I was an ILS guy for the FAA for decades before retiring last year. I'm amazed at how this localizer was built into such a heavily reinforced structure. The localizer array is intended to be frangible which means that it is intended to break away easily if struck.
@@yamahagrand Even if that burn wasn't there you still would have had massive loss of life because of the buildings just outside the airport perimeter. Remember this airplane was flying at 150 mph when it hit the berm so we need to understand why the aircraft was flying so fast, why wasn't the landing gear down, why wasn't the flaps down, and why did it fly halfway down the runway before it touched down those are the questions that need to be answered
Muan Airport in South Korea shouldn't have been built there in the first place. Corruption among municipal officials and the politics of that particular province played a significant role. I say this as a South Korean.
Because it was supposed to be an american airbase that scrapped after Korean war, it exist only as an auxiliary airfield for refueling operation, they just reuse the abandoned runway for civil aviation.
@@madsam0320 in most airports this would have been totally survivable. They just needed room to dissipate energy. A massive concrete slab should not have been located where it was.
Ive flown on that airline and landed on that airstrip a few times. May those who perishednrest in peace and those who survived heal mentally and physically.
@@MrSqueasil Sorry, I don't understand what "the pen" is, sounds like a local domestic route? Please use proper words for this wide spread international audience because you just leave us guessing, thanks.
The area where Muan Airport is located is Korea's largest migratory bird habitat, with 120,000 birds migrating daily. This is an area where large international passenger aircraft have been restricted for the past 17 years due to the risk of bird collisions. After impeaching 29 government officials, including the president, the Democratic Party, which is based in the area, used its majority in the National Assembly to grant permission, and this accident occurred 20 days after approval. That concrete pile was not in the initial airport design, but was created while recovering from typhoon damage after a member of the Democratic Party came to represent Muan Airport in 2020. Since all the people and regions involved in this accident are affiliated with the Democratic Party, the Korean press and media controlled by the Democratic Party are trying to blame this accident on poor maintenance of an innocent airline. Due to this accident, Jeju Air was deemed a dangerous airline and 80% of flight reservations were cancelled. Is this really the fault of the airline's poor maintenance and the captain?
No. Absolutely not. Not sure why it had to land so quickly, but maintenance or pilot skills was not the issue. She came in level and landed beautifully considering
@@thomasmacginnes100 there was a accident exactly like this with same airline and type of air craft happened less than 24hrs after this one. Two much coincident to say Jeju airline is innocent
@@kevinquick4844 you missed the fact the WRONG engine was turned off by the pilot, so it absolutely looks like a major pilot error! Shutting down the correct engine could have given then a lot more time to properly troubleshoot the landing gear, spoilers and flaps and avoid such dangerous landing.
If you are already in the final approach, why wouldn't you just continue to try to land after a birdstrike? I mean, what are the odds to have a better chance to land in a better way when you retract the landing gear, go around and try to land without gear in the middle of the runway, possibly even with the wrong engine shut down? What happened here might indicate a lot of panic on the pilot's side, or am I wrong?
@@g4fun980 Yes, the plane has already prepared for landing when the bird srikes. Maybe the pilot is following protocols. However Scully did not follow protocols but save lives. So the Jeju Air’s pilot should use his own judgment and assess the situation either to follow protocols or just continue to land the plane.
For them to go around it would have made sense to take a lot more time to run checklists in my opinion they rushed The Landing ended up Landing long and killed everyone
@@SortaProfessional89 The aircraft flies well on one engine and obviously they had plenty of fuel. Most crews would have elected to go around and stabilize the situation before returning to a well planned se approach and landing. I believe that after they decided to miss the approach something happened to convince them they needed to get on the ground quick. They probably smelled lots of smoke from burning bird bodies a thought they were on fire.
@@g4fun980 it is odd, maybe the voice recorder will help? At the end he seemed to be trying to get it on the ground ASAP as though he had a fire but when the signal stopped transmitting the fastest way down would seem to have been to continue the approach (which apparently would have been the correct official procedure). How tired (well rested before the flight) were this crew? How experienced? How recently refreshed with simulator training?
Mentour Pilot definitely is the one to wait for. From memory his last job was flying Boeing 737-800 NG. He is very very experienced and a cautious and thorough investigator. Not at all like the early guessing brigade. The guy doing this analysis said he was an Aerospace Engineer. Not a pilot and not a 737-800 specialist. I notice the sub-title of this video has changed from "What really happened?" to a more punchy "Worse Than You Think".
I’ve watched many of these analysis videos of this incident, and this video is BY FAR the most well thought out, well made, succinct yet thorough video. Well done sir! You have a gift of explaining things RIP to the victims
It's almost 100% a re-hash of info that was presented before in earlier videos - I don't think there's anything new here that wasn't already presented by other yt channels
@gorak9000 well aren’t you starting 2025 in a positive frame ;) Ive watched 4-5 others and still got plenty new info , and again ditto what the original commenter said. But lets wait a month for the preliminary report.
There is a good You-Tube channel that covers these sorts of things. The guy who does it has a lot of hours flying comercial jets and has a captains rank and has trained pilots and captains and participated in post incident investigations. He usually waits untill there is at least a preliminary report and does a moment by moment breakdown of what happened and has considerable insight into what air-crew in the cabin did according to the black boxes (voice and instrumentation). The two of you might make a good teem up, or perhaps one as a guest for the other, on a later anlysis of this. The Channel is Mentour Pilot. The two backgrounds at least mesh well for providing a rather thourough AND interesting deep dive into this sort of thing.
I agree! MentourPilot is incredibly thorough and experienced. Another great channel is @74Gear. I look forward to their breakdowns combined with this excellent one from Ricky.
@@bobbyg9662 Yeah, he's on hiatus from flying to work on some stuff including his TH-cam channel. He'll probably have something out on this when enough info comes in. I'm thinking he and TwoBit could go through the post anlysis reports and stuff and do co-op on this one. I didn't realize TBD was an aeronautical engineer by trade. My uncle retired from doing that a few years back. He wanted to be an astronaught but inherited the strong nearsightedness on that side of my family.
This is what happened Read: When a hydraulic line is cut the engine pump and all of the pumps won't do anything or the ptu and the rushed landing was because they knew a fire would ignite filling the cockpit with toxic smoke that would impair their sight and lungs and to bleed off speed. If you look close at the video where the white smoke is, When the plane struck the birds you can see on the left of the white puff a darker plume and hydraulic fluid is dark red or purple, When the plane hit the birds I think they bent or broke a blade causing a piece to fly around inside and cut a hydraulic line and all hydraulic pressure was bled off, That explains the dark plume of liquid. With an open circuit none of the pumps will work or the ptu they just dump fluid on the engine and no pressure for anything in system b. you can see in approach video the plane approaching while at 100 feet high you can see damage on the left cowling, That is not T/R and they will not deploy over 10 feet high but this is at 100 feet that is damage. That is also why no flaps, No air brakes but the 737 can still control rudder, Elevators and ailerons with system a hydraulic circuit and so they were able to land with full control but without system b no flaps and their stall speed would be much higher explaining the high speed landing and it explains why they would choose a belly landing knowing they would stop faster skidding on the fuselage tail and engines rather than not having primary hydraulic brakes on rolling wheels so they opted not to deploy gear and made a tight 180 turn then rolled slightly left right to bleed off speed and might have even thought that dirt embankment for holding up fiberglass antennas would help safely slow them how would they know it was loaded with 2 foot thick concrete. I think they are going to find a broken blade and a cut hydraulic line on the left engine All my best to the familes and everyone involved
@@stratocasterblueyour first mistake is assuming that video is of the actual bird strike. I don’t believe it is. The video is after the go around was initiated as the gear is up and the flaps are retracted. What you are seeing is the compressor stalling. Witnesses that claim to have seen the actual strike, said the gear was down at the time. 20:41
At 13:09 I'm pretty sure the MBC sourced video is NOT mirrored. Checking Google Maps, the video appears to have been shot from the Pine Forest Pension located about 2/3 miles direct south of the Runway 01 threshold. The orientation of the hills across the water would indicate that it is NOT mirrored, and that the right (number 2) engine was indeed the one struck.
This aircraft slid for a long way on the runway because even though the fuselage was on the runway the wings were still producing lift and the ground effect was also producing lift so there was less friction from the runway. Deployment of the air brake/ spoilers would have helped here to reduce lift but these were not deployed
I don’t think they slid very far. I believe they didn’t touch down until well past the halfway point. Probably were trying to put it down gently to avoid a break up. They actually did that part very well.
I don't think it was landing, I think they were planning to circle around proved by the retracted landing gear, flaps and also the speed it was traveliing at. They lost lift and hence crushed
The landing gear could have been deployed without any hydraulics or electrics by using gravity. So, the pilot must have forgot about the release cables? The pilot also deployed the thrust reverser on the wrong (dead) engine. So, maybe he also forgot which engine was dead? Looks like he also forgot to deploy the flaps and spoilers too? So, a classic case of the pilot panicked and forgot everything he was taught.
If you saw the flight schedule this crew flew prior to this crash I think fatigue was almost certainly a large contributing factor. It is well known that fatigue impairs decision making ability, and what the crew did doesn't seem to make sense. The flight recorders will tell the tale, but it will be a while before they are analyzed. If only they had flown the landing in the same direction as the takeoff there could have been a much smaller loss of life. May all those that perished rest in peace.
The critical issue is that with the likely #2 engine surge on approach to runway 01 the atrcraft was in a stable attitude. But the decision to go around and then execute a sharp tear drop turn put the aircraft in an unstable attitude exacerbated by lack of any aerodynamic braking then contacting the runway almost halfway down yet with apparent good authority. The sudden tear drop manouevre sounds like a panic (no time)/confused action possibly prompted by an issue with the #1 engine or dare I say it a Kegworth replica. The black box will provide the engine/airframe parametric answers regarding the time between go around decision to contact with the runway; it did not appear to show any assymetric condition as it approached the ground, ie no hard rudder when it was well over its aerodynamic speed.
All of us .... have driven over a 'Speed Bump' and felt what what a few inches (cm) of solid can do. Without slamming into the berm, most, or all, the airplane passengers would have survived. So the question is; was it stupid government regulations and building codes that are ultimately responsible?
@@94520shatto it looks to me like they were thinking of the safety boost you get by having the localizer easily repaired at ground level instead of on a boom truck. How many crashes could happen if the maintenance is slow for the localizer? Of course we see the issue now, but they might not have been thinking there was much difference with the security wall just a bit further. There are designs for safer excursions, but people weren't thinking about it before.
@@brianwebb191 1. we do not know the causes of the accident yet. I fully expect this to be a proper swiss cheese incident with multiple issues. 2. Whatever the causes of the actual accident turn out to be, I can guarantee the large loss of life will be attributed to the berm/mound at the end of that runway. As someone else said below "the pilot made a perfect belly landing right down the centreline and did it with a seriously compromised aircraft. That berm being there wasn't his fault at all." Bascially ... without that obstruction, more than two people would have walked away from that aircraft.
