gear will not deploy. They immediately go to manual, but there is not enough time for the gear to fall gravity-assisted. In shock and focused on switching to thinking emergency landing gear-up, they forget that flaps and spoilers have not yet been deployed. Accustomed to feeling touchdown at wheel height, they come in too high and float through half the runway.
ICAO says all structures within 300m of the runway threshold must be frangible, and that non-frangible concrete localizer structure was about 250m from the threshold.
Definitely an issue, but at the speed they were at, I feel like 300m wouldn't have made a difference. They were going around 130kts when they hit that wall, so they probably needed maybe another mile to stop? That's practically VREF for a normal landing still.
@@reubensandwich9249 if the embankement wasnt there theyd have another 200m to the wall. Probably wouldve reduced speed a lot by plowing into the dirt. Not to mention the ILS antenae
@@lemonator8813 maybe a little. They already had dragged hundreds of meters and were still about as fast as they would normally be when touching down. They would be slower for sure, but I think they needed another mile or two to stop.
What about this scenario: A bird strike impacted both engines, causing the complete failure of engine No. 1. The crew successfully restarted engine No. 2, but the first video shows what appears to be a compressor stall in the No. 2 engine. So engine No. 1 was producing no thrust, while engine No. 2 was potentially operating at reduced power. From this point, the aircraft was effectively in a dual low-power situation, creating an urgent need to land. The decision not to extend the landing gear may have been driven by concerns over increased drag. With limited thrust available, the crew may have feared that deploying the gear would compromise the aircraft's ability to maintain enough speed and altitude to reach the runway.
Good conversation about smoke in the cockpit. With the reduced big picture systems training, it is easy to get locked into QRH and training scenario procedures. Had a very salty captain tell me when I was new before a takeoff with bird activity, “if we take a bird in the engine, turn off both the packs, (takes one second, no need to identify the source, etc.). Easy to turn on the good engine’s pack after sorting other priorities. Common sense, limiting smoke, the smell of burning feathers, flesh, and JP. Never needed this but filed this away in the sock drawer of good ideas.
Sorry, I am an airline pilot and former LCA and SIM instructor. The packs are the air conditioning units which are operated by air extracted from the compressor section of the engines. If something fails in the engine (bird, fire, compressor stalls, etc), smoke is often pushed into the aircraft. In the case of an engine fire, or damage from a bird, the smoke will reduce visibility inside the aircraft and left unchecked, will result in difficulty seeing outside, the instruments, or checklists. The smoke should stop once the engine is shutdown (bleed shut off valve). However, priority one is to fly the aircraft, then deal with the engine issue, which will mean a loss of the engine driven hydraulic pump, then smoke evacuation, then single engine approach and landing preparation. All of this takes time. By turning off the packs immediately once smoke is being pushed into the aircraft (below 10,000), it will stop the source of the smoke. While running the engine damage procedure, one can turn on the pack operating from the good engine and reduce the sense of urgency in this type of situation. My comment was regarding the type of training these days. Broad systems knowledge can enhance safety because a pilot will be able to think “let me turn that thing off” while I am grabbing the checklist and finding the right page. A little smoke might be bad, heavy smoke is a completely different situation. This whole accident is terrible and I agree with everything on this pod cast. I feel so bad for the lives lost and their families.
The revelation that the balcony video may have been reversed explains a lot, thanks for pointing that out, Mover! The sun seems to have swapped sides comparing the two videos. Now it all makes sense.
Ultimately, the flight/data recorders can exactly tell what happened. But still, up to the S.Korean governments if they'll be 100% transparent to the public especially to the families. Hopefully whoever's handling the black-box investigation has a heart and don't give any bias to the airline company, the government, nor the airport officials. There should be a thing were a 3rd party like a different country/idenpendent organization handles the black-box investigation to avoid unnecessary cover-ups. As what usually happens with airline crashes.
@@misstuxbrandi At least they enlisted the help of a foreign investigation team to provide them a more professional and unbiased insight of the tragedy. Hopefully whatever materias they provide would tip it in favor of justice and transparency when its time to face court trials and not shroud it even more conspiracy/diversion/blaming the wrong entity/person for the sake of saving public image. Or else it'll be the same tragedy with the airliner shot down by russin Anti-Aircraft supposedly "by accident".
There's a close up shot where you can see one of the crew with his arm up on the dash, so it doesn't seem like there was a smoke in the cockpit. This wouldn't be the first time a crew shut down a healthy engine by mistake. That, combined with partial thrust from the damaged engine, would explain the sense of urgency to get on the ground.
The black box recordings will shed the necessary light, but until then this video and its comment section might be the best thing to decipher the cause of this tragedy.
Hopefully an electrical failure has not resulted in premature termination of the flight data and cockpit voice recordings. An electrical failure might also have resulted in failure of the landing gear enunciator system - it might be that the gear lever was in the Down position but the pilots were unaware that gear deployment had failed
You can see the FO bracing with their hands in the crash video. Highly doubt that there was enough smoke in the cockpit to obscure vision. I think a wrong engine shutdown is a very plausible scenario. Haven't heard anyone else bring that up. The yaw, the single reverser, the urgency to get down. Seems to be the best explanation I've heard, so far.
If you want to be gender neutral, just say "The person, probably in the right seat, appears to be bracing with a hand". We have more than enough words in the English language to do that. When you identify a specific individual using a word that implies plurality, you seem like you're just wasting a huge amount of energy trying not to offend an astonishingly small number of people in the world. The pilots were both male. You can say 'Guy looks like he was bracing with his hand' and I promise close enough to 100% of people on this planet will never be offended.
Best information on this accident, tragic incident, that I have seen. As a layperson, my best guess were the pilot fatigue with major issues occurring affected dealing with emergency and if there was the smoke or noxious fumes making landing immediately necessary. So their comments reinforced that thought
I was on the wrong engine theory before the mention of Kegsworth. Here's my list in rough order... 1. Bad CRM 2. Crew panic from birdstrike. 3. Pull fire handle for engine 1 4. More panic leading to forgetting the basics, like some wheels. What I can't figure out is why they came in so hot unless they were thinking TOGA but failed because of lack of flaps.
Another question is what about the passengers? They probably knew they were in an emergency situation, so did they panic and ended up creating added pressure to the pilot and made him make mistakes?
Regarding fumes/smoke from burned oil in the engine getting into the cabin/cockpit air, there is extensive documentation, research, lawsuits, internal documentation ( at Boeing ) etc which has proven that the bearings/seals in the engine often leak a bit in certain circumstances, like during reduction of thrust when starting descent. The burned oil creates neuro toxins, leaking into the bleed air carried into the fuselage, which can affect your neuro system, especially when exposure happens over longer time even at low concentrations or during a fume event=large concentration. We did testing in the cockpit ( engine type was CF6 and also during APU start) and test results showed neuro toxins in the cockpit air on almost every flight in concentrations that could affect your neuro system. How much it does affect you differs per person. Several lawsuits from flight and cabin crew that had to stop working due to medical issues resulting from this got settled and put under gag order. The jet engines leaking oil has been known in the industry for many decades (see internal comms Boeing) but kept quiet. EASA did a study into this but with inconclusive outcome, there is a huge pushback from the industries/airlines involved to not make this an occupational disease=avoid any link between those leaking neuro toxins and a crew member's disease. I am definitely not a conspiracy theorist but had to research this extensively as part of my profession. Just beware of the environment you work in...
I just found you guys and wow what a pleasure I really enjoyed this and can’t wait to explore your channel, I have so so so much respect and appreciation for your collective knowledge and experience and professions and service and for allowing us that would never have the chance to be privy to conversations to learn and enjoy. I was fascinated by all your insights ❤
The captain was an employee of Jeju Air since 2019 and had accumulated over 6,820 hours of flight experience; the first officer had over 1,650 hours Kim Kwang-il, a professor of Aeronautical Science at Silla University, criticized the presence of the barrier to which the aircraft crashed, saying that the emergency landing was made in a skilled manner and that the aircraft "could have skidded further and stopped naturally" had it not been for the barrier, which he said violated international aviation safety standards against the presence of a solid obstruction. The barrier in question was a concrete structure covered in soil that is located about 250 meters from the end of the runway and holds a localizer to assist navigation by landing aircraft. The structure, along with the localizer, measured a combined total of four meters. Airport officials said the mound containing the barrier was raised to keep the localizer level with the runway to ensure its proper functioning due to the slanted terrain at the end of the runway.
@@AlienGamer38 We don't know yet. Let's wait for the investigation. I posted to the channel because the channel presenters said they were unaware of the background and experience of the pilots.
The landing seemed to be excellent. Landing fast and no gear does not seem to be what got everyone killed. What I find most puzzling is why was there a solid obstruction at the end of the runway?
@RexNathanChan Yes and have seen the full complete video and destruction. Terrible. Thus the question. Without the unfathomable obstruction survival still was never assured ..quite possible that it would have rolled or caught fire before stopping. But also possible it simply slowed down and stopped and everyone would have survived given a normal unobstructed end.
@@RexNathanChanI think he means that for a “belly landing,” it was controlled. I mean, yeah they landed way too far down the runway, but the plane didn’t completely crash on impact. If they had more runway, they might have made it.