Thanks for getting almost immediately to the fact that the runway operates in BOTH directions. I don't know how many times I've seen a bizarre comment that the plane was landing in the "wrong direction" as if the runway could only be used in one direction and why they supposedly wouldn't have an issue with an obstacle past one end of the runway. I looked at satellite images and it's clear the runway is marked for landing in both directions and has tire marks consistent with landing in both directions.
I think the "wrong direction" spin comes from the Korean officials who are trying to gaslight the Korean public and put the blame on the pilots, the birds or the aircraft, or whatever, but not the airport design flaws that must have been approved by these officials.
@@lordjim3109 You make a valid point. I wouldn't put it past these officials to do that. IMO, the pilot made a perfect belly landing right down the centreline and did it with a seriously compromised aircraft. That berm being there wasn't his fault at all.
@@istudios225 It was almost certainly his fault that the speed was so high, the gear wasn't down, the flaps not deployed, and that he floated so far down the runway without touching down. There is great redundancy in the 737 design to prevent him from being unable to fix all those things. The tight turn and good line-up with a compromised plane point towards certain good handling skills, but the factors I mentioned point towards a mental failure.
I’m a flight attendant, and this was such a super interesting video - thank you. Lots of love to the passengers and crew who lost their lives, and their families, and also to those who survived. ❤
@@TwoBitDaVinci anything to include shutting the incorrect engine down is a possibility. We train specifically in the simulator on methods of shutting an engine down with focus on preventing the inadvertent shutdown of incorrect engine.
@@thekeysman1 The one that got hit appeared to still be working, to what capacity who knows, but you can see the thrust reverser deployed and you can hear engine noise in the landing video.
I’ve been left wondering why the person on the balcony started to film the aircraft as it passed over? What if, the bird strike caught on film is actually a secondary strike? This would in fact explain why the panic to return on opposite approach with a dual engine problem. The typical approach over this flat complex (where the balcony is located) is more like 250ft. The aircraft was clearly already in TO/GA when the footage shows the bird strike. Even the last ADS-B data shows it’s already climbing before they’ve reached the bird strike video location.
I've read that an instructor staying at a hotel nearby rushed to film the plane after hearing "weird noise" from it and realising that something seemed wrong. So yes, I think the same - that what we see in the video may be related to strike that had already occurred prior to filming, or to further strike during the filming.
@@letitiaan Something has grabbed the person who filmed the crash video too. It’s easy to find the building on google earth as it’s a distinct roof with a lighting unit on the end. It actually looks like h’e stood on the roof so guess he was also hearing the noise as it passed over doing the go-around.
@@nicholasespinoza9610 This is why I started to think about damage already being done before the video capture. I think the pilot may have been dealt a cruel blow. If they have lost both engines it would justify their panic to land. Decision already made for go around, second strike, then it’s panic mode.
Every time I see something like a plane crash or another "interesting" disaster we have to remember a life is a life. Only the close family mourns the death of a young girl that dies in a boring car crash or even "better" an employee dying from unsafe work practises. This flight will probably lead to big changes in aviation safety yet the other two deaths will hardly lead to any changes. People often forget an unnatural death is tragic no matter the circumstances. Please let's focus more on the "boring" statistics and make changes that saves the most lives.
Having experienced 2 catastrophic engine failures on large 4 engine jets that I’ve flown, startle effect will certainly be a contributing factor in this event. Most emergencies don’t require immediate actions on the part of the crew unless the situation dictates,such as the infamous ditching of an A320 into the Hudson River following a double engine failure and just like any aviation accident, there will no doubt be several contributing factors that led to this tragic event.
It has already been reported that the previous time this plane had to make an emergency landing was due to a passenger problem, and not a problem with the aircraft itself. That was being reported like yesterday already.
@@TheLastResort1987 Funny how y'all don't feel the same towards the pilots of this doomed plane... but I guess they don't deserve to be "cut some slack" huh? smh!
@@michaelshrader5139 ?? are you hallucinating? when did I mentioned anything about the pilots. are you assuming everyone commenting on youtube is the same person?
I’m only at 14:54 but want to tell you that this is the best overall description of the crash I have seen in TH-cam. I’ve added it as the first video in a playlist I’m curating to provide background to everyone researching the crash. Blancolirio’s video is second, because non-aviation people (especially all journalists and the SMEs they have been interviewing), and even many aviation buffs, need your video first.
Agree with you 💯 I always go to Blancolirio first when something like this happens. I’m so glad I happened upon this channel…it has never come up in my feed before, but I’m a subscriber now! I don’t want sound bites, I want legitimate information explained by professionals who know what they are talking about and who take as much time as they need…and use graphic diagrams and other visual aids to explain to us non-pilot, non-engineers how things work or don’t work. Fantastic channel!
It genuinely amazes that we have 4k HDR 1000fps TikTok videos. But when it comes to an incredibly important video of a plane crash, the resolution just drops dramatically.
@ the concrete wall shouldn’t be at the end of a run way… I watched the footage… I can’t get it out of my mind how that concrete wall ended all those lives. If you look how straight the plane came in… many passengers would have survived the landing if the wall hadn’t been there….they were all alive before the plane hit the wall. I hope this changes how airports look at what should go at the end of runways!
My guestimate is a second issue on the go-around 2nd birdstrike or shut down of the wrong engine , leaving them with no to little power With a double birdstrike or double engine issue before the go-around decision, you wouldn't go around when you're set up for landing as the go-around would take more energy/power and time to complete; you'd continue ahead and put it down
@@bg147, does not matter. There are a few possibilities. One of them is that the pilot panicked and that caused him to attempt to land as quick as possible, or to shut down the wrong engine, with the same consequence. The reason either was understandable, such as smoke in the cockpit, or it wasn't. Or the plane was somehow broken and disabled by the bird strike, but it's highly improbable that this alone would have led to what happened. Only after he panicked (highly probable) or the plane was disabled by the bird strike (quite improbable) did it matter that the berm contained reinforced concrete.
I really appreciate your efforts to make this understandable. I'm an engineer, but in a different field, and appreciate your elimination or explanation of technical terms as needed to keep this at the layman's level. I feel I got a good understanding of the key elements of this tragic accident, as we currently understand them. Thanks.
From the vertical video (it's very hard to tell with the poor video quality) the landing gear does not appear to be down. The sun isn't all that high in the sky, so (maybe) you should see sunlight hitting the nose landing gear, and (very maybe) some of the main gear. The gear should have been out long before this point, given the low altitude, unless this was after they decided to abort the landing, and the gear had allready been retracted. It could be that the filmed birdstrike was after the first birdstrike, that the plane took several hits.
Totally agree,bird strike was earlier, possibly taking out the left engine and partly disabling the right engine, what is seen in the video is the aircraft trying to spool up for more power after lifting the landing gear. It would also explain why they had to leave the gear up for a better glide ratio .The down side of this is the aircraft will float further with ground effect and no way to control speed without veering off the runway.
@@TimRobertsen The TH-cam link keeps getting erased when I write it in the comments, so I'll just give you the address after TH-cam. DYJWlPdgk44?si=CtXigQXshfUUcrn_
Ricky, i'm surprised when you were talking about San Diego Intl airport KSAN that you did not mention runway 9. That localizer antenna mound at Maun airport was 860ft from the end of the runway. At the end of runway 9 at KSAN, within 400ft there is a blast fence, Pacific Hwy and a Shell gas station! Also, there is no EMAS or arrester bed at the end of runway 9 at KSAN. At KSAN when the ceiling goes below 700ft runway 9 is required for landing which has happened many times this month during late night & early morning hours.
great point, the video was getting really long, can't always say everything but yes, the runways are quite asymmetric and clearly most attention was paid to the prevailing runway. thanks for the insight!
OK, looking at the approach procedure for runway 9 at SAN there is only 7280ft for landing not 8400ft so from the usable landing runway length it is 1230ft to the blast fence & another 250ft to the Shell gas station but there still should be EMAS at the end of the runway 9! @@TwoBitDaVinci
Huh, I had assumed the runway DID have an EMAS because I thought that's what the yellow chevrons were used for, and that EMAS was ineffective without landing gear. Or am I confusing the yellow chevrons for ANY displaced threshold?
Shutting down the wrong engine seems to be a very real possibility, given the evidence we have so far. It would explain why the pilots chose to land immediately, right in the middle of the go-around. Having no thrust from either engine is the only conceivable reason I can think of for them to land as quickly as they did. Either that or severe smoke or fire in the cockpit or cabin.
There isn't any evidence of this. The right motor was running when they landed and the left was not. They didn't shut the right motor down. The left was probably out due to the bird strike. There were 2 wisps of smoke from it just before the large blast of smoke from the right motor.
@@bg147 Then what was the right engine doing in that one video of the plane while still on approach? It looks like a typical compressor stall. Are you saying the left engine went out due to a bird strike and the right engine ... what? Had a problem completely unrelated to the bird strike? Or had no problem at all and was operating normally (which doesn't seem likely given the video evidence)?
@@RMR1 I saw a big puff of smoke from one motor and two small puffs from the other just prior to that. My guess is both motors experienced bird strikes.
Two things occur to me, the first from this video, was what appeared to be far too short a circuit to give time for the necessary adjustments for the approach and wonder if power was lost in both engines, sufficiently to maintain height. However, by touching down some 1200 yards further down the runway, indicates that the final approach was too high, and a slight enlargement of the circuit could have remedied that, and this would have given more room to have bled off the speed. It could also have given more time, to effect a lowering of the gear via gravity, even if it did not lock, it would have provided more friction. The second is, that it appears likely that the flight crew should have seen from the indication on the flight control panel that the undercarriage had not deployed correctly, so with that being the case, I wonder if opting to touch down on the grass at the side of the runway would have created a greater coefficient of friction, than that of tarmac, with the fuselage and engines tending to dig into the softer earth. The other possibility is that from the flight deck, it would have been impossible for the crew to determine visually whether the wheels were down, but the usual 'clunk' sound as they engage, should have confirmed this, if there were malfunctions on the control panel. Overall, it appears that far too much was happening in too short period of time. I have to admit, that I have little experience of flying powered aircraft, with the vast majority of landings being made in gliders, however I take my hat off to pilots Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles, when they landed their airliner in the Hudson River, after a bird strike taking out both engines, though I understand that Sully was also a glider pilot. This leads me to consider that experience of flying gliders would be of benefit to all pilots, since there is no possibility of a go-round, if you don't get it right.
At the time of the strike, the landing gear and flaps were down according to Denys Dadyov (check the video). So, one theory is when they lost the engine and decided to go around they cleaned the configuration to be able to fly on one engine and gain altitude. It’s not clear what happened next. Perhaps they lost the other engine somehow and then no hydraulics.
The asymmetric deployment of the thrust reversers is not hard to explain. Since you’ve already figured out that the left engine was off, there was either no ability to deploy it because of that hydraulic loss, or there are separate #1 & #2 override switches for the reversers, and the pilot didn’t waste time flipping the switch for the zero-thrust engine.
I'm thinking engine 1 was either erroneously shutdown or failed due to birdstrikes, which caused the TR not to deploy since there was no longer any available hydraulics.
@@miltonsantiago6086 Windmilling engines also provide (some) hydraulic power if the fire handles haven't been pulled. Speculation is pointless without knowing what was powered (electrically and hydraulically, how much pressure was available, etc, etc).
@@RevolutionibusOrbiumCoelestium It would still help. It breaks into the consistency of mud it seems. I know it was skidding, but the plane's own weight would sink it deeper and deeper in the rear area touching it - which would act like an anchor, pulling the nose down. On concrete, the plane's weight does nothing but create heat/friction/sparks. Come to think of it - would likely reduce chance of spark/fire therefore.
If that pilot had enough control of the plane to do that crazy teardrop manoeuvre then he had enough control of the first approach of the runway, the plane was already lined up to land.
Some experts say that large passenger planes are sufficiently prepared for bird strikes, so bird strikes do not cause problems with passenger planes, and the failure to lower the landing gear is due to poor maintenance or pilot error. The following is the content of the communication between the Jeju Air passenger plane and the control tower. It's translated from Korean. Please check this communication. - Around 08:20, preparing for airport approach landing - Collided with a flock of birds 200m above the ground and caused flames in the right engine. - The captain gave up on landing, raised the nose, circled over the airport, and communicated with the control tower. - Communication that a second landing will be attempted - Second landing attempt around 09:05 - Dedicated fire department has completed standby near the runway - The engine system has deteriorated, the electronics and hydraulic systems have failed, and the landing gear has been delivered. - If we had known about the landing gear failure in advance, we could have dumped all the fuel and sprayed the runway floor with a substance that would reduce the friction coefficient and cool the flames, but it was urgent. - The flames in the right engine had already spread and smoke and toxic gases had entered the interior of the aircraft. It was so urgent that there was no time for a third landing, so an emergency fuselage landing was decided.
They shut off the wrong engine (left), and were flying on a single damaged engine. With no altitude and no power, the priority became getting the plane on the ground. They likely left the gear up as long as possible, but it didn’t deploy due to lack of hydraulic power from the shut down and damaged engines. One panicked decision led to multiple bad decisions.
@@andrewwolczyk5777 The gear can be dropped by gravity, however. Landing so far down the runway without an ability to break doomed the aircraft. May the victims RIP, and may this airport be closed. Birds and planes don't mix, full stop. An investigation into the municipal officials who approved this boondoggle should be a priority. This reeks of corruption.
@@andrewwolczyk5777 where did you get these "facts" from, you report? There may have been a double engine failure? I don't know - speculation serves no purpose!
There is a picture of a small backfire coming from the left engine as well on Korean news media. It is suspected that both engines might had been affected, which led to the mayday call..
The bird strike caused compressor stalls, which generate loud bangs, which probably attracted the attention of the person on the ground, so they started recording. It is likely that the video did not capture all of the compressor stalls, some of which may have come from the No 1 left engine.
The principle of operation of the ground spoiler is to spoil lift, or lift dump, in order to increase weight on wheels for braking. Extra drag is secondary. Also you do not wait until “full cruising altitude” to retract flaps. You do it at acceleration height, generally 1500 feet agl.
The wall wasn’t the issue. The issue is why pilot rushed to get the plane down (the moment pilot declared go around and second landing attempt only took 6 minutes), approach speed was too high, right engine that struck birds seemed to be still running while landing, plane landed way past half way of the runway. You can’t only blame the wall. It’s the pilot ultimately made a series of wrong decisions
the wall was also an issue. it made a bad situation go worse. Without the wall, the plane had a chance in spite of pilot incompetence. But with that wall, it was the final/killing blow.
@@your_bases_are_belong_to_us Its like saying that road is dangerous lol, F/A to do with the road , its the idiots that use it, That pilot was a useless wanker end off, He was the murderer, not the concrete,
It all depends on what's around the airport. The one I visit the most is similar to the one shown in san diego and I see it as a liability, if this would happen there the plane will destroy several homes and buildings. So someone has to choose between the people who live nearby and the passengers inside the plane.
I also wondered if the 'bird strike' video might be mirrored, but if you see where the sun is, and how it's lighting the aircraft - it is definitely flying North with the early morning sun in the East. So I don't think it's mirrored - and therefor it is the Right engine (engine 2) that had a compressor stall in this video. I've also been looking carefully through the various videos for any sign of the navigation/position lights flashing on the wingtips, but haven't seen anything yet - so wonder if there was an electrical issue? If the thrust reverser was fully active on one side only, wouldn't that cause the aircraft to veer off the center line? (Considering that there appears to be no flaps or spoilers)
EMAS may well have not helped in this situation because it is designed to stop aircraft that have there gear down, as the weight of the aircraft is transferred through the small contact areas of the undercarriage to break through the EMAS surface. EMAS also will only stop you if you overrun at speeds under 70 knots, it is not a high speed solution and the designers and maufacturers have never claimed it is. The press and TV experts as usual have not bothered to reaserch how it actually works.
In this crash the aircraft was travelling at 150 kts when it hit the ILS Antenna. It was decelerating slowly because the wing was still generating some lift, reducing the pressure of the aircraft on the runway and also because this was distributed over a large area. The contact patch of both engine nacelles and the rear of the fuselage was relatively large. For most aircraft overruns the EMAS would be effective.
well done sir that is the best analysis I have ever seen on this subject. I have 40 years experience as an aircraft maintenamce technician I currntly work at ONT airport with Jettpro line maintenance so I agree 100% with what you are saying. I really thought your just a solar system (guy) just kidding 😂 I am actually a supporter and subscriber to you channel. I appriciate all you do and respect your great knowledge keep up the good work.. Thank you and happy new year
Seems like straight up pilot error and could 100% been avoided (yeah they should look at airport designs) - Could have stayed in the air longer and sorted everything out (assuming other engine still operable) - Very likely shut down the wrong engine - Flaps? - Landing Gear? - Came in too fast - Touched down too late
Landing gear up is only a choice of airspeed. Engine thrust, configuration, distance? What made them turn for a 9000 runway? What are we missing? I'm guessing loss of engine thrust?
I'm not a pilot, I'm information processing expert and I have explanation what happened. Let's assume that the Korean pilot was a professional and didn't make any mistakes. Why did he decide to go around? Because he wasn't ready to land. He had three warnings about landing gear failure and he didn't want belly landing. He wanted to manually extend the landing gear and that takes a while on a Boeing, let's say 5 minutes, so that explains the circle around the airport . But this airplane had a "mysterious" failure a few days ago on its way to China. As far as I know, it was engine-related and they declared a Mayday. So let's assume that the bird hit the only working engine (THE LEFT ENGINE) and the damaged right engine was the one that failed already on the way to China, but not because of the bird strike, but because of the faulty compressor. So pilot decided to go around with one and a half engines working (good decision) because of landing gear problems (good decision), only to find that a bird strike had destroyed his last good engine (the left engine), so he configured the plane to glide (good decision) and attempted an immediate landing from the opposite direction (good decision), only to kill himself and almost everyone on board due to the faulty runway design and concrete barrier. So it points to Boeing (lack of redundancy, in the case of both engines malfunction), the airport (obstacle 200m from the runway) and maintenance (they let them fly with a faulty - unrepaired right engine) more then to the pilot error (his only mistake was that he didn't refused to fly with faulty airplane).
Many want to blame the pilot which I find offensive. The final report will indicate whether the pilot was at fault or not. Considering all that was going wrong, it is highly unlikely anyone is going to do everything perfectly. The only remark I can make is that concrete topped berm was a huge mistake. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
The previous emergency was to drop off a passenger who had become ill on the flight and was completely unrelated. Where did you get the information that the pilot had reported a problem with undercarriage. The communications between the pilot and ATC that have been released make no mention of such a problem. The pilot report that the aircraft had been struck by a bird and that he was going around. During this process the undercarriage is retracted , the flaps/slats stowed and the "good" engine throttled-up. Hence the aircraft was clean. Something else happened that resulted in the No 1 left engine not running when the landing was attempted .
One thing an airline instructor told me is this, "If you don't have time to do it once, you _definitely_ don't have time to do it twice." They rushed to get back to the runway and the way the airplane was behaving, it looked like the pilot flying was expecting to touch down on landing gear. We'll have to look at the flight data recorder and the voice recording to know what happened.
There was no smoke in the cockpit; there's a moment where you can see light through the side of the windshield & there's nothing to indicate the presence of smoke
Everyone's been thinking of a smell of smoke, which would or could result from a bird strike. People are trying to exaggerate the damage from the bird strike to shift blame away from the pilot, so everyone thinks that ingesting a bird does all kinds of random and severe damage.
Ricky, Extremely well presented analysis. The only thing that I'd add would be comparisons to highways for the Localizer and the Stopping ground at the end of the runway. Consider the uphill sand ramps that are used in hilly areas for trains and trucks. That adapted for airports would be a great addition. Additionally, the Localizer mountings should also follow highway signage mountings, where the signs shear off at their base when struck by a horizontal force. Thanks for this and ALL of your videos. They're brilliant, and I always learn a lot. PS: I used to own and operate a company that provided fly by wire terminal blocks and grounding blocks to boeing and Airbus.
In my company there were various sayings associated with major malfunctions and failures. Three of them - 1. Do nothing quickly. 2. Enjoy your failures. 3. Aviate, navigate, communicate. We also used to practice failures malfunctions, failures and fires shortly beforeI landing. Invariably the smart solution was to continue and land.
I’ve seen pilots explain that if they had accidentally shut off the working engine, and they still deploy the flaps when they have no thrust, they would not reach the landing strip due to the increased drag. So it shouldn’t be a one rule apply to all for flaps.
Two months ago, I visited San Diego, and while waiting for my plane, I saw many birds flying across the runway. Also, the airport was pathetic: tiny, full of people, and only had a single overcrowded restroom.
13:06 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.
Having hydraulic pressure is one of the MOST crucial parameters needed for a safely functioning airplane. So it is almost dummy proof. They have several "fail safes" in place to prevent losing all hydraulic pressure. But under certain circumstances all fail safes and backups can be lost all together, resulting in a total loss of control to flight surfaces making the plane almost impossible to fly OR land. Very sad when such a 1 in a million incidents happen.
Thank you for the very informative video! I did not know you were so deep into flight engineering. EMASS sound similar to emergency truck stop ramps, usually made of sand, that are common on large downhill slopes of highways, where trucks may loose their brakes due to overheating.
yea that's at the heart of the system... even a big sand trap could work... same idea though. I was a Landing Gear Engineer for the F/A-18 Hornet program, why I ended up in San Diego
EMAS (Engineered Material Arresting System) is an amazing safety device for the aircraft when it departs the prepared surface. It isn't at all airports unfortunately because of several factors including cost, space constraints, regulatory requirements, and the type of aircraft operations. It’s only installed at airports where the risk of runway overruns are high and where there is sufficient space to install it, making it not necessary at every airport, especially airports that have a “safe” space beyond the prepared surface.
It might not have been the right (#2) engine. In later videos, we can see that the right engine is running, but the left engine is not. A possible explanation is that the first video, in portrait, could have been recorded with mirroring on.
@@brianwebb191 The concrete being the innocent bystander? No, it was part of the cause. Remember the Swiss cheese model of lining up all the holes, all the conditions and errors, and tragedy was the result.