18:30 The thing about the landing gear issue, is even if they lost the hydraulics and had to drop it with gravity, and maybe they somehow lost both engines thus couldn't wait long enough for the gear to fully lock, we'd still be able to see the nose gear partially dropped down, but we're seeing nothing even though there's plenty of space under the nose. That nose gear isn't even partially out...
Seems odd that someone would capture the bird strike on engine 2 out of nowhere.... I think the plane initially also had a bird strike on engine 1 (perhaps causing total failure on 1), made a boom sound, caught the attention of the person with the phone so they started recording and captured the second bird strike on engine 2.... thus the plane was only partially thrusting on the damaged engine 2 is why we only saw fumes/hot air coming from engine 2 when the plane landed
The engine did not have a catastrophic failure. The compressor blade did not leave the cowling and there is no sign of any exterior damage at all. The engine is also still strongly attached to the wing as neither were ripped off when landing. They climbed away for a go around then accepted a reciprocal which means they knew they were landing at that point you dont accept the reciprocal so fast unless you are landing asap so whatever happened got worse whether by pilot error or more damage not seen. They would not have lost all hydraulics though because you can see they have excellent control of the aircraft all the way down. Even if they did lose hydraulics the back up electrical pump will work and as he said an emergency reservoir allows for a one time deployment of the slats. Total engine failure does not mean total hydraulic loss. Once they accepted the reciprocal, i would guess they had about 4 mins to configure the aircraft. Thats enough time to pull the gear lever down or go for the manual override and get flaps down and go for manual override if required. That would only take a few seconds. Maybe they did but the damage required for all of them to fail would probably mean they would not have made it back to the airport at all. To do nothing is just not right.. i have watched many videos of bird strike, single engine failure go arounds and take offs and the pilots dont panic, after all they train for this exact scenario. .. They knew they were landing the moment they accepted the reciprocal so to not have flaps, slats and landing gear in position is very strange considering the aircaft was still in controlled flight.
U have 2 pilots so for both of them to not have thought abt the flaps/landing gear/spoilers is strange. 7 min is short time for a checkl ist,, tear drop and return to land but enough to get the flaps /landing gear /spoilers in position to land safely. Looks like inexperienced pilots in a low cost airline and Panic in the Cockpit.
@@factchecker2090 In one of the Korean airline disasters, it was concluded that due to the Asian mentality, the co-pilot does not take any part in the actions. This means that you have a main pilot and he is the authority and the co-pilot does not dare contradict him.
The engines are not designed to come off this aircraft with such a controlled descent, they would need to be dropping vertically faster than 12 feet per second at contact with the ground. Even under catastrophic bird strike conditions, and subsequent windmilling, the engines are designed to stay on. Not that this is relevant to what happened, just some information about the engine attachments themselves.
IF both engines fail, you are a glider in a swept wing aircraft that only glides at VERY high speeds, like 200+kts. To achieve that, you basically have to dive at the ground and with such a steep approach angle, you are not going to be able to slide your seat back to release the landing gear, which is what is required according to video. Emergency flap extension takes 2 mins; too long on a short final approach.
17:16 - in the first cell phone footage of the plane flying overhead (when the bird strike happens,) they were traveling northbound due to time of day / sun location. If they then did a teardrop landing pattern, that indicates this first cell video is not mirrored. The actual crash footage shows the 3rd video with the terminal in the background. You can read the name on the plane. Not mirrored. They landed from north to south. Look on google maps for a brief overview of where the terminal is in relation to the runway. Their runway runs straight north to south.
Reading some people's comments here, I think they very well may have encountered engine failures in both engines. This would explain lack of flaps, gear, reverse thrust, get on ground ASAP, etc. And we only see the second bird strike on film; at first I thought maybe they shut down the wrong engine, but it seems plausible that there may have been 2 bird strikes.
Question: i worked at a US airport and we built runway safety areas per FAA standards in the last decade. It is an extended area of the runway designed to provide maximum friction to stop an aircraft overrun. Would that have prevented this tragedy?
For the actual 737 pilots let me throw this scenario out there (and you can reference your QRHs. We only got a glimpse of the strike... there could have been bird ingestion into both engines (or perhaps accidental shut down of wrong engine and remaining engine wasn't producing any real thrust) in any case on go around both engines fail or fail to provide adequate thrust... lack of thrust from both e gives you would carry out dual engine failure. And try to maintain what 210 kts in hopes of a relight, and this could account for the urgent need to return (touchdown approx 2 min after bird strike with a quick tear drop to 19) now while trying to red-light you are keeping speed up... but also need to stretch your glide as far as possible, so you aren't throwing out flaps and gear due to the increased drag as well as steeper decent angle.. you want to wait to throw the gear until landing is assured... but in this case if you aren't sure you're going to make it you may help them up and belly land... and this is where the problem comes in, higher speed plus with no gear the plane sits lower meaning a much stronger ground effect you weren't trained for... and you are committed... and to top it off. A big concrete block at the end.
I really hope it doesn't turn out that they simply shut down the wrong engine and panicked and tried to get it on the ground ASAP, without going through the checklists, which is why they had no flaps or landing gear.
True, the only way to explain no flaps, no gear downs but fly control still effective, the engeine took bird had air brake deployed but the other one didn't. Damn it might be totally fine if they didn't turn around and approaced in the first place...
@picardtseng flight controls on the 737 NG have cable backups. So even with zero hydraulic pressure the plane would be controllable.
The last airliner switched off wrong engine off in the air was TransAsia Airline FLight 235, happened in the city I lived. Still remembered that day.
@picardtseng yeah similar is the more recent crash of Yeti Airlines Flight 691 where they pulled back the prop setting instead of the flaps. :/
One possibility
The most upsetting fact about this accident is that they did make the runway and stayed on the runway and then bam and the passangers, who only moments ago quite possibly felt a slight sense of relief, are all gone in the blink of an eye.
over engineered stupid berm , that engineer should be held accountable.
@@DeFiDukethe airport CEO ordered it built so the antenna don’t get blown off
@@DeFiDuke It's not the engineer, it was a political decision. I heard from the locals that the previous antenna was damaged in one of the local Taifuns. And as a reaction there was a political decision to reinforce localizer antennas with concrete, so that they don't get blown away by a strong gale.
Tales of the unexpected episode, or "dirty mary crazy larry" ending.
Sorry, but some of your info. on Muan airport is incorrect... While, yes, that particular route run by Jeju Air, between Bangkok and Muan, was brand new, the actual airport has been an international airport... Maybe you're confused with Guangju?
Flight Attendant here. I admire your compassion and sensitivity on this very sad tragedy. Your insights on the accident was very helpful especially to those who are not well versed in the aviation industry. Whenever someone asks me about what I think happened about the crash, I just advise them to watch your channel. Thank you and Happy New Year!
Praying for those who perished that they may rest in eternal peace and my heart goes out especially to the flight and cabin crew. This hits home.
Not gonna lie.. i have seen a lot of hard videos ... but this was one of the hardest i ever seen... 180 lives gone in an instant out of nowhere
If you see the impact video in hi-res slow-mo, you can kind of make out what appears to be human bodies being ejected and flying at the moment of impact and fireball as the fuselage gets blown up.
This kind of hits you differently from those combat footages of active warzone, in a closer sense of 'that could have been me on a random unassuming flight.'
@@JakeCKim-sh6dzVery tragic. RIP
@@JakeCKim-sh6dz they found corpses and body parts hundreds of feet from the crash site. The impact forces of that crash was beyond human belief. Those planes are incredibly tough and it just disintegrated in a second… they were killed instantly, and those two in the very back who made it out alive were incredibly lucky.
Yea man same here but watching it skid down that runway, watching them make it down that far to where even some of the worse emergencies crashes like United 232, loss of all hydraulics in a 1 in 10 million accident have somehow at least half their passengers survive...watching it actually get to the runway only to keep going, if I didn't know what the outcome was before I saw the video I'd think they'd most likely be ok, but for them to crash at the end into an explosion that really as cliche as it is to say it, it really is miraculous anyone survived even for minutes let alone to possibly go on to live more life...that slide of hope only to catastrophic explosion is something I'll never forget
Do you think they will be able to recover the pilots bodies ?? Or will they be too damaged ❤
737 Captain here. The only time I would make the decision to put it down so quickly like this would be dual engine failure or catastrophic smoke or fire.
If the airplane is maintaining flight, you have time to do it right.
The manual gear extension can be difficult as you need to slide your seat all the way back and not something you'd do unless a QRH checklist directs it. If you feel time pressured, it wouldnt be easy to do.
0 flap is another question. The alternate flap extension takes a long time but would still be available. I would take a longer final to make sure I get them out.
Something made these guys feel the need to get on the ground NOW!
Following this closely with so many questions.
@@CallsignMunch thank you for your input! 😊
they were surrounded by water, why didn't they try to land there if they couldnt get the landing gears down? genuine question...
I have the feeling they forgot the gear after the first go around and did the second attempt with the option of another go-around in mind. Then, they had no gear and were stuck.
Thanks. People/pilots like you are who should be getting interviewed instead of people making a living seated at a desk.
@@raygun1414 I would avoid water. More likely to survive on land in a controlled crash. Airplanes tend to break apart in water when ditching. Now you have a bunch of people with injuries drowning in water. Even if it doesn't break apart, you still have to get everyone out and receive rescue. Airports are equipped with emergency services.
Everyone I know who's done an underwater egress course will say the same thing. They'd rather put it into the trees under control than water.
Im not a pilot but I know some facts.
They landed about 2/3 down the runway
They touched down at about 200 knots
They were not in landing configuration
Stall speed is about 128 knots with no flaps
This is very concerning because if they lost both engines, they had WAY too much momentum. Also the tear maneuver loses a LOT of speed or altitude. So that means they were going above 200 knots when they executed it.
They had enough momentum to land, so much so they fliated 2/3 down the rubway 70 knots too fast. Id be extremely surprised if the outcome wasnt pilot error.
It's just hard to imagine any pilot really messing up a landing that badly, without something catastrophically wrong. Seems like they had extreme pressure while in the air to land quickly, without running through safety checks.
28 years in the airlines as pilot and I have flown the 737 for 11 years. You bring up very good questions and make good points. I have the same questions
Thank you for the insightful and respectful break down of this accident.
@@TheCraigy83stop being a prick
My heart goes out to the 179 souls that were lost. May their families get strength from the community and my heart breaks for the families
1:28 The footage was taken by a local flight instructor who was staying at a hotel near the airport. He was sleeping in his bed when heard the loud unusual noise. Being a pilot, he knew something was wrong and so jumped out of his bed to film it.
1:43 This bird warning/strike at Muan Airport is a HUGE issue. So this Muan Airport was constructed in year 1997, under the push by local politicians who wanted, yup you got it right, votes. There was already another Airport nearby but LOSING money due to not enough usage. Not only that, the location of the Muan Airport is near multiple wetlands (I heard 4) with wild bird sanctuary. The amount of bird strike/warning at Muan Airport is 5 TIMES of other airports in S. Korea like Gimpo Airport. Muan Airport shouldn't have been built in the first place but was pushed through by politicians who wanted votes. And this Muan Airport stayed in the red for a long time. Again, the construction of the airport did not make sense but was pushed through by local politicians who wanted "votes". Hey look, as a politician of yours I am getting us a new airport!
8:48 I just saw a local news snip where one person (didn't join the trip) is the only survivor of an extended family and 18 others in his extended family perished in the crash. Lot of local residents who bought tour packages to enjoy vacation over the Christmas holiday. That particular group of family left for Thailand right before Christmas and were returning home.
This Muan Airport was designated as domestic only airport for awhile. However, there's rumor that the airport was approved as ready for international flight early Dec 2024, and that this change was pushed when some special interests lined up. This includes a tour company that sells packages mostly to the local province and the airport being declared international would make their packages more attractive. Tourists who use the package can cut down the time needed to go to an international airport, most likely Incheon airport. The Jeju Airline planes were chartered from Dec 2024 to March 2025 to fly between Thailand and Muan Airport. Jeju Airline nornally does not have scheduled flight between Muan Airport and Thailand.
28:08 The landing localizer that was the real source of the catastrophic loss of life was rebuilt 1 - 2 years ago. The question is who designed it that way and who in the regulatory body approved it.
Excellent commentary and information! Makes perfect sense what you wrote. Thank you for this & RIP to all you perished. Tragic
Climate change may be a factor
The airport was constructed near major bird habitats and feeding grounds, such as the Yeongsan lake and the mudflats of the southwest coast.
The development of the nearby land had caused local birds to take increasingly erratic routes, and climate change has led to many species of migratory birds becoming resident birds.
The Chosun Ilbo reported that environmental impact assessments had recommended the deployment of sound cannons, lasers and warning lights at the airport. However, their implementation was delayed due to runway extension work
thank you for sharing this additional information!
Without the berm that plane may have ended up in the water, they were going so fast.
@@hoytoy100 Dirt/ground would've slowed it down before hitting water. And I'd definitely prefer hitting water at slower speed versus hitting a concrete block at 150 miles (heard that was the speed when it hit the concrete block).
Pilot error or not. There still shouldnt be a solid wall or embankment at the end of any runway.
Simply not true. This obsession with this berm is a complete red herring, and generally it’s spotters/enthusiasts who have no idea what they’re talking about making the statements.
@@JetWash944could not agree more. The wall as you state, and I agree is a red herring.
Pilot error... when they declared a missed approach they had control of the aircraft, climbed on a good engine, and flew 6 minutes making a steep 180 turn back to the runway.
@@bratis99
Multiple pilot errors!
Agreed, having such an obstruction is a guarantee that ANY overshoot will be a serious crash! While there are sound reasons for some form of catch fences being a safety hazard for extracting the passengers and crew, there are times when they ARE required, such as if there is a residential or natural hazard at the end.
I'm a former USAF 2A671C (if you know, you know) who's primary A/C was the C5 A&B models. I was also in FE school prior to my departure from the Service.
I've watched endless videos about this doomed flight and am thoroughly confused. I've seen videos/ stills of this plane both completely slick AND with gear/flaps deployed.
Why didn't they just continue on their original approach instead of reapproaching from the North?? The area to the airports North were construction sites, instead of a freaking brick wall.
Why shut down what I'm assuming was a functioning #1, thus negating any ability to use that hydraulic system? How about the APU?? Was that running?? It's obvious that #2 was running, as the T/R was deployed. Plus, the head in video shows Ground Effect perfectly.
And, I'm wondering why the F/E position has been relegated to the history books on larger aircraft? I realize computers are awesome, but, it doesn't replace a thinking, breathing human who might be able to take the workload off the Captain and the FO?
Sorry if this comment is kinda scattered, but, I'm just thoroughly confused over this crash. Hopefully, with the NTSB and Boeing engineering on scene, some closure can be brought to this horrific situation.
As an aside, the TF39 powerplant on the "old " C5s were almost stupidly resilient. More than once, during my boroscope inspections in ISO, some of these engines had birdstrike damage that would've caused other engines to be dropped. That being said, having to clean birdparts out of an engine is not fun.
Great video guys- first time I've watched your channel, and am thoroughly impressed! Subscribed!
Super balanced respectful non-sensationalized takes. Good format letting each person speak for a while. Wombat had some great discussion points coming from a different aircraft. 💯
🎉🎉
Guys
I’m a retired Navy pilot, airline captain and FAA APM on the 737-8 MAX.
There were reports late last night that the right engine thrust reverser deployed after the bird strike and that they took birds in both engines. We’ll find out when the NTSB runs the DFDR exactly what the sequence was but this scenario would indicate that the left engine was producing minimal power and the right TR deployed so their only option was to stick the jet on the ground.
Cheers
Pieces
THAT would explain them rushing to land it. Crazy
He should have kicked the rudder when he saw that wall coming, 150 mph he still had some control of it.
Interesting. The ocean was near by...would it make better sense to slide on the water instead of the runway? I'm pretty sure the watch tower controllers see that solid wall every day on the south side of the runway.
Still does not explain landing without gear and flaps at all ! They might not have the time to go through all check lists in this scenario, but you will not forget the gear
@@peachtreee4649if they slide on water , everyone would get wet ! I hate being wet .
Great video guys, I am an ex 787/777/744 driver and you are the most accurate on your comments so far. Keep in mind that Korea is a very specific pilot population (I spend 5 years on the 744 there) and I could write a book on what I went through with these guys…
Give some examples. Did they skimp on safety somehow? Maintenance?
Fastest 40 mins ever. Your concern, respect, knowledge, articulation, and compassion was so refreshing. Your insight made me think of nothing but being patient and waiting for the report to give us the facts, not web sight speculation and rumors. And not being an airline pilot I learned some of the tedium of the job but also "why" it is tedious... in case of a Sully situation. I want my pilots to be borderline bored until they need to do "some of that pilot shit!", then I want Maverick in those seats.
My heart goes out to flight crew who may have been distressed and panicked they are human.also heartbreaking for passengers and families .My condolences from Scotland ,i have been in tears over this .
For them to make a sharp turnaround to land mid runaway is weird
Excellent video. Blancolirio has a good breakdown on the hydraulic and electrical systems on the 737 as they relate to the gear.
Blancolirio shows how long it floats in ground effects, way down the runway before touching down. Why weren't the crash trucks running down the sides? They didn't have time to foam but still, they should have been rolling.
Yeah I checked his out last night,.it was very informative
Juan is full of it he Never admits Pilots error he is to scared to say anything cause he's a company man
@@AlienGamer38 Did you even watch the video I mentioned? He very much questions the pilots in this one.
@@dave.of.the.forrestyea, I've seen him rip into pilots a few times..
As a 737 captain, the only scenario which makes sense to me is Loss of Thrust on both engines, whatever the reason for that. That would be the only situation I could think of to put it on the ground in this configuration. Considering being afraid not to make it to the runway and keep it clean. We did some OPC training on this and it’s just very very difficult to do. Considering manual gear and flap extension at the last moment, which is almost impossible. Only the flaps take about 2 minutes to extend to flaps 15. I hope there already will be some useful analysis in the preliminary report.