The go-around gave the capt/ co-pilot ample time to get the undercarriage down and cabin crew are trained to manually lower it if capt/ co-pilot are becoming overwhelmed so they deligate the under carriage to one of them. Under-carriage down also creates drag which slows aircraft, so many mysteries.
I am struck by the decision to land on RWY 19, when the active was RWY 01, probably due to winds. So, they landed gear up on the downwind runway which causes a significant float from the tailwind, and obviously not sufficient drag of gear / flaps up.
Regarding the possible "mirroring" of the video (13:10). Assuming the video ISN'T mirrored, then this video shows the plane approaching from the south and the right engine backfiring. This is because the accident occurred in the morning, so the sun would have been in the east. Since the sun is coming from the left in the image, the plane must have been flying north. If the video IS mirrored, then that indicates that the plane must have been flying south on it's final descent, and the left engine being involved. Given the height and flap configuration, and the background landscape, my guess is that the video ISN'T mirrored.
It would be interesting to interview the pilot who successfully landed an airplane on Hudson river, "The Miracle on Hudson River", what he think of this accident.
This thing about the wall has NOTHING to do with the accident. Airports have minimum clearance between the runway and any kind of walls. Once it is respected, it is not a danger whatsoever. Literally THOUSANDS of airports are built this way. As a commercial pilot I can afirm that the problem of this accident was something that pilot did or didn't, altogether with the airplane's condition. NOT with the airport.
26:37 The question I have on this crash. At what point did they retract the landing gears if they were on finals before they declared an emergency and go around. On the fly by the landing gears are up, yet they should have had the A/C configured for landing on the first attempt. Doesn't add up for me.
An addition to the tile system at the end of the runway (both ends) there should be fire a "smart" suppression system that would douse the airplane with water, foam, etc., before the airplane which would enable passengers to safely exit the airplane.
There seemed to be problems before the bird strike/compressor stall. Why hadn't the landing gear been deployed. For me there are more questions then answers. Hopefully we'll know more with cockpit recorder and blackbox. What kind of communications was there with the ground before the crash? A concrete block placed on runway overrun is one of the stupidest things ever!
You too, watch the video and stop inventing facts. There was no problem before the bird strike. The landing gear was deployed, but it's always retracted in a go-around. The previous diversion was due to a passenger, not a technical problem.
I'm wondering if they had two separate bird strikes at 2 different times. I'm thinking the first bird strike on final stable approach, They got some engine warnings, maybe lost some power, and that convinced them to abort the landing and gain altitude so they could go through their checklists. Then after they had climbed a few hundred feet, there was a second bird strike and they lost the second engine. So now they think they've got serious loss of power with the right engine being the only one still spinning and maybe making a little power. So at that point, they decide they can't count on any engine power at all and they decide to configure the plane for best glide distance, so they retract flaps and slats and retract the landing gear. They go into the steep right hand turn to line up with runway 19, and the pilot flying is maybe in the left seat and can't see the runway all that well so he doesn't realize he's high. They line up with the runway, realize they're high. At this point, you wonder why they don't drop the landing gear manually and extend flaps and maybe use spoilers. Possible there was no time to do any of this, although that seems unlikely. You have to think about whether they lost all hydraulics. And for that to happen, they had to have lost both engines. The burning question in my mind is why didn't they just land on runway 01 since they already had a stable approach and they were very low. Were they coming in short of the runway, and so the first decision is to go 100% power in hopes you can gain a little altitude? Anyway, this hypothetical sequence doesn't fully explain everything, so I'm really curious what they're going to find.
Excellent, very interesting analysis. One thought: while it would be useful to automate those things that must happen ... does this further introduce degradation into pilot skills, in that the pilot becomes too reliant on the airplane "thinking" for him/her?
Thank you so much for your video, your clear explanations and your respectful approach. I learned a lot as I didn't know a lot about the technicalities regarding aviation. This is such a tragedy. I hope at least all different actors can do better in the future, as we must prevent such a catastrophic scenario to unfold again and claim so many lives.
4 วันที่ผ่านมา +3
Here's the bottom line: These jets are simply far too complex to be safely piloted by humans. Systems on top of systems, hardware, software, hydraulics, avionics, redundant systems etc. it's way too much for human pilots to manage under exigent circumstances. The design of these planes from an operational perspective is so poor, it's ridiculous. When a pilot needs a checklist just to safely land a plane, that should tell you that things have gotten out of hand from a complexity aspect. When an emergency occurs, the workload in the cockpit leaps up and instantly overwhelms the pilots. The pilot can no longer "feel" the flight controls. There is way too much separation between the pilot and the control surfaces etc. This is why in the very near future, *AI will pilot all commercial flights* Logistics flights and most military flights as well. Our engineers have effectively designed human pilots out of the loop instead of going back and simplifying controls and operations. That's a trend across all industries that needs to stop. It's costing a lot of lives.
No AI will ever pilot anything. If you knew how those things work, on the level of code, data structures and information content, you would agree.
2 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
@@seriouscat2231 Great non-argument. Care to elucidate? Because in my town we have a self-driving taxi service that's been running for some years now, on very crowded roads with unpredictable human drivers and other autonomous vehicles. The sky is a far easier domain for AI to conquer and navigation technology is already there. I see already strained relationships between pilots unions and airlines, with pilots commanding far too much power as far as the airlines are concerned, and AI represents an opportunity for massive savings in costs and liability. My prediction, and I can promise you this will come true, is that eventually all commercial flights will be automated flights. The capability is already there and human pilots and their unions are only getting in the way at this point. It's happening whether you like it or not. I don't like it either, but my feelings don't matter, and neither do yours.
Hey you’re posting this 2 days after other videos but you’re missing a fair bit of info and understanding. For instance you can tell if the video is mirrored or not because of the sun and shadow on the plane. The Beijing flight diversion has been noted to be an inflight health emergency. You did your best but for a late video on the topic you’ve missed a few things.
Great documented piece, one of the most clearly informative of all doing the rounds over the past few days, thank you. Let's hope the in-flight recorders shed more light soon on this very unfortunate tragedy, allowing us to learn some good from it. Respect to the families of the deceased.
A Brazilian youtuber (an aircraft mechanic who has hosted an aviation channel called Aviões e Músicas for many years) said that the image of the airplane is not inverted. He reached this conclusion by looking at a mountain in the background of the footage.
I think the proper analogy for EMAS to a highway feature would be to a runaway truck ramp on a mountain road, rather than a water barrel barrier at an exit ramp. Same idea, more gradually expend the energy of the vehicle to stop it while minimizing damage (not that using one of those ramps is not a violent experience).
IF:- They had multiple bird strikes, a damaged but running no.2 and a total flame out on no.1 (possibly indicated by the video footage of the 2nd approach, it’s likely they didn’t have the aircraft performance to maintain altitude after the initial go-around. This could be why they opted to come straight in on the reciprocal runway, possibly struggling to in effect glide to make the runway. If you are ‘stretching’ the glide, you don’t want additional drag such as gear or flaps, and you certainly don’t have time to run any emergency checklists? Thrust reverse will activate below 10ft radio altitude on the 737 without the weight on wheels, and the video suggests thrust reverser deployment on the no.2 engine (possibly running but damaged) and no deployment on no.1 (possibly shut down)? This could explain the urgency to land and the lack of configuration.
The "regular media" are studiously ignoring the inappropriate construction of the wall the plane hit. Somebody important goofed off and all sorts of stories about the plane "veering" are being put about. The video shows the plane going straight off the end and the pictures from above show that wall was directly in the runway Centreline (obviously given its job). The pilots are dead so they are first in line as scapegoats.
Meanwhile in the irregular media, it is mentioned in every video, and the pilots aren't scapegoats. You are watching this. why complain about the other?
Two things can be true at the same time: Should there not have been a reinforced berm at the end of the runway? OF COURSE NOT. Did the pilots follow anything even resembling proper procedures? ALSO NO.
It's interesting that in that discussion about ground effect the vision used @ 4:31 that aircraft in the footage only had one reverser (starboard) in operation. I would have though that uneven reverse thrust would tend to slew the aircraft slightly.
Just as a correction. System A and B electric hydraulic pump is not driven by their respective engine. They share the same hydraulic system as the engines but they’re not driven by them. They’re driven by 115ACV provided by the aircraft. You can drive both Hydraulic Electric Pumps from the 115ACV from the Auxiliary Power unit, Ground power, or either engine. So if Engine 2 had a flame out as long as Engine 1 is providing electrical power, it can operate and run System B Electric Hydraulic pump and vise versa.
Great study. You mention the possibility of the bird strike / flame out video being a mirror image. This is not the case unless the two landing videos are also mirror images. That’s clear from the lighting direction (sun position) on the fuselage. Lighting orientation switches to opposite sides as expected when plane orients from southern approach to northern approach.
Thanks for being respectful and not monetizing this video. Appreciate your kindness to the victims.
Second the motion motion carried.
@@PeteJohnsMusic or monetize it and donate it to the families 🤷♂️
I'm at the 3 minute mark and already an AD ! It's monitized !
What's that got to do with anything. Why don't YOU stop working for a year to pay respect to the victims instead?
HL8088 was also involved in a tail strike incident in 2021 august. You didn't mention it in your video
I was an ILS guy for the FAA for decades before retiring last year. I'm amazed at how this localizer was built into such a heavily reinforced structure. The localizer array is intended to be frangible which means that it is intended to break away easily if struck.
@@yamahagrand Even if that burn wasn't there you still would have had massive loss of life because of the buildings just outside the airport perimeter. Remember this airplane was flying at 150 mph when it hit the berm so we need to understand why the aircraft was flying so fast, why wasn't the landing gear down, why wasn't the flaps down, and why did it fly halfway down the runway before it touched down those are the questions that need to be answered
@@lawrencedavidson6195 A large cement wall surrounding the perimeter of the runways.
@@rickdeckard7926 It's my understanding The perimeter of the airport included a cinder block wall, not sure if it's concrete reinforced?
@ Yes you are right, not a wire fence.
@@lawrencedavidson6195I'm confident that your presumption that cinder block wouldn't cause much damage is wrong.
Muan Airport in South Korea shouldn't have been built there in the first place. Corruption among municipal officials and the politics of that particular province played a significant role. I say this as a South Korean.
Thank you, very interesting!
Agree
The plane came down hard and fast, doubt if any other airports will make much difference.
Because it was supposed to be an american airbase that scrapped after Korean war, it exist only as an auxiliary airfield for refueling operation, they just reuse the abandoned runway for civil aviation.
@@madsam0320 in most airports this would have been totally survivable. They just needed room to dissipate energy. A massive concrete slab should not have been located where it was.
Ive flown on that airline and landed on that airstrip a few times. May those who perishednrest in peace and those who survived heal mentally and physically.
THIS IS VERY VERY VERY USEFUL... IT WILL CONSIDERABLY IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY.
It was only open to International traffic recently, were you flying domestic perhaps, smaller aircrafts?