Cessna 172 pilot here lol, I totally get holding on adding drag but once they knew they had the runway, I don’t know why they didn’t drop gear and at least try flaps. Maybe both pilots were distract or both were busy fighting something else. In the 737 max 8 crash both pilots were fighting over 100lbs of force trying to keep the nose pitch. But I can’t fathom in this case what would have required both pilots full attention and strength so they “forgot” to pull the gear. Is the gear release only on one side? Maybe only on the pilot flying side vs pilot monitoring?
@@Pepesilvia267
They said the pilot's seat needs to be slid all the way back to actuate emergency gear release. Emergency flap extension takes 2min.
@@Pepesilvia267maybe they shut down the wrong engine?
After seeing the video, I saw a subtle puff of smoke from the left motor as well. It appears both motors experienced strikes. I am tired of reading comments about the pilots shutting down the wrong motor. There are too many amateur experts who watch Mayday.
Going thru checklists and all the procedures for manual gear while both engines are off especially when you are flying at low altitude? Unrealistic.
The Jeju Air captain has 6800+ hrs flight time. Former ROK Air Force Captain, started as a F-16 fighter pilot and over 10+ years commercial airliner experience. Lets show some due respect to the veteran pilot and the co-pilot who left behind a fiance. RIP.
What a horrific accident, genuinely affected me emotionally, RIP to all those that lost their lives.
Me too, I've literally just been weeping watching a dad talk about his beautiful daughter, it's horrendous😥🇬🇧
Yes, it has affected me also. Deeply.
So sick out west here pretty sure they don't allow concrete walls RIP
Korean here. The entire country is mourning right now. I saw a clip of young lady sobbing and said she lost her entire family. The parents and the bother and his family. They were coming back from the family trip. 😢
i've flown on a Jeju flight 737 back in 2012, i've seen a lot of messed up tragedies. This one seriously blind sided me and is super sad. I hope the families will find peace.
Some of the most intense expressions I’ve seen from Mover, Gonky and WOMBAT. Thanks for spending the time to discuss this at length. It must have been a difficult topic to discuss.
Just say it dudes…. It was the “Perfect Storm”
A) Bird Strike
B) Pilot judgement (Panic / fatigue / incompetence) and the rush to put the plane on the ground
C) A wall at the end of the fricking runway
You forgot one important factor, poorly engineered / tested plane!
D) Aviation is sickeningly gruesome when things go wrong
@@markucit’s an 800, not a MAX. Extremely popular and few accidents given how many of them there are.
@@markucrubbish.
@@markuc the plane engineering has nothing to do in this case... had that wall not been there we would be seen another happy video where a plane belly lands and everybody makes it intact and yet another for the news .. the result would been same with an Airbus or Embraer or Tupolev
I saw another pilot analyzing this and he speculated that the pilots might have shut down the wrong engine. That would explain the loss of control on flaps and the landing gear if both engines were down. They acted in a hurry based on the timestamps of events, there was only about 8 minutes between the loss of data from the flight radar and landing. They didn't have time to do all emergency checks I guess. For some reason they rushed and tried to land asap.
However we can also hear an engine and thrust reversal was in fact deployed on the second engine.
@@eckee I really hope that we find out that this was thrust reversal. I mean thrust reversal also needs hydraulic pressure. So if there were no flaps, spoilers and gear, why was there thrust reversal?
I fear the cauling was just ripped open by the impact and they actually tried to go around after already hitting the engines onto the tarmac.
th-cam.com/video/sj5kxh9cf_0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UTLvOTmlw1jX8i83
thats what this pilot suspected. they shut down the wrong engine
That’s the thing that bothers me about people whining and complaining about new regulations with trucking and restricting the amount of hours you can drive per day.
When you are sleep deprived, you make so many mistakes. I truly think sleep deprivation is worse than drunk driving, to a certain level. I mean, if you’re absolutely plastered no, but just that borderline illegal buzz for sure.
Landing gear can be manually dropped with a pull lever, and gravity does the rest. There was no excuse not to have the gear down.
Turning off the wrong engine has NOTHING to do with flap or gear control.
Worst possible scenario, heavy load, no gear, no flaps, no reverse braking thrust, and a concrete barrier at the end.
CNN is cropping the video and saying it was an embankment, lol.
You forgot to mention the worst possible pilots!
What about traffic controllers? Shouldn't they have known that the runway had a barrier at the end and would have directed the pilot to land somewhere else?
Does reverse thrust apply with gear up?
@@zeeshanbhatit should not
Thank you for having the compassion to not showing the impact. You all are a class act.
do you feel the same away about the 1000s upon 1000s of time you , me and everyone else has watched the planes hit towers on 911? the impact is part of the story - it makes no difference whether it's shown or not. oh, but maybe it makes you feel less bad...
Death is part of life. We all need to deal with it.
Thank you for doing this so promptly! I was dumbstruck looking at the footage.
My heart goes out to those that lost their lives in this incident.
감사합니다 😢
This was extremely informative and thank you for this. My prayers go out for all affected by this tragedy.
I spent 17 years working on Boeing airliners and to this day I am stunned that a bird the size of a chihuahua can completely take out a 10 million dollar engine. I’ve seen the video of GE or P&W engines on a test stand ingesting a frozen chicken and still running,maybe not full power but running. Incredible they are so fragile.
It's the speed at which this happens. Simply too much energy to build something light but sturdy enough to withstand it.
@@Quotenwagnerianer I think the bird narrative is a red herring.
I don't think they are that fragile. Very few people know that, when "the miracle on the Hudson" aircraft hit those birds, the engines were still running all the way to the water and that Sully and the copilot (can't remember his name) set the power to idle, but never once tried to advance the power again. They went through the restart sequence over and over, because they didn't know they were already running…but they were running the whole time. This is from the actual NTSB report.
@@0101-s7v What TF blatant lies are these
@@0101-s7v I don't believe that for one second.
They were both experienced enough to know how to read the indications. If the engines are running you will see that on the MFD.
As a real world 78 skipper very sad to see what happened but very happy to see some intelligent discussion not the garbage flooding the web.
Some great points guys well put together and very well discussed.
The only reason i see for that immediate return is assuming competent crew etc is time. They had a larger issue than just hydraulics. By that i mean we know one engine was certainly damaged from video of the go around showing either a compressor stall or bird strike impacts. The only thing i imagine leading to a immediate return is loss of thrust on both engines.
IE hits birds on go around immediate loss of thrust on right engine then subsequent loss of thrust on left engine at low altitude.
Without altitude a immediate turn towards the airport OR commit to ditching. Without altitude you dont have the distance to get to normal touchdown zone, nor do you have altitude to give away putting gear down and realistically they wouldn’t have time to anyway.
I cannot fathom how a professional crew irrespective of experience could balls up so badly and rush back in without some other more critical event unfolding.
Even Jeju.
Going to be an interesting report and it might only be days before the CVR is read and we find out if it was an enormous clusterfuck OR a crew thrown under a bus with a dual engine failure or even a single failure and limited thrust forcing an immediate decision to land.
No situation id ever like to find myself in.
Great stuff from the three bad boys.
I agree double engine loss is best explanation.
I agree. According to Korean news reports, two days prior to the incident, passengers on the same aircraft complained about multiple occurrences of engine shutdowns and power outages during boarding.
@@cturdo- loud engine noise is heard in video.
@@miaflyer2376 I personally find it hard to tell how much of that is engine noise vs. scraping. I did notice, however, the sound definitely changes once it leaves the pavement. That being said, based on the near-head-on footage, the No2 engine is definitely running from the obvious heat blur. Whether it's producing useful thrust is another question. Even at ground idle there's a lot of heat coming out of the exhaust.
At least the right engine was generating thrust based off of the audo and yaw shown in the video. But, of the TR was working, the yaw is wrong
I fly widebodies now and flew the 737 in both seats for about 8000hrs. I just cannot conceive a set of circumstances, other than a dual engine failure or uncontrollable fire and/or smoke in the cockpit, that would put pilots in a position that they attempted to land under these circumstances. I’m baffled and intrigued in equal measure as to what has happened here but right now just feel sorry for all those poor people. As it always does, aviation will learn from what has happened here and hopefully put procedures in place to ensure it never happens again
ps In my opinion, although never ideal, this berm at the end of the runway is an absolute red herring. There isn’t an airport in the world that just has endless clearway at the runway end. That aircraft was always going to hit something, and at the speed it was going the ultimate conclusion would very likely have been the same. The QRH states ‘land at nearest suitable airport’, and a large part of that is ‘can we actually stop on the length on concrete we have available’. If we can’t we go elsewhere.
show me in the QRH where it gives you a landing distance, no flap, no landing gear, no brakes .....
@@garritytome It doesn’t, because you would never conceivably be in that situation. Let me ask you a different question, how big a clearway is long enough?
They came in about 70 knots over stall speed for an unconfigured approach.
@@garritytomeI can tell you that 200 knots isn't the ideal landing speed when your stall speed unconfigured is 128 knots.
If the wall wasn’t there it woulda been completely different! I’ve seen videos and it was flat and open for 2 miles after the wall! The wall being there was an atrocity
The wings were still loaded as they were skidding. They were coming in really hot; they had a ton of speed. There was something going on that you can't see in a video
My reaction also
Ground effect and plane floats.
Panic
A UK airline pilot on the news said it looked like they were doing just over 200Mph as they skid down the runway.
@To-ThereI heard the same because someone suggest why not open the door and jump. The height alone will kill you despite 200mph
Rest in peace to the pilots, crew and passengers 😢😢😢. It is a horrific loss of life.
Watching the second video, your like awe good they are down. I’m retired crash rescue my first thought was well they are not slowing down. Then the berm. Sucks. We used to foam the runway, we no longer do that because it wasted agent. Would not have mattered here. Thanks for your take. It is a dangerous business. You guys make it look easy but it’s not. Very unforgiving. God bless to all involved.
God obviously blessed no one.
Perhaps the reason the person was filming the plane in the air was because they heard the sound of compressor stalls from a previous bird strike in #1 engine, and then pointed the camera up and caught the strike on #2 engine. Just speculation, but plausible.
Yep, that was exactly what I wondered. They experienced an initial bird strike on the left engine, (prompting the cell phone video to start) aborted the landing and began climbing and then suffered a 2nd bird strike on the right engine (while the plane seems pretty clearly to be climbing) which the cell phone video captured. With both engines damaged/non-functional, they had to put it down immediately and before they could manually lower the landing gear. In that case they did so well and would probably have saved a lot of lives, possibly all, were it not for the insanity of that totally unnecessary concrete structure atop a soil berm.
This makes the most sense so far that they got 2 bird strikes after each other and the camera got the second one because he started filming after the sound he heard.
Excellent point.
Good point, apparently the person filming started doing so because he heard multiple bangs in the air.
It can also explain the glide configuration & rush to land.
The biggest question is why is there a wall blocking the runoff? When was the last time this airport/runway inspected and why was this not picked up as an issue?
Probably corruption. They are dealing with a lot of that in the country right now hence all the impeachments lately. This crash, the Sewol ferry accident, and the crush in Itaewon have highlighted for a lot of S Korean citizens that their country have lots of corrupt politicians.
The walll was ordered by the airport ceo to reinforce the antenna
@@Emolga6274 so that's why they are burying that wall discussion then, and they want to focus on the pilot and birds. The authorities want to save their own butts. Most of the mainstream media are also focusing on the pilot and birds.
I heard homes are close by and it was a protective factor but I could have misheard.
Very true they overshot that runway by about a 1/2 a mile, Way too fast no flaps no landing gear... and they were coming in backwards. So if they were using a runway correctly, the wall would be in back of where they're landing. Unfortunately, a chain of a 1/2 a dozen unfortunate events I may the poor soul's rest in peace
Thank you for being so respectful. You guys are always on top of this stuff. Tragic.
So apparently one of the female flight attendant that survived recalled that there were smoke in the cabin before the explosion. No word from the other flight attendant. It's said that they're holding off on questioning them about the crash because they want to get in a good place physically and mentally before asking them about the tragic event.
Birdstrike can cause smoke in the plane, I cant remember which way round but its because of the intakes, one engine can cause smoke in passenger, the other cockpit
New facts are emerging, most likely they've got 2 separate bird strikes. Smoke in the cabin = engine shutdown, smoke in the cockpit = minimal thrust+reverser+glide config + get her down asap.
The guy may become paralyzed, and said he has no recollection of the events leading up to the crash
you have wrong information brother
there was no smoke in the cabin
Weren't survivors in the tail of the plane?
Jeju just had another plane with landing gear issues and returned safely to Seoul today 12/30/2024. It sounds to me they have been having maintenance issues related to their landing gear so with that knowledge I think the pilots were worried.
As soon as I saw Jeju Air, I thought about pilot experience, maintenance budget and aircraft age. My guess, inexperience pilots, poor maintenance and old aircraft.
But the most critical aspect would be pilot training. Seems like there was panic in the cockpit, the worst thing to have in any emergency.
Great content guys you showed sympathy for the passengers . Theres a huge difference between having a problem in a sim then in real time in panic situation.
One of the pilots mentioned that the video of the plane hitting the birds may have been mirrored, but that is not the case because the position of the sun is on the opposite side of the plane as it is when it landed which is what would be expected since it turned around. So, it seems more and more likely that either the wrong engine was turned off or both engines were affected by the strike.
And vertical video is flipped when in selfie mode, not normal video mode. Plus this video has been geo-located. It's definitely not flipped.
Reading some people's comments, I think that may have been bird strike 2...and that might be why someone started recording it, because they heard something peculiar regarding the aircraft. Dual engine bird strikes, or maybe wrong engine shut down. Both seem plausible.
Man it’s refreshing seeing professional pilots discuss this versus all the armchair pilots on social media that don’t know literally anything about airplanes.
The Internet can just really suck sometimes.
People are free to express their opinions. There is a lot to discuss that doesn’t need a pilots experience. As long as you don’t pretend to be an expert….This video is absolutely great though, agreed.
My take is very different. People seemingly not able to accept that this accident was far more likely the result of pilot error that stemmed from the inability to manage what was never a catastrophic issue to begin with.
@@chrishewitt5826 See that is where I disagree: Causes of an accident is not a matter of opinion. If you don't have any in depth knowledge how a 737 or aircraft in general or flying an aircraft works, you keep your mouth shut and don't form an opinion and wait on what experts in the field have to say about it.
This applies to shoddy media reporting too. Check out SkyNews where they invited a person (Sally Gethin) with a background in business and travel journalism, and then labeled her as an "Aviation Expert".
Sally's comments were an insult to those real pilots, aircraft engineers, and aviation forensics.
Stupidly sycophantic and generalising comment. There’s thousand of people on social media that know these aircraft like the back of their hands. You don’t have to have a TH-cam channel to have a valid POV.
Many people were filming the plane because there were multiple explosion sounds, for the first video as well he started to record as soon as he notices the plane after the explosion noise.. so the bird strike wasn’t just that one time and you can also see the little smoke from the left engine too before the bird strike. Something really bad might’ve been happened.. can’t be sure yet.
aviation expert that has since retired, who worked on accident sites, said everything was done right until the plane went into the concrete structure. The pilot got the plane down, level, no explanation for landing gear not coming down, but everything would have been fine had the plane not struck that structure.
I have seen 100's of comments defending the concrete structure. Makes no sense to me. My local airport- PRG has fields at the ends of the runways.
@@stevemcgowen I really don't know on what basis people could be saying that berm was a good idea. It was painfully, dreadfully obvious the first time I saw the video that it was very much responsible for the severity of this accident. Antennae and lights are supposed to be on frangible structures. Even the cinder block wall at the perimeter of the airport would have provided little resistance while fulfilling its intended purpose. It would have busted through that like the Kool-Aid Man.
With or without the wall, the plane was doomed. Loaded with fuel, speeding and sparks flying.
@@hipotenuza5663 I did wonder about the fuel. such an explosion doesn't happen with an empty tank.
@@kenn1936: Doesn't take much fuel to make a big fireball.. They never can get completely empty, and the tanks are full of vapors.
According to the flight data, landing was attempted around 11:58 pm utc, which would make it morning time in Korea. The bird strike footage shows the sun on the plane's right side (sun should be in the east in the morning) indicating that the bird went into the right side engine on a south to north 1st landing attempt. If I'm correct on this, then the camera footage is likely not reversed.
Also the footage is only ever reversed on the front facing camera, the main camera on the back sees a regular image
@thomasgrimm1664 You are 100% correct, sir. I came to say this exactly. Something I haven't seen anyone else mention is I swear there is a very brief moment - i think right before the big compressor stall - where you can see a couple of white wisps out of BOTH engines. It could be some other phenomenon, but I keep seeing it. If I can find it in this video I'll put up the time.
Is it 100% confirmed its the correct plane in the video?
@@ddalzell509watched the video as well. Hard to tell for sure that it isn't some type of video compression artifact, but there is something behind both engines less than a second before the compressor stall. (You aren't crazy.... Lol)
To me, this would explain the need to get the plane down ASAP; but, missing both gear and flaps for landing?
genius. no joke
Very informative discussion on the possible things that could have been happening on the aircraft. Prayers for all the people who lost loved ones. It's heartbreaking.
This is just a horrible disaster.. Can't imagine the feelings of those passengers and crew in those last minutes...
When the plane hit the ground the passengers felt safe didn't even anticipate a wall crash!😮
@@Marilyn-s4d Unless some of them had been there before and knew about it. I bet one might have knew about the wall on that runway. So sorry for them all, RIP. Condolences to all the families.
17:29 The video is NOT flipped. This is the bottom view of the airplane on its initial approach from the south. You can see the sun at the south eastern side (down left), which is the proper place the sun would be at 9 o'clock in the morning.
21:53 There's a moment that lasts about a second, where the airplane is viewed from the side, there you can semi-clearly see the pilot reaching his arm up (bracing), the window to his left is very clear, with no sign of smoke fogging up the cockpit.