@johngreydanus2033 when I was stationed there i flew from the pen to jeju Island for 3 and 4 day weekend trips. Took the ferry sometimes too
@@MrSqueasil Sorry, I don't understand what "the pen" is, sounds like a local domestic route? Please use proper words for this wide spread international audience because you just leave us guessing, thanks.
@johngreydanus2033 sorry, the peninsula. YES domestic from Seoul to Jeju
The area where Muan Airport is located is Korea's largest migratory bird habitat, with 120,000 birds migrating daily. This is an area where large international passenger aircraft have been restricted for the past 17 years due to the risk of bird collisions. After impeaching 29 government officials, including the president, the Democratic Party, which is based in the area, used its majority in the National Assembly to grant permission, and this accident occurred 20 days after approval. That concrete pile was not in the initial airport design, but was created while recovering from typhoon damage after a member of the Democratic Party came to represent Muan Airport in 2020. Since all the people and regions involved in this accident are affiliated with the Democratic Party, the Korean press and media controlled by the Democratic Party are trying to blame this accident on poor maintenance of an innocent airline. Due to this accident, Jeju Air was deemed a dangerous airline and 80% of flight reservations were cancelled. Is this really the fault of the airline's poor maintenance and the captain?
No. Absolutely not. Not sure why it had to land so quickly, but maintenance or pilot skills was not the issue. She came in level and landed beautifully considering
Interesting Comment . .
@@thomasmacginnes100 there was a accident exactly like this with same airline and type of air craft happened less than 24hrs after this one. Two much coincident to say Jeju airline
is innocent
@@kevinquick4844 you missed the fact the WRONG engine was turned off by the pilot, so it absolutely looks like a major pilot error! Shutting down the correct engine could have given then a lot more time to properly troubleshoot the landing gear, spoilers and flaps and avoid such dangerous landing.
PPP bot
If you are already in the final approach, why wouldn't you just continue to try to land after a birdstrike? I mean, what are the odds to have a better chance to land in a better way when you retract the landing gear, go around and try to land without gear in the middle of the runway, possibly even with the wrong engine shut down? What happened here might indicate a lot of panic on the pilot's side, or am I wrong?
@@g4fun980 Yes, the plane has already prepared for landing when the bird srikes. Maybe the pilot is following protocols. However Scully did not follow protocols but save lives. So the Jeju Air’s pilot should use his own judgment and assess the situation either to follow protocols or just continue to land the plane.
@@z.k.6686 right, and unfortunately things sometimes just do not work out. Nobody can tell if a direct landing would have gone well either.
For them to go around it would have made sense to take a lot more time to run checklists in my opinion they rushed The Landing ended up Landing long and killed everyone
@@SortaProfessional89 The aircraft flies well on one engine and obviously they had plenty of fuel. Most crews would have elected to go around and stabilize the situation before returning to a well planned se approach and landing. I believe that after they decided to miss the approach something happened to convince them they needed to get on the ground quick. They probably smelled lots of smoke from burning bird bodies a thought they were on fire.
@@g4fun980 it is odd, maybe the voice recorder will help? At the end he seemed to be trying to get it on the ground ASAP as though he had a fire but when the signal stopped transmitting the fastest way down would seem to have been to continue the approach (which apparently would have been the correct official procedure).
How tired (well rested before the flight) were this crew?
How experienced?
How recently refreshed with simulator training?
The video was not mirrored. The sun is on the right side just where it should be at 9am on a northbound trajectory.
Mentour Pilot definitely is the one to wait for. From memory his last job was flying Boeing 737-800 NG. He is very very experienced and a cautious and thorough investigator. Not at all like the early guessing brigade. The guy doing this analysis said he was an Aerospace Engineer. Not a pilot and not a 737-800 specialist. I notice the sub-title of this video has changed from "What really happened?" to a more punchy "Worse Than You Think".
Well said!
@@CookingAroundTheWorld u need to wait a couple of years though
I have read many comments implying the pilots shut an operable engine down. It is very offensive and disrespectful.
@@SamBaghi To respect those that passed, I'll wait rather than listen to unproven guesswork.
@@bg147 It is irresponsible for people to comment with only small amounts of information.
I’ve watched many of these analysis videos of this incident, and this video is BY FAR the most well thought out, well made, succinct yet thorough video. Well done sir! You have a gift of explaining things
RIP to the victims
+1. Exactly what I came here to type, no point in filling TH-cam with duplicate compliments, well done.
It's almost 100% a re-hash of info that was presented before in earlier videos - I don't think there's anything new here that wasn't already presented by other yt channels
@@gorak9000 wrong
@gorak9000 well aren’t you starting 2025 in a positive frame ;)
Ive watched 4-5 others and still got plenty new info , and again ditto what the original commenter said.
But lets wait a month for the preliminary report.
Watch Pilot Blog for an in depth look from a pilot's perspective. Very thoughtful, very detailed and quite technical.
There is a good You-Tube channel that covers these sorts of things. The guy who does it has a lot of hours flying comercial jets and has a captains rank and has trained pilots and captains and participated in post incident investigations. He usually waits untill there is at least a preliminary report and does a moment by moment breakdown of what happened and has considerable insight into what air-crew in the cabin did according to the black boxes (voice and instrumentation). The two of you might make a good teem up, or perhaps one as a guest for the other, on a later anlysis of this. The Channel is Mentour Pilot. The two backgrounds at least mesh well for providing a rather thourough AND interesting deep dive into this sort of thing.
I agree! MentourPilot is incredibly thorough and experienced. Another great channel is @74Gear. I look forward to their breakdowns combined with this excellent one from Ricky.
He does or did fly Boeing 737 .
@@bobbyg9662 Yeah, he's on hiatus from flying to work on some stuff including his TH-cam channel. He'll probably have something out on this when enough info comes in. I'm thinking he and TwoBit could go through the post anlysis reports and stuff and do co-op on this one. I didn't realize TBD was an aeronautical engineer by trade. My uncle retired from doing that a few years back. He wanted to be an astronaught but inherited the strong nearsightedness on that side of my family.
This is what happened Read:
When a hydraulic line is cut the engine pump and all of the pumps won't do anything or the ptu and the rushed landing was because they knew a fire would ignite filling the cockpit with toxic smoke that would impair their sight and lungs and to bleed off speed.
If you look close at the video where the white smoke is, When the plane struck the birds you can see on the left of the white puff a darker plume and hydraulic fluid is dark red or purple, When the plane hit the birds I think they bent or broke a blade causing a piece to fly around inside and cut a hydraulic line and all hydraulic pressure was bled off, That explains the dark plume of liquid. With an open circuit none of the pumps will work or the ptu they just dump fluid on the engine and no pressure for anything in system b. you can see in approach video the plane approaching while at 100 feet high you can see damage on the left cowling, That is not T/R and they will not deploy over 10 feet high but this is at 100 feet that is damage.
That is also why no flaps, No air brakes but the 737 can still control rudder, Elevators and ailerons with system a hydraulic circuit and so they were able to land with full control but without system b no flaps and their stall speed would be much higher explaining the high speed landing and it explains why they would choose a belly landing knowing they would stop faster skidding on the fuselage tail and engines rather than not having primary hydraulic brakes on rolling wheels so they opted not to deploy gear and made a tight 180 turn then rolled slightly left right to bleed off speed and might have even thought that dirt embankment for holding up fiberglass antennas would help safely slow them how would they know it was loaded with 2 foot thick concrete. I think they are going to find a broken blade and a cut hydraulic line on the left engine All my best to the familes and everyone involved
@@stratocasterblueyour first mistake is assuming that video is of the actual bird strike. I don’t believe it is. The video is after the go around was initiated as the gear is up and the flaps are retracted. What you are seeing is the compressor stalling. Witnesses that claim to have seen the actual strike, said the gear was down at the time. 20:41
At 13:09 I'm pretty sure the MBC sourced video is NOT mirrored. Checking Google Maps, the video appears to have been shot from the Pine Forest Pension located about 2/3 miles direct south of the Runway 01 threshold. The orientation of the hills across the water would indicate that it is NOT mirrored, and that the right (number 2) engine was indeed the one struck.
This aircraft slid for a long way on the runway because even though the fuselage was on the runway the wings were still producing lift and the ground effect was also producing lift so there was less friction from the runway. Deployment of the air brake/ spoilers would have helped here to reduce lift but these were not deployed
I don’t think they slid very far. I believe they didn’t touch down until well past the halfway point. Probably were trying to put it down gently to avoid a break up. They actually did that part very well.
basically they did not really land the plane. The concrete wall argument is not useful at that kind of speeds.
I don't think it was landing, I think they were planning to circle around proved by the retracted
landing gear, flaps and also the speed it was traveliing at. They lost lift and hence crushed
The landing gear could have been deployed without any hydraulics or electrics by using gravity. So, the pilot must have forgot about the release cables? The pilot also deployed the thrust reverser on the wrong (dead) engine. So, maybe he also forgot which engine was dead? Looks like he also forgot to deploy the flaps and spoilers too? So, a classic case of the pilot panicked and forgot everything he was taught.
Slid for a long way 😐
They barely even made contact with the tarmac
If you saw the flight schedule this crew flew prior to this crash I think fatigue was almost certainly a large contributing factor. It is well known that fatigue impairs decision making ability, and what the crew did doesn't seem to make sense.
The flight recorders will tell the tale, but it will be a while before they are analyzed. If only they had flown the landing in the same direction as the takeoff there could have been a much smaller loss of life. May all those that perished rest in peace.
The critical issue is that with the likely #2 engine surge on approach to runway 01 the atrcraft was in a stable attitude. But the decision to go around and then execute a sharp tear drop turn put the aircraft in an unstable attitude exacerbated by lack of any aerodynamic braking then contacting the runway almost halfway down yet with apparent good authority. The sudden tear drop manouevre sounds like a panic (no time)/confused action possibly prompted by an issue with the #1 engine or dare I say it a Kegworth replica. The black box will provide the engine/airframe parametric answers regarding the time between go around decision to contact with the runway; it did not appear to show any assymetric condition as it approached the ground, ie no hard rudder when it was well over its aerodynamic speed.
All of us .... have driven over a 'Speed Bump' and felt what what a few inches (cm) of solid can do. Without slamming into the berm, most, or all, the airplane passengers would have survived. So the question is; was it stupid government regulations and building codes that are ultimately responsible?
@@94520shatto it looks to me like they were thinking of the safety boost you get by having the localizer easily repaired at ground level instead of on a boom truck. How many crashes could happen if the maintenance is slow for the localizer?
Of course we see the issue now, but they might not have been thinking there was much difference with the security wall just a bit further. There are designs for safer excursions, but people weren't thinking about it before.
Nothing to do with the Stupid pilot then ffs.
@@ED-es2qv The security wall was a thin wall constructed of porous cinder blocks versus the solid concrete topped berm.
tbh, if the concrete wall wasn’t there, the plane could’ve still flipped over and exploded anyway, it was going super fast
@@brianwebb191
1. we do not know the causes of the accident yet. I fully expect this to be a proper swiss cheese incident with multiple issues.
2. Whatever the causes of the actual accident turn out to be, I can guarantee the large loss of life will be attributed to the berm/mound at the end of that runway. As someone else said below "the pilot made a perfect belly landing right down the centreline and did it with a seriously compromised aircraft. That berm being there wasn't his fault at all."
Bascially ... without that obstruction, more than two people would have walked away from that aircraft.
Thanks for getting almost immediately to the fact that the runway operates in BOTH directions. I don't know how many times I've seen a bizarre comment that the plane was landing in the "wrong direction" as if the runway could only be used in one direction and why they supposedly wouldn't have an issue with an obstacle past one end of the runway.
I looked at satellite images and it's clear the runway is marked for landing in both directions and has tire marks consistent with landing in both directions.
I think the "wrong direction" spin comes from the Korean officials who are trying to gaslight the Korean public and put the blame on the pilots, the birds or the aircraft, or whatever, but not the airport design flaws that must have been approved by these officials.
@@lordjim3109 You make a valid point. I wouldn't put it past these officials to do that. IMO, the pilot made a perfect belly landing right down the centreline and did it with a seriously compromised aircraft. That berm being there wasn't his fault at all.
@@istudios225 It was almost certainly his fault that the speed was so high, the gear wasn't down, the flaps not deployed, and that he floated so far down the runway without touching down. There is great redundancy in the 737 design to prevent him from being unable to fix all those things. The tight turn and good line-up with a compromised plane point towards certain good handling skills, but the factors I mentioned point towards a mental failure.
@@gandydancer9710- 100% right
@@gandydancer9710 No. That's just wild speculation and you know it.
Nice job Ricky! Lots of questions to be answered in the investigation. You laid it all out nicely.
Thanks so much for teaching me about this issue. Always ready to learn something new.
I’m a flight attendant, and this was such a super interesting video - thank you.
Lots of love to the passengers and crew who lost their lives, and their families, and also to those who survived. ❤
I think there's a strong possibility that they shut down the wrong engine, which is why we see the left engine not appear to be working.
definitely a possibility, I didn't want to speculate too much, as its tough to say, but that has happened before.
@@TwoBitDaVinci Yea, I don't blame you, I've gotten berated for the suggestion.
if they shut down the wrong engine? plus the other one getting hit? how would they have power to do a go around??
@@TwoBitDaVinci anything to include shutting the incorrect engine down is a possibility. We train specifically in the simulator on methods of shutting an engine down with focus on preventing the inadvertent shutdown of incorrect engine.
@@thekeysman1 The one that got hit appeared to still be working, to what capacity who knows, but you can see the thrust reverser deployed and you can hear engine noise in the landing video.
I’ve been left wondering why the person on the balcony started to film the aircraft as it passed over? What if, the bird strike caught on film is actually a secondary strike? This would in fact explain why the panic to return on opposite approach with a dual engine problem.
The typical approach over this flat complex (where the balcony is located) is more like 250ft. The aircraft was clearly already in TO/GA when the footage shows the bird strike. Even the last ADS-B data shows it’s already climbing before they’ve reached the bird strike video location.
If you look at the bird strike video again you see a tiny puff of smoke come out of the left engine as well suggesting both engines suffered damage.
Also you can tell if it’s mirrored or not based on the sun and shadows… a bit shocked how the person couldn’t work his out…
I've read that an instructor staying at a hotel nearby rushed to film the plane after hearing "weird noise" from it and realising that something seemed wrong. So yes, I think the same - that what we see in the video may be related to strike that had already occurred prior to filming, or to further strike during the filming.
@@letitiaan Something has grabbed the person who filmed the crash video too. It’s easy to find the building on google earth as it’s a distinct roof with a lighting unit on the end. It actually looks like h’e stood on the roof so guess he was also hearing the noise as it passed over doing the go-around.
@@nicholasespinoza9610 This is why I started to think about damage already being done before the video capture. I think the pilot may have been dealt a cruel blow. If they have lost both engines it would justify their panic to land. Decision already made for go around, second strike, then it’s panic mode.
Every time I see something like a plane crash or another "interesting" disaster we have to remember a life is a life. Only the close family mourns the death of a young girl that dies in a boring car crash or even "better" an employee dying from unsafe work practises. This flight will probably lead to big changes in aviation safety yet the other two deaths will hardly lead to any changes. People often forget an unnatural death is tragic no matter the circumstances. Please let's focus more on the "boring" statistics and make changes that saves the most lives.
Having experienced 2 catastrophic engine failures on large 4 engine jets that I’ve flown, startle effect will certainly be a contributing factor in this event. Most emergencies don’t require immediate actions on the part of the crew unless the situation dictates,such as the infamous ditching of an A320 into the Hudson River following a double engine failure and just like any aviation accident, there will no doubt be several contributing factors that led to this tragic event.
It has already been reported that the previous time this plane had to make an emergency landing was due to a passenger problem, and not a problem with the aircraft itself. That was being reported like yesterday already.
yeah cut him slack, he could have made the video when the information was not known. you videos take time to film and edit right?
@@michaelshrader5139
It wasn’t an emergency landing it was a diversion to an alternate airport, Jeebus!
@@TheLastResort1987 Funny how y'all don't feel the same towards the pilots of this doomed plane... but I guess they don't deserve to be "cut some slack" huh? smh!
@@michaelshrader5139 ?? are you hallucinating? when did I mentioned anything about the pilots. are you assuming everyone commenting on youtube is the same person?
@@TheLastResort1987 If the BEST you got is to personally attack me like this, then you ain't got nothing friend. Regards!
I’m only at 14:54 but want to tell you that this is the best overall description of the crash I have seen in TH-cam.
I’ve added it as the first video in a playlist I’m curating to provide background to everyone researching the crash.
Blancolirio’s video is second, because non-aviation people (especially all journalists and the SMEs they have been interviewing), and even many aviation buffs, need your video first.
Agree with you 💯 I always go to Blancolirio first when something like this happens. I’m so glad I happened upon this channel…it has never come up in my feed before, but I’m a subscriber now! I don’t want sound bites, I want legitimate information explained by professionals who know what they are talking about and who take as much time as they need…and use graphic diagrams and other visual aids to explain to us non-pilot, non-engineers how things work or don’t work. Fantastic channel!
It genuinely amazes that we have 4k HDR 1000fps TikTok videos. But when it comes to an incredibly important video of a plane crash, the resolution just drops dramatically.
That concrete wall was just the worst part… had not have been there, I really feel the outcome would have been better.
the concrete wall is a CONSEQUENCE, not a CAUSE.
STOP IT...
YOU SOUND LIKE A FLATEARTHER...
@ the concrete wall shouldn’t be at the end of a run way… I watched the footage… I can’t get it out of my mind how that concrete wall ended all those lives.
If you look how straight the plane came in… many passengers would have survived the landing if the wall hadn’t been there….they were all alive before the plane hit the wall.
I hope this changes how airports look at what should go at the end of runways!
@@lisaaneepeacock ok... carry on...
@@robbedontuesday Ironically, a concrete wall at the end of a runway is the sort of thing that North Korea would have.
@IanW10558right!
My guestimate is a second issue on the go-around
2nd birdstrike or shut down of the wrong engine , leaving them with no to little power
With a double birdstrike or double engine issue before the go-around decision, you wouldn't go around when you're set up for landing as the go-around would take more energy/power and time to complete; you'd continue ahead and put it down
Why are we avoiding the obvious it was pilot error. Poor training on the pilot and the traffic controller
It's certainly looking that way
Thats spot on the problem , Pilot Error.
If the pilot has had poor training, why is this "pilot error"?
There is zero proof of that.
@@bg147, does not matter. There are a few possibilities. One of them is that the pilot panicked and that caused him to attempt to land as quick as possible, or to shut down the wrong engine, with the same consequence. The reason either was understandable, such as smoke in the cockpit, or it wasn't. Or the plane was somehow broken and disabled by the bird strike, but it's highly improbable that this alone would have led to what happened. Only after he panicked (highly probable) or the plane was disabled by the bird strike (quite improbable) did it matter that the berm contained reinforced concrete.
I really appreciate your efforts to make this understandable. I'm an engineer, but in a different field, and appreciate your elimination or explanation of technical terms as needed to keep this at the layman's level. I feel I got a good understanding of the key elements of this tragic accident, as we currently understand them. Thanks.
From the vertical video (it's very hard to tell with the poor video quality) the landing gear does not appear to be down. The sun isn't all that high in the sky, so (maybe) you should see sunlight hitting the nose landing gear, and (very maybe) some of the main gear. The gear should have been out long before this point, given the low altitude, unless this was after they decided to abort the landing, and the gear had allready been retracted. It could be that the filmed birdstrike was after the first birdstrike, that the plane took several hits.
Totally agree,bird strike was earlier, possibly taking out the left engine and partly disabling the right engine, what is seen in the video is the aircraft trying to spool up for more power after lifting the landing gear. It would also explain why they had to leave the gear up for a better glide ratio .The down side of this is the aircraft will float further with ground effect and no way to control speed without veering off the runway.
A photo taken by an angler during the first landing attempt was released, which clearly shows the landing gear.
@@dush133 I've looked around, but I can't any. Do you know who/where it was published?
@@TimRobertsen The TH-cam link keeps getting erased when I write it in the comments, so I'll just give you the address after TH-cam.
DYJWlPdgk44?si=CtXigQXshfUUcrn_
The link keeps getting erased when I write it in the comments, so I'll give you the address after TH-cam.
watch?v=DYJWlPdgk44
Ricky, i'm surprised when you were talking about San Diego Intl airport KSAN that you did not mention runway 9. That localizer antenna mound at Maun airport was 860ft from the end of the runway. At the end of runway 9 at KSAN, within 400ft there is a blast fence, Pacific Hwy and a Shell gas station! Also, there is no EMAS or arrester bed at the end of runway 9 at KSAN. At KSAN when the ceiling goes below 700ft runway 9 is required for landing which has happened many times this month during late night & early morning hours.
great point, the video was getting really long, can't always say everything but yes, the runways are quite asymmetric and clearly most attention was paid to the prevailing runway. thanks for the insight!
OK, looking at the approach procedure for runway 9 at SAN there is only 7280ft for landing not 8400ft so from the usable landing runway length it is 1230ft to the blast fence & another 250ft to the Shell gas station but there still should be EMAS at the end of the runway 9!
@@TwoBitDaVinci
Huh, I had assumed the runway DID have an EMAS because I thought that's what the yellow chevrons were used for, and that EMAS was ineffective without landing gear. Or am I confusing the yellow chevrons for ANY displaced threshold?
Shutting down the wrong engine seems to be a very real possibility, given the evidence we have so far. It would explain why the pilots chose to land immediately, right in the middle of the go-around. Having no thrust from either engine is the only conceivable reason I can think of for them to land as quickly as they did. Either that or severe smoke or fire in the cockpit or cabin.
There isn't any evidence of this. The right motor was running when they landed and the left was not. They didn't shut the right motor down. The left was probably out due to the bird strike. There were 2 wisps of smoke from it just before the large blast of smoke from the right motor.
@@bg147 Then what was the right engine doing in that one video of the plane while still on approach? It looks like a typical compressor stall. Are you saying the left engine went out due to a bird strike and the right engine ... what? Had a problem completely unrelated to the bird strike? Or had no problem at all and was operating normally (which doesn't seem likely given the video evidence)?