Yep, that (hotel) balcony is geolocated. It's a place outside the airport boundaries on the axis of the rway 01/19 (use Google Maps with "소나무 숲 펜션" and lookup the photos taken from that or other floor).
Thank you for taking time to put out such an informative video! I could feel all through your concern for the lives that are placed under your care! Great three of you with great insights!
Previous Korean airline crashes were determined to be caused by Korean seniority culture, that is the junior pilot can not question a decision made by a senior pilot even if it means the loss of the aircraft. This culture is deeply embedded in Korean society.
Asiana SFO
True
that culture has now been significantly diluted... moreover, the actual captain was a relatively young veteran. It is unlikely that there was such hierarchical pressure
Yes
aka "On the morning of April 16, 2014, the ferry MV Sewol sank whilst en route from Incheon towards Jeju City in South Korea."
Glad you brought up the LRD. Ive found some patents on such devices going back to the 80s, so could be on the CFM56. Serious smoke in the cabin/cockpit makes sense for getting on the ground right now
Also, props on taking about this respectfully, you guys provide actual insight for those of us with questions
Let's preface this with I don't work at GE, Safran, or CFM, and all this should be treated as speculation.
For a bit more explanation on my estimated understanding of CFM LRDs:
Background: After a large bird strike, a fan blade can be released, resulting in a massive imbalance in the fan rotor. This imbalance causes massive vibration loads on the engine and can be the highest loads an engine is designed for.
LRD function: The LRD helps quickly reduce these vibratory loads by letting the main structural support for the forward main bearing of the low speed spool partially fail. This failure gives the bearing more radial motion than normally permitted. This allows the fan to rotate around a new CG that is not on the centerline of the engine, reducing these all important vibration loads. Additionally, the offset CG could allow for the fan blades to dig into the case surrounding them, accelerating the spool down process.
However, a bearing failure likely means a bearing leak. The engine oil could make it into the flow path, and ingest into the high compressor. Temps in the HPC, even in the first few stages, are plenty hot to auto ignite the bearing oil or any volitiles in the oil. This burning oil could then get into the cabin/cockpit bleed air off takes located half way down the high compressor, and into the cabin/cockpit itself.
Again, this is all speculation and based on patents and articles from the MAX cockpit smoke issues.
smoke would definite motivate a crew to get on the ground, but doesnt account for the deliberate flaps-up-gear-up config. IMHO, losing both engines is the only reason to keep the airframe clean and go for a crash landing. High probability they fire extinguished the wrong engine, or a very slight chance they ate a second bird. Losing #1 induced a land-now-or-die response with an and immediate dive for the runway. Irony is that the #2 engine was still providing thrust - full or partial - and when the aircrew realized this is going to be a huge question the FDR/CVR will answer.
In the slight chance they did eat a second bird in #1, there is going to be an aviary holocaust of unprecedented proportions around that airport. Koreans arent going to play around.
Thanks for the in depth discussion looking at all the factors and not just a poorly placed concrete barrier. Climb, get stable, run the checklist.
I think they had the worst scenario possible. Lost one engine during the first approach, and lost the second one during the go around. But the nightmare they had is that one engine had its reverse thrust deployed in the air. The pilots had one option. To land as soon as possible with minimum drag. Any selection of the flaps will mean disaster. I think they did a great job. May their souls rest in peace.
Should have already been at flaps-15 in a 737 after the first engine lost power.
Flaps-40 should have been selected on final, especially since they didn't put gear down and were going far too fast. Even leading-edge flaps weren't deployed.
Lastly, they stayed in ground effect way too long, with a 2.8km runway they needed to touch down immediately at the far end [from camera perspective] to have a chance of slowing down enough, but if you look at runway markings and then look at the actual layout, you'll see they didn't touch down until about 2/3rds or more down the runway.
But they didn't deploy flaps even when they touched down , and it still doesn't explain why the hear was up, the pilots messed up they didn't do a great job ..
and Yeah the airport concrete barrier was the culprit that should never have been there
@@AusExplorer mashing the plane to the ground doesn't slow it down much.. the wings are still flying with about 70 tons of lift at that speed
@@toksangtamang5335 yeh it should've been a sand pit at the end and not a death wall!. so frustrating this engineering was ever passed for construction. I blame that person. one who approved that wall.
Thanks for all you do guys!!!!
I really appreciate y'alls candor and willingness to talk about how tough it can be to be on Redeye and how tough it can be when things go wrong. Like you all said, lets hope there's something the industry can learn from this high cost incident.
Great job guys. First time watching. All good
points
True in this video, though it isn't always the case. You won't see the same level of candid chatter if it involves US aviation.
I’m in a different industry but I can relate to the comments about red eye vs performance. I flew a desk, and sometimes when I’d work 12 hours I’d come back the next day and find/correct my mistakes from the long shift. For me personally, I learned dont do anything important after 10 hours at work.
As a retired controller (US) I think this will come back as pilot error secondary to mechanical failure. I truly believe they simply panicked. They forgot the simple aviation part of the emergency procedure.
You can see the pilots clearly..and one pilot looks to be bracing himself for impact of retaining wall..if smoke was in cockpit..it was not thick..good job on this!
There are not supposed to be non-frangible objects near the runways. The concrete wall is not supposed to be there. This airport design is criminal...There was enough flat ground beyond the runway for them to stop and probably everyone would have lived.
I agree it shouldn’t have been there. But they were going pretty fast off the end of the runway. Wouldn’t take much to lose a wing or dig and start breaking up.
But yeah, they would have had a better chance. EMAS would make sense too.
@@MeppyManyeah, there was another wall past this one, and even without those I bet it would take a mile to stop. 130kts and no spoilers.
I certainly agree that wall shouldn't be there, but there were probably other factors that mattered just as much. You don't want to be overrunning at 130kts.
@@RichFreemanthe outer wall is a single brick thick wall....doubt it will offer much resistance....it was the concrete slab
@@hippoace My point is more that you can't design airports so that a plane can be going at VREF at the END of the runway without spoilers or brakes, and have enough space to drag to a stop without people dying.
They needed another 5000-10000ft of runway more than what they had. No airport has basically an entire runway of empty space beyond the end of the runway.
Sure, they shouldn't be putting walls there, but going at 130kts as you depart the end of the runway seems like a disaster just about anywhere but White Sands. At most airports you'd be crossing highways (possibly at a lower grade so you're hitting a wall on the far side), going into the ocean, going into swamps, hitting hangers, hitting other planes on taxiways, and so on.
130kts without spoilers in a large aircraft is just way beyond what runway ends were designed to accommodate.
@@RichFreemanwell you obviously have no clue what ur talking about . American airport have stoppers at the end of runaways designed to stop run away planes
A terrible tragedy. Condolences to the families and friends of the victims. Sending you love and healing thoughts. 🥀🇨🇦❤
First time viewer, Non-Pilot, have Subscribed. I love listening to the three different personalities, thinking out loud. Breaking down what could have caused this, and showing what to look at/for in this horrible situation. Hopefully, some good may come from it.
One factor I'm not sure can alter the "wall" issue, it was a civilian/military airport. Do military have different standards for equipment etc???
As Pilots do the sim scenarios give you a type of muscle memory, where your body just acts quickly, without having to think???
Anyway, love your styles...Much love and respect to those who have lost someone; those investigating, and everyone involved in getting aircraft off the ground & back again, and again... safely.
Also, Happy New Year, from New Zealand, the first (ish) place to see the New Year! Safe, Fun Flying, everyone!
"One factor I'm not sure can alter the "wall" issue, it was a civilian/military airport. Do military have different standards for equipment etc???"
Don't put the military in this. Muan is an international airport. Military airports are on military bases. And, there is no concrete wall at the end of the runway.
Another interesting thing is something I noticed in the original video showing the impact, was the window to the cockpit. I saw something in the window that seemed interesting. I long object that was diagonal. Maybe one of the pilots was bracing for impact?
Excellent point about the possibility of a mirror (left/right swap) shot video. 🤔 We’ll definitely find out eventually. Well done video. RIP and prayers for all connected to this terrible tragedy.
Based on the sunlight, it doesn’t seem flipped
It's not mirrored. The video matches the local terrain with mountains east of the flight path.
Re. Kegworth incident 1989 in the U.K. my partner was cabin crew and is still having surgery partly attributed to that. She was lucky, 47 died.
Wow I hope she’s ok I’m in the uk too I remember that well x❤️
This made me think of that accident. Sad that your partner is still physically affected by it.
I had to look it up but would explain a lot.
I flew on the Kegworth plane the week before on its maiden flight to Belfast was a brand new plane.
I saw in a different video that the concrete barrier is contra to international standards for civillian airports. I'd go one further. Modern top tier (F1, Indycar, etc.) race tracks have energy dissipation features built in to all perimeter structures. I understand wanting some hard packed soil to "extend" the runway in case of a long takeoff, so gravel traps may not be the way to go, but at a certain point I'd put in linked water filled barriers like at race tracks to soak up energy before the plane hits things which don't move.
It just seems criminal that anyone would build a concrete reinforced structure in the direct path of a runway. Maybe there should be some rethinking of the civil engineering going on at airports.