@@RMR1 I saw a big puff of smoke from one motor and two small puffs from the other just prior to that. My guess is both motors experienced bird strikes.
There is no need for "severe" smoke or fire. Just a smell of smoke or someone reporting a smell of smoke is enough to make a pilot panic.
Two things occur to me, the first from this video, was what appeared to be far too short a circuit to give time for the necessary adjustments for the approach and wonder if power was lost in both engines, sufficiently to maintain height. However, by touching down some 1200 yards further down the runway, indicates that the final approach was too high, and a slight enlargement of the circuit could have remedied that, and this would have given more room to have bled off the speed. It could also have given more time, to effect a lowering of the gear via gravity, even if it did not lock, it would have provided more friction.
The second is, that it appears likely that the flight crew should have seen from the indication on the flight control panel that the undercarriage had not deployed correctly, so with that being the case, I wonder if opting to touch down on the grass at the side of the runway would have created a greater coefficient of friction, than that of tarmac, with the fuselage and engines tending to dig into the softer earth.
The other possibility is that from the flight deck, it would have been impossible for the crew to determine visually whether the wheels were down, but the usual 'clunk' sound as they engage, should have confirmed this, if there were malfunctions on the control panel.
Overall, it appears that far too much was happening in too short period of time.
I have to admit, that I have little experience of flying powered aircraft, with the vast majority of landings being made in gliders, however I take my hat off to pilots Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles, when they landed their airliner in the Hudson River, after a bird strike taking out both engines, though I understand that Sully was also a glider pilot. This leads me to consider that experience of flying gliders would be of benefit to all pilots, since there is no possibility of a go-round, if you don't get it right.
Hindsight must be such a gift to you my friend! I envy you that!
Great info as always🙌🏼 sad days but hopefully we take these failures and learn from them
At the time of the strike, the landing gear and flaps were down according to Denys Dadyov (check the video). So, one theory is when they lost the engine and decided to go around they cleaned the configuration to be able to fly on one engine and gain altitude. It’s not clear what happened next. Perhaps they lost the other engine somehow and then no hydraulics.
I believe Dadyov saw indication of gear down, flaps down on ADSB data
the APU provides key hydraulics
@@stephenandrew6410 the flaps were known to be down because the airspeed was otherwise too low for flight.
And THANK YOU for mentioning EMAS! Although it is true that that concrete wall did stop that plane, maybe there's a better way to stop a plane.
The asymmetric deployment of the thrust reversers is not hard to explain. Since you’ve already figured out that the left engine was off, there was either no ability to deploy it because of that hydraulic loss, or there are separate #1 & #2 override switches for the reversers, and the pilot didn’t waste time flipping the switch for the zero-thrust engine.
4:28 this plane only has 1 side reversed? Maybe something automated deployed the reverse thrust, for maybe the same reason this plane in the clip did.
I'm thinking engine 1 was either erroneously shutdown or failed due to birdstrikes, which caused the TR not to deploy since there was no longer any available hydraulics.
Too much guesswork. There are no such "override switches". Reverser activation/non-activation is simply done via the normal reverse levers.
@ImperrfectStranger This is correct, you either have hydraulics or you don't.
@@miltonsantiago6086 Windmilling engines also provide (some) hydraulic power if the fire handles haven't been pulled. Speculation is pointless without knowing what was powered (electrically and hydraulically, how much pressure was available, etc, etc).
Glad you covered the arrestor system at the end of runways. This system has been very slow to catch on, it seems.
@@GH-oi2jf unfortunately it wouldn’t have helped in this case as the wheels were up.
@@RevolutionibusOrbiumCoelestium It would still help. It breaks into the consistency of mud it seems. I know it was skidding, but the plane's own weight would sink it deeper and deeper in the rear area touching it - which would act like an anchor, pulling the nose down.
On concrete, the plane's weight does nothing but create heat/friction/sparks.
Come to think of it - would likely reduce chance of spark/fire therefore.
The diversion on the previous trip was for a medical emergency, not for an aircraft issue.
If that pilot had enough control of the plane to do that crazy teardrop manoeuvre then he had enough control of the first approach of the runway, the plane was already lined up to land.
Exactly
Heartbreaking event. Your description of operations makes it that much more heartbreaking.
Some experts say that large passenger planes are sufficiently prepared for bird strikes, so bird strikes do not cause problems with passenger planes, and the failure to lower the landing gear is due to poor maintenance or pilot error. The following is the content of the communication between the Jeju Air passenger plane and the control tower. It's translated from Korean. Please check this communication.
- Around 08:20, preparing for airport approach landing
- Collided with a flock of birds 200m above the ground and caused flames in the right engine.
- The captain gave up on landing, raised the nose, circled over the airport, and communicated with the control tower.
- Communication that a second landing will be attempted
- Second landing attempt around 09:05
- Dedicated fire department has completed standby near the runway
- The engine system has deteriorated, the electronics and hydraulic systems have failed, and the landing gear has been delivered.
- If we had known about the landing gear failure in advance, we could have dumped all the fuel and sprayed the runway floor with a substance that would reduce the friction coefficient and cool the flames, but it was urgent.
- The flames in the right engine had already spread and smoke and toxic gases had entered the interior of the aircraft. It was so urgent that there was no time for a third landing, so an emergency fuselage landing was decided.
They shut off the wrong engine (left), and were flying on a single damaged engine. With no altitude and no power, the priority became getting the plane on the ground. They likely left the gear up as long as possible, but it didn’t deploy due to lack of hydraulic power from the shut down and damaged engines.
One panicked decision led to multiple bad decisions.
If all that is true, then biggest error was doing a GO AROUND - you said yourself - the priority became getting the plane on the ground.
Maybe.
I've come to the same -conclusion- assumption.
@@andrewwolczyk5777 The gear can be dropped by gravity, however. Landing so far down the runway without an ability to break doomed the aircraft. May the victims RIP, and may this airport be closed. Birds and planes don't mix, full stop. An investigation into the municipal officials who approved this boondoggle should be a priority. This reeks of corruption.
@@andrewwolczyk5777 where did you get these "facts" from, you report? There may have been a double engine failure? I don't know - speculation serves no purpose!
There is a picture of a small backfire coming from the left engine as well on Korean news media. It is suspected that both engines might had been affected, which led to the mayday call..
Omg! You are the only other person to mention this. There are two wisps of smoke from the left motor.
The bird strike caused compressor stalls, which generate loud bangs, which probably attracted the attention of the person on the ground, so they started recording. It is likely that the video did not capture all of the compressor stalls, some of which may have come from the No 1 left engine.
The previous emergency the plane had was a medical emergency and had nothing to do with the airframe.
The principle of operation of the ground spoiler is to spoil lift, or lift dump, in order to increase weight on wheels for braking. Extra drag is secondary. Also you do not wait until “full cruising altitude” to retract flaps. You do it at acceleration height, generally 1500 feet agl.
The wall wasn’t the issue. The issue is why pilot rushed to get the plane down (the moment pilot declared go around and second landing attempt only took 6 minutes), approach speed was too high, right engine that struck birds seemed to be still running while landing, plane landed way past half way of the runway. You can’t only blame the wall. It’s the pilot ultimately made a series of wrong decisions
Spot on,
the wall was also an issue. it made a bad situation go worse. Without the wall, the plane had a chance in spite of pilot incompetence. But with that wall, it was the final/killing blow.
🧂
@@your_bases_are_belong_to_us Its like saying that road is dangerous lol,
F/A to do with the road , its the idiots that use it, That pilot was a useless wanker end off, He was the murderer, not the concrete,
"the wall wasn`t the issue" the dumbest comment ever.
I don’t understand why the APU wasn’t started when they knew it was a lost of power in order to operate the controls better . Please explain .
It all depends on what's around the airport. The one I visit the most is similar to the one shown in san diego and I see it as a liability, if this would happen there the plane will destroy several homes and buildings. So someone has to choose between the people who live nearby and the passengers inside the plane.
Can't technology and zoning save both?
Absolutely loved the video! Thank you for your hard work! 💖
I also wondered if the 'bird strike' video might be mirrored, but if you see where the sun is, and how it's lighting the aircraft - it is definitely flying North with the early morning sun in the East. So I don't think it's mirrored - and therefor it is the Right engine (engine 2) that had a compressor stall in this video.
I've also been looking carefully through the various videos for any sign of the navigation/position lights flashing on the wingtips, but haven't seen anything yet - so wonder if there was an electrical issue?
If the thrust reverser was fully active on one side only, wouldn't that cause the aircraft to veer off the center line? (Considering that there appears to be no flaps or spoilers)
even with a bird strike how far from runway were they?? they should have landed right away. the weather was fine,
EMAS may well have not helped in this situation because it is designed to stop aircraft that have there gear down, as the weight of the aircraft is transferred through the small contact areas of the undercarriage to break through the EMAS surface. EMAS also will only stop you if you overrun at speeds under 70 knots, it is not a high speed solution and the designers and maufacturers have never claimed it is. The press and TV experts as usual have not bothered to reaserch how it actually works.
In this crash the aircraft was travelling at 150 kts when it hit the ILS Antenna. It was decelerating slowly because the wing was still generating some lift, reducing the pressure of the aircraft on the runway and also because this was distributed over a large area. The contact patch of both engine nacelles and the rear of the fuselage was relatively large.
For most aircraft overruns the EMAS would be effective.
well done sir that is the best analysis I have ever seen on this subject. I have 40 years experience as an aircraft maintenamce technician I currntly work at ONT airport with Jettpro line maintenance so I agree 100% with what you are saying. I really thought your just a solar system (guy) just kidding 😂 I am actually a supporter and subscriber to you channel. I appriciate all you do and respect your great knowledge keep up the good work.. Thank you and happy new year
Seems like straight up pilot error and could 100% been avoided (yeah they should look at airport designs)
- Could have stayed in the air longer and sorted everything out (assuming other engine still operable)
- Very likely shut down the wrong engine
- Flaps?
- Landing Gear?
- Came in too fast
- Touched down too late
Landing gear up is only a choice of airspeed. Engine thrust, configuration,
distance? What made them turn for a 9000 runway? What are we missing? I'm guessing loss of engine thrust?
I'm not a pilot, I'm information processing expert and I have explanation what happened. Let's assume that the Korean pilot was a professional and didn't make any mistakes. Why did he decide to go around? Because he wasn't ready to land. He had three warnings about landing gear failure and he didn't want belly landing. He wanted to manually extend the landing gear and that takes a while on a Boeing, let's say 5 minutes, so that explains the circle around the airport . But this airplane had a "mysterious" failure a few days ago on its way to China. As far as I know, it was engine-related and they declared a Mayday. So let's assume that the bird hit the only working engine (THE LEFT ENGINE) and the damaged right engine was the one that failed already on the way to China, but not because of the bird strike, but because of the faulty compressor. So pilot decided to go around with one and a half engines working (good decision) because of landing gear problems (good decision), only to find that a bird strike had destroyed his last good engine (the left engine), so he configured the plane to glide (good decision) and attempted an immediate landing from the opposite direction (good decision), only to kill himself and almost everyone on board due to the faulty runway design and concrete barrier. So it points to Boeing (lack of redundancy, in the case of both engines malfunction), the airport (obstacle 200m from the runway) and maintenance (they let them fly with a faulty - unrepaired right engine) more then to the pilot error (his only mistake was that he didn't refused to fly with faulty airplane).