Obviously coming in hot, long, slick, and wheels up makes almost any mitigating measure moot.
I agree dude, this is criminal. They should sue the govt
Finally I saw all you good looking Pilots. Thanks for this Pilot Forum. Are they maybe full of smokes? Just left that airport a week ago. It's not the plane or the Pilot I was scared of. It's that Rocket man nextdoor scared the heck out of me. God bless and a Happy New Year.
Not only can you see light in the cockpit, if you zoom in you can see the co pilot bracing for impact.
There's a video showing a compressor stall on the right engine and at that moment the flaps were already down, so they raised the flaps afterwards. There's zero chance a bird strike damaged anything else. This looks like pilot error in reaction to the compressor stall. 7 minutes was not enough time to run the checklist and land properly, it will be interesting to find out the history of these pilots as it sure looks like they panicked and failed to configure the plane for landing.
Yep
I appreciate the fair, logical and informed discussion, with no guessing and assuming.
"Did he hit a pterodactyl" made me laugh way harder than it should have oh my god 😂
Can i ask you guys a reapectful question as a noob? Why don't they design airports with some kind of crash protection like a net or barrier or catch-wire or something? Shouldnt major airports have a dedicated "emergency runway" that planes can land at if they have a problem? They have run away lanes on mountain passes for semi trucks with no brakes. Formula 1 race tracks have sophisticated crash barriers. Etc..
Sorry if im being ignorant but it's the first question that came to mind when i saw the crash footage.
You can check out "runway EMAS" on the internet. I was thinking the same too. Why didn't the Muan airport thought of this, considering it being quite a newly rejuvenated airport.
Not ignorant at all, it makes perfect sense.
Comes down to money at the end of the day I’d say imo. Sad so many of these crashes are due to negligence to cut costs
@@kestertroy EMAS is designed for planes with gear down... and wasn't tested for 150 knots speed either. It was designed for 70 knots max.
@@howdyrogue Safety systems are only ever employed when sufficient blood sacrifices have been made.
All safety systems are paid for in blood and it has to be paid in advance.
Thank you for analyzing the landing for us.
A suggested scenario: Climbing out full TOGA and beginning to go around, first the right and then the left engine as well, lose thrust completely. The previous bird strike had occurred to BOTH engines. With a few hundred feet of altitude and speed still low from the first attempted landing, they have seconds of glide time before they hit terrain. There is no time for checklists and configurations. The pilot decides to come in hard and fast with zero flaps and gear-up until the last possible second to not stall and crash short of the runway. 200 ft from the threshold they select gear down, but discover the right engine failure has taken out hydraulic system A and the gear will not deploy. They immediately go to manual, but there is not enough time for the gear to fall gravity-assisted. In shock and focused on switching to thinking emergency landing gear-up, they forget that flaps and spoilers have not yet been deployed. Accustomed to feeling touchdown at wheel height, they come in too high and float through half the runway.
ICAO says all structures within 300m of the runway threshold must be frangible, and that non-frangible concrete localizer structure was about 250m from the threshold.
That aircraft was going too fast for 50m or even 200m to matter.
Definitely an issue, but at the speed they were at, I feel like 300m wouldn't have made a difference. They were going around 130kts when they hit that wall, so they probably needed maybe another mile to stop? That's practically VREF for a normal landing still.
@@reubensandwich9249 if the embankement wasnt there theyd have another 200m to the wall. Probably wouldve reduced speed a lot by plowing into the dirt. Not to mention the ILS antenae
I thought I heard that the landing was their second go around and they came in backwards down the runway?
@@lemonator8813 maybe a little. They already had dragged hundreds of meters and were still about as fast as they would normally be when touching down. They would be slower for sure, but I think they needed another mile or two to stop.
What about this scenario:
A bird strike impacted both engines, causing the complete failure of engine No. 1. The crew successfully restarted engine No. 2, but the first video shows what appears to be a compressor stall in the No. 2 engine. So engine No. 1 was producing no thrust, while engine No. 2 was potentially operating at reduced power. From this point, the aircraft was effectively in a dual low-power situation, creating an urgent need to land.
The decision not to extend the landing gear may have been driven by concerns over increased drag. With limited thrust available, the crew may have feared that deploying the gear would compromise the aircraft's ability to maintain enough speed and altitude to reach the runway.
Good conversation about smoke in the cockpit. With the reduced big picture systems training, it is easy to get locked into QRH and training scenario procedures.
Had a very salty captain tell me when I was new before a takeoff with bird activity, “if we take a bird in the engine, turn off both the packs, (takes one second, no need to identify the source, etc.). Easy to turn on the good engine’s pack after sorting other priorities.
Common sense, limiting smoke, the smell of burning feathers, flesh, and JP.
Never needed this but filed this away in the sock drawer of good ideas.
wish we could pin this comment to the top.
"Turn off the packs." What does that mean? Some sort of intake?
Sorry, I am an airline pilot and former LCA and SIM instructor.
The packs are the air conditioning units which are operated by air extracted from the compressor section of the engines.
If something fails in the engine (bird, fire, compressor stalls, etc), smoke is often pushed into the aircraft. In the case of an engine fire, or damage from a bird, the smoke will reduce visibility inside the aircraft and left unchecked, will result in difficulty seeing outside, the instruments, or checklists.
The smoke should stop once the engine is shutdown (bleed shut off valve). However, priority one is to fly the aircraft, then deal with the engine issue, which will mean a loss of the engine driven hydraulic pump, then smoke evacuation, then single engine approach and landing preparation.
All of this takes time. By turning off the packs immediately once smoke is being pushed into the aircraft (below 10,000), it will stop the source of the smoke. While running the engine damage procedure, one can turn on the pack operating from the good engine and reduce the sense of urgency in this type of situation.
My comment was regarding the type of training these days. Broad systems knowledge can enhance safety because a pilot will be able to think “let me turn that thing off” while I am grabbing the checklist and finding the right page. A little smoke might be bad, heavy smoke is a completely different situation.
This whole accident is terrible and I agree with everything on this pod cast. I feel so bad for the lives lost and their families.
The revelation that the balcony video may have been reversed explains a lot, thanks for pointing that out, Mover! The sun seems to have swapped sides comparing the two videos. Now it all makes sense.
Don't forget the directions of travel are 180° apart;.. runway 01 first approach/go-around and 190 the 'landing/ crash" 🙏🇬🇾"
Appreciate these pilots’ sharing. Lesson learnt and be a better pilot - thanks to all the pilots as our lives are entrusted to you all when flying
Ultimately, the flight/data recorders can exactly tell what happened.
But still, up to the S.Korean governments if they'll be 100% transparent to the public especially to the families.
Hopefully whoever's handling the black-box investigation has a heart and don't give any bias to the airline company, the government, nor the airport officials. There should be a thing were a 3rd party like a different country/idenpendent organization handles the black-box investigation to avoid unnecessary cover-ups. As what usually happens with airline crashes.
Korean Video analysis expert raising many questions on the video footage.
I pray this doesn't end up being like the Sewol Ferry Tragendy but it's looking like the trajectory is exactly that. This is so heartbreaking.🎗
@@misstuxbrandi At least they enlisted the help of a foreign investigation team to provide them a more professional and unbiased insight of the tragedy. Hopefully whatever materias they provide would tip it in favor of justice and transparency when its time to face court trials and not shroud it even more conspiracy/diversion/blaming the wrong entity/person for the sake of saving public image.
Or else it'll be the same tragedy with the airliner shot down by russin Anti-Aircraft supposedly "by accident".
There's a close up shot where you can see one of the crew with his arm up on the dash, so it doesn't seem like there was a smoke in the cockpit. This wouldn't be the first time a crew shut down a healthy engine by mistake. That, combined with partial thrust from the damaged engine, would explain the sense of urgency to get on the ground.
Sorry I know it’s not funny but a “healthy engine” made me laugh ❤️❤️
Where did you see this?
@@CClarinet123 The first one I saw it on was Juan Browne's youtube channel, Blancolirio. At the 9:56 mark to be specific.
Gentlemen. Your grim expressions says a lot about your feelings concerning this disaster. Truly tragic.
The black box recordings will shed the necessary light, but until then this video and its comment section might be the best thing to decipher the cause of this tragedy.
Hopefully an electrical failure has not resulted in premature termination of the flight data and cockpit voice recordings. An electrical failure might also have resulted in failure of the landing gear enunciator system - it might be that the gear lever was in the Down position but the pilots were unaware that gear deployment had failed
You can see the FO bracing with their hands in the crash video. Highly doubt that there was enough smoke in the cockpit to obscure vision.
I think a wrong engine shutdown is a very plausible scenario. Haven't heard anyone else bring that up. The yaw, the single reverser, the urgency to get down. Seems to be the best explanation I've heard, so far.
If you want to be gender neutral, just say "The person, probably in the right seat, appears to be bracing with a hand". We have more than enough words in the English language to do that. When you identify a specific individual using a word that implies plurality, you seem like you're just wasting a huge amount of energy trying not to offend an astonishingly small number of people in the world. The pilots were both male. You can say 'Guy looks like he was bracing with his hand' and I promise close enough to 100% of people on this planet will never be offended.
Best information on this accident, tragic incident, that I have seen. As a layperson, my best guess were the pilot fatigue with major issues occurring affected dealing with emergency and if there was the smoke or noxious fumes making landing immediately necessary. So their comments reinforced that thought
I was on the wrong engine theory before the mention of Kegsworth. Here's my list in rough order...
1. Bad CRM
2. Crew panic from birdstrike.
3. Pull fire handle for engine 1
4. More panic leading to forgetting the basics, like some wheels.
What I can't figure out is why they came in so hot unless they were thinking TOGA but failed because of lack of flaps.
Another question is what about the passengers? They probably knew they were in an emergency situation, so did they panic and ended up creating added pressure to the pilot and made him make mistakes?
Regarding fumes/smoke from burned oil in the engine getting into the cabin/cockpit air, there is extensive documentation, research, lawsuits, internal documentation ( at Boeing ) etc which has proven that the bearings/seals in the engine often leak a bit in certain circumstances, like during reduction of thrust when starting descent. The burned oil creates neuro toxins, leaking into the bleed air carried into the fuselage, which can affect your neuro system, especially when exposure happens over longer time even at low concentrations or during a fume event=large concentration. We did testing in the cockpit ( engine type was CF6 and also during APU start) and test results showed neuro toxins in the cockpit air on almost every flight in concentrations that could affect your neuro system. How much it does affect you differs per person. Several lawsuits from flight and cabin crew that had to stop working due to medical issues resulting from this got settled and put under gag order. The jet engines leaking oil has been known in the industry for many decades (see internal comms Boeing) but kept quiet. EASA did a study into this but with inconclusive outcome, there is a huge pushback from the industries/airlines involved to not make this an occupational disease=avoid any link between those leaking neuro toxins and a crew member's disease. I am definitely not a conspiracy theorist but had to research this extensively as part of my profession. Just beware of the environment you work in...
What were the neurotoxins? Source material is where? Thanks.
I just found you guys and wow what a pleasure I really enjoyed this and can’t wait to explore your channel, I have so so so much respect and appreciation for your collective knowledge and experience and professions and service and for allowing us that would never have the chance to be privy to conversations to learn and enjoy.
I was fascinated by all your insights ❤
The captain was an employee of Jeju Air since 2019 and had accumulated over 6,820 hours of flight experience; the first officer had over 1,650 hours
Kim Kwang-il, a professor of Aeronautical Science at Silla University, criticized the presence of the barrier to which the aircraft crashed, saying that the emergency landing was made in a skilled manner and that the aircraft "could have skidded further and stopped naturally" had it not been for the barrier, which he said violated international aviation safety standards against the presence of a solid obstruction.
The barrier in question was a concrete structure covered in soil that is located about 250 meters from the end of the runway and holds a localizer to assist navigation by landing aircraft. The structure, along with the localizer, measured a combined total of four meters. Airport officials said the mound containing the barrier was raised to keep the localizer level with the runway to ensure its proper functioning due to the slanted terrain at the end of the runway.
It boggles the mind. WTF were they thinking?!?!
That doesn't make him perfect he made a mistake
@@AlienGamer38you don’t know..
@@수수-n7v9c don't know what son please tell
@@AlienGamer38
We don't know yet. Let's wait for the investigation.
I posted to the channel because the channel presenters said they were unaware of the background and experience of the pilots.
The landing seemed to be excellent. Landing fast and no gear does not seem to be what got everyone killed. What I find most puzzling is why was there a solid obstruction at the end of the runway?
yes it was. did you watch the whole vid? No flaps no gear, would need longer tan runway he had...
@RexNathanChan Yes and have seen the full complete video and destruction. Terrible. Thus the question. Without the unfathomable obstruction survival still was never assured ..quite possible that it would have rolled or caught fire before stopping. But also possible it simply slowed down and stopped and everyone would have survived given a normal unobstructed end.
@@RexNathanChanI think he means that for a “belly landing,” it was controlled. I mean, yeah they landed way too far down the runway, but the plane didn’t completely crash on impact. If they had more runway, they might have made it.
18:30 The thing about the landing gear issue, is even if they lost the hydraulics and had to drop it with gravity, and maybe they somehow lost both engines thus couldn't wait long enough for the gear to fully lock, we'd still be able to see the nose gear partially dropped down, but we're seeing nothing even though there's plenty of space under the nose. That nose gear isn't even partially out...
Seems odd that someone would capture the bird strike on engine 2 out of nowhere.... I think the plane initially also had a bird strike on engine 1 (perhaps causing total failure on 1), made a boom sound, caught the attention of the person with the phone so they started recording and captured the second bird strike on engine 2.... thus the plane was only partially thrusting on the damaged engine 2 is why we only saw fumes/hot air coming from engine 2 when the plane landed
The engine did not have a catastrophic failure. The compressor blade did not leave the cowling and there is no sign of any exterior damage at all. The engine is also still strongly attached to the wing as neither were ripped off when landing. They climbed away for a go around then accepted a reciprocal which means they knew they were landing at that point you dont accept the reciprocal so fast unless you are landing asap so whatever happened got worse whether by pilot error or more damage not seen. They would not have lost all hydraulics though because you can see they have excellent control of the aircraft all the way down. Even if they did lose hydraulics the back up electrical pump will work and as he said an emergency reservoir allows for a one time deployment of the slats. Total engine failure does not mean total hydraulic loss. Once they accepted the reciprocal, i would guess they had about 4 mins to configure the aircraft. Thats enough time to pull the gear lever down or go for the manual override and get flaps down and go for manual override if required. That would only take a few seconds. Maybe they did but the damage required for all of them to fail would probably mean they would not have made it back to the airport at all. To do nothing is just not right.. i have watched many videos of bird strike, single engine failure go arounds and take offs and the pilots dont panic, after all they train for this exact scenario. .. They knew they were landing the moment they accepted the reciprocal so to not have flaps, slats and landing gear in position is very strange considering the aircaft was still in controlled flight.
U have 2 pilots so for both of them to not have thought abt the flaps/landing gear/spoilers is strange. 7 min is short time for a checkl ist,, tear drop and return to land but enough to get the flaps /landing gear /spoilers in position to land safely.
Looks like inexperienced pilots in a low cost airline and Panic in the Cockpit.
@@factchecker2090 In one of the Korean airline disasters, it was concluded that due to the Asian mentality, the co-pilot does not take any part in the actions. This means that you have a main pilot and he is the authority and the co-pilot does not dare contradict him.
The engines are not designed to come off this aircraft with such a controlled descent, they would need to be dropping vertically faster than 12 feet per second at contact with the ground. Even under catastrophic bird strike conditions, and subsequent windmilling, the engines are designed to stay on. Not that this is relevant to what happened, just some information about the engine attachments themselves.
IF both engines fail, you are a glider in a swept wing aircraft that only glides at VERY high speeds, like 200+kts. To achieve that, you basically have to dive at the ground and with such a steep approach angle, you are not going to be able to slide your seat back to release the landing gear, which is what is required according to video. Emergency flap extension takes 2 mins; too long on a short final approach.
Same old story, same old tune, incompetent pilots, almost everyone is a goon.
Could they in a state of panic forgotten to lower the landing gear
17:16 - in the first cell phone footage of the plane flying overhead (when the bird strike happens,) they were traveling northbound due to time of day / sun location. If they then did a teardrop landing pattern, that indicates this first cell video is not mirrored.
The actual crash footage shows the 3rd video with the terminal in the background. You can read the name on the plane. Not mirrored. They landed from north to south. Look on google maps for a brief overview of where the terminal is in relation to the runway. Their runway runs straight north to south.
Reading some people's comments here, I think they very well may have encountered engine failures in both engines. This would explain lack of flaps, gear, reverse thrust, get on ground ASAP, etc. And we only see the second bird strike on film; at first I thought maybe they shut down the wrong engine, but it seems plausible that there may have been 2 bird strikes.
Question: i worked at a US airport and we built runway safety areas per FAA standards in the last decade. It is an extended area of the runway designed to provide maximum friction to stop an aircraft overrun. Would that have prevented this tragedy?
Yes the reinforced concrete wall is against FAA rule.
You guys did a great job handling this sensitive situation
For the actual 737 pilots let me throw this scenario out there (and you can reference your QRHs. We only got a glimpse of the strike... there could have been bird ingestion into both engines (or perhaps accidental shut down of wrong engine and remaining engine wasn't producing any real thrust) in any case on go around both engines fail or fail to provide adequate thrust... lack of thrust from both e gives you would carry out dual engine failure. And try to maintain what 210 kts in hopes of a relight, and this could account for the urgent need to return (touchdown approx 2 min after bird strike with a quick tear drop to 19) now while trying to red-light you are keeping speed up... but also need to stretch your glide as far as possible, so you aren't throwing out flaps and gear due to the increased drag as well as steeper decent angle.. you want to wait to throw the gear until landing is assured... but in this case if you aren't sure you're going to make it you may help them up and belly land... and this is where the problem comes in, higher speed plus with no gear the plane sits lower meaning a much stronger ground effect you weren't trained for... and you are committed... and to top it off. A big concrete block at the end.