Many want to blame the pilot which I find offensive. The final report will indicate whether the pilot was at fault or not. Considering all that was going wrong, it is highly unlikely anyone is going to do everything perfectly. The only remark I can make is that concrete topped berm was a huge mistake. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
The previous emergency was to drop off a passenger who had become ill on the flight and was completely unrelated.
Where did you get the information that the pilot had reported a problem with undercarriage. The communications between the pilot and ATC that have been released make no mention of such a problem.
The pilot report that the aircraft had been struck by a bird and that he was going around. During this process the undercarriage is retracted , the flaps/slats stowed and the "good" engine throttled-up. Hence the aircraft was clean.
Something else happened that resulted in the No 1 left engine not running when the landing was attempted .
Are you kidding ! No redundancy with both engines malfunctioning? What do you want - a third engine on a two engine plane.
Do you have any idea what a compressor is in an airplane engine? Also, there was no failure a few days ago. Just stop inventing facts already.
Nope. Gear was down the first time. It could not have been locked; who knows.
One thing an airline instructor told me is this, "If you don't have time to do it once, you _definitely_ don't have time to do it twice." They rushed to get back to the runway and the way the airplane was behaving, it looked like the pilot flying was expecting to touch down on landing gear. We'll have to look at the flight data recorder and the voice recording to know what happened.
Thank you. Very informative. Multiple issues seem to have lead to this disaster.
Yes, it is always a series of events
There was no smoke in the cockpit; there's a moment where you can see light through the side of the windshield & there's nothing to indicate the presence of smoke
Everyone's been thinking of a smell of smoke, which would or could result from a bird strike. People are trying to exaggerate the damage from the bird strike to shift blame away from the pilot, so everyone thinks that ingesting a bird does all kinds of random and severe damage.
Ricky,
Extremely well presented analysis. The only thing that I'd add would be comparisons to highways for the Localizer and the Stopping ground at the end of the runway. Consider the uphill sand ramps that are used in hilly areas for trains and trucks. That adapted for airports would be a great addition. Additionally, the Localizer mountings should also follow highway signage mountings, where the signs shear off at their base when struck by a horizontal force.
Thanks for this and ALL of your videos. They're brilliant, and I always learn a lot.
PS: I used to own and operate a company that provided fly by wire terminal blocks and grounding blocks to boeing and Airbus.
In my company there were various sayings associated with major malfunctions and failures. Three of them - 1. Do nothing quickly. 2. Enjoy your failures. 3. Aviate, navigate, communicate. We also used to practice failures malfunctions, failures and fires shortly beforeI landing. Invariably the smart solution was to continue and land.
By far the best analysis on this tragic incident so far. Done by experts, not your regular journalists. Thanks Ricky & Team!
I’ve seen pilots explain that if they had accidentally shut off the working engine, and they still deploy the flaps when they have no thrust, they would not reach the landing strip due to the increased drag. So it shouldn’t be a one rule apply to all for flaps.
wow, this is really your specialty!
Awesome vid
I like hearing an engineer's point of view on this situation man thank you for sharing with us
Two months ago, I visited San Diego, and while waiting for my plane, I saw many birds flying across the runway. Also, the airport was pathetic: tiny, full of people, and only had a single overcrowded restroom.
13:06 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.
Having hydraulic pressure is one of the MOST crucial parameters needed for a safely functioning airplane. So it is almost dummy proof. They have several "fail safes" in place to prevent losing all hydraulic pressure. But under certain circumstances all fail safes and backups can be lost all together, resulting in a total loss of control to flight surfaces making the plane almost impossible to fly OR land. Very sad when such a 1 in a million incidents happen.
Very professional! Nicely done~! Tks! I was able to understand better. Keep up the good work and give people the information they need~!
Thank you for the very informative video! I did not know you were so deep into flight engineering.
EMASS sound similar to emergency truck stop ramps, usually made of sand, that are common on large downhill slopes of highways, where trucks may loose their brakes due to overheating.
yea that's at the heart of the system... even a big sand trap could work... same idea though. I was a Landing Gear Engineer for the F/A-18 Hornet program, why I ended up in San Diego
EMAS (Engineered Material Arresting System) is an amazing safety device for the aircraft when it departs the prepared surface. It isn't at all airports unfortunately because of several factors including cost, space constraints, regulatory requirements, and the type of aircraft operations. It’s only installed at airports where the risk of runway overruns are high and where there is sufficient space to install it, making it not necessary at every airport, especially airports that have a “safe” space beyond the prepared surface.
It might not have been the right (#2) engine. In later videos, we can see that the right engine is running, but the left engine is not. A possible explanation is that the first video, in portrait, could have been recorded with mirroring on.
The reinforced concrete barrier with localizer antennas caused deaths of most passengers. Plane still traveling near 150 mph upon impact.
Even if that localizer wasn’t reinforced, what lay beyond was just as bad.
Dopy pilot was the cause? Not the concrete,
@@brianwebb191 The concrete being the innocent bystander? No, it was part of the cause. Remember the Swiss cheese model of lining up all the holes, all the conditions and errors, and tragedy was the result.
@@andrewwolczyk5777 but the casualties will be lower than hitting a solid concrete wall
@@andrewwolczyk5777, no. The plane would have slowed down increasingly fast, and the perimeter wall is significantly more fragile than the berm.
The go-around gave the capt/ co-pilot ample time to get the undercarriage down and cabin crew are trained to manually lower it if capt/ co-pilot are becoming overwhelmed so they deligate the under carriage to one of them. Under-carriage down also creates drag which slows aircraft, so many mysteries.
No landing gear. No flaps. Bird strike. WHAT THE HECK IS THAT CONCRETE WALL HOLDING LIGHTS? That wall is what destroyed the jet.
I am struck by the decision to land on RWY 19, when the active was RWY 01, probably due to winds. So, they landed gear up on the downwind runway which causes a significant float from the tailwind, and obviously not sufficient drag of gear / flaps up.
Fantastic analysis 👏 Thank you
Regarding the possible "mirroring" of the video (13:10). Assuming the video ISN'T mirrored, then this video shows the plane approaching from the south and the right engine backfiring. This is because the accident occurred in the morning, so the sun would have been in the east. Since the sun is coming from the left in the image, the plane must have been flying north.
If the video IS mirrored, then that indicates that the plane must have been flying south on it's final descent, and the left engine being involved.
Given the height and flap configuration, and the background landscape, my guess is that the video ISN'T mirrored.
It would be interesting to interview the pilot who successfully landed an airplane on Hudson river, "The Miracle on Hudson River", what he think of this accident.
This thing about the wall has NOTHING to do with the accident. Airports have minimum clearance between the runway and any kind of walls. Once it is respected, it is not a danger whatsoever. Literally THOUSANDS of airports are built this way. As a commercial pilot I can afirm that the problem of this accident was something that pilot did or didn't, altogether with the airplane's condition. NOT with the airport.
26:37 The question I have on this crash. At what point did they retract the landing gears if they were on finals before they declared an emergency and go around. On the fly by the landing gears are up, yet they should have had the A/C configured for landing on the first attempt. Doesn't add up for me.
Nobody knows "What REALLY happened" so enough with the guesswork and clickbait until the accident investigators have done their bit
let the man talk!
@@johnp139 if we need to yes. I’d rather hear what actually happened then what pilots who were nowhere near this think happened
An addition to the tile system at the end of the runway (both ends) there should be fire a "smart" suppression system that would douse the airplane with water, foam, etc., before the airplane which would enable passengers to safely exit the airplane.
There seemed to be problems before the bird strike/compressor stall. Why hadn't the landing gear been deployed. For me there are more questions then answers. Hopefully we'll know more with cockpit recorder and blackbox. What kind of communications was there with the ground before the crash? A concrete block placed on runway overrun is one of the stupidest things ever!
You too, watch the video and stop inventing facts. There was no problem before the bird strike. The landing gear was deployed, but it's always retracted in a go-around. The previous diversion was due to a passenger, not a technical problem.
I'm wondering if they had two separate bird strikes at 2 different times. I'm thinking the first bird strike on final stable approach, They got some engine warnings, maybe lost some power, and that convinced them to abort the landing and gain altitude so they could go through their checklists.
Then after they had climbed a few hundred feet, there was a second bird strike and they lost the second engine. So now they think they've got serious loss of power with the right engine being the only one still spinning and maybe making a little power.
So at that point, they decide they can't count on any engine power at all and they decide to configure the plane for best glide distance, so they retract flaps and slats and retract the landing gear. They go into the steep right hand turn to line up with runway 19, and the pilot flying is maybe in the left seat and can't see the runway all that well so he doesn't realize he's high. They line up with the runway, realize they're high. At this point, you wonder why they don't drop the landing gear manually and extend flaps and maybe use spoilers. Possible there was no time to do any of this, although that seems unlikely.
You have to think about whether they lost all hydraulics. And for that to happen, they had to have lost both engines.
The burning question in my mind is why didn't they just land on runway 01 since they already had a stable approach and they were very low. Were they coming in short of the runway, and so the first decision is to go 100% power in hopes you can gain a little altitude?
Anyway, this hypothetical sequence doesn't fully explain everything, so I'm really curious what they're going to find.
Excellent, very interesting analysis. One thought: while it would be useful to automate those things that must happen ... does this further introduce degradation into pilot skills, in that the pilot becomes too reliant on the airplane "thinking" for him/her?
Thank you so much for your video, your clear explanations and your respectful approach. I learned a lot as I didn't know a lot about the technicalities regarding aviation. This is such a tragedy. I hope at least all different actors can do better in the future, as we must prevent such a catastrophic scenario to unfold again and claim so many lives.
Here's the bottom line: These jets are simply far too complex to be safely piloted by humans. Systems on top of systems, hardware, software, hydraulics, avionics, redundant systems etc. it's way too much for human pilots to manage under exigent circumstances. The design of these planes from an operational perspective is so poor, it's ridiculous. When a pilot needs a checklist just to safely land a plane, that should tell you that things have gotten out of hand from a complexity aspect. When an emergency occurs, the workload in the cockpit leaps up and instantly overwhelms the pilots. The pilot can no longer "feel" the flight controls. There is way too much separation between the pilot and the control surfaces etc. This is why in the very near future, *AI will pilot all commercial flights* Logistics flights and most military flights as well. Our engineers have effectively designed human pilots out of the loop instead of going back and simplifying controls and operations. That's a trend across all industries that needs to stop. It's costing a lot of lives.
No AI will ever pilot anything. If you knew how those things work, on the level of code, data structures and information content, you would agree.
@@seriouscat2231 Great non-argument. Care to elucidate? Because in my town we have a self-driving taxi service that's been running for some years now, on very crowded roads with unpredictable human drivers and other autonomous vehicles. The sky is a far easier domain for AI to conquer and navigation technology is already there.
I see already strained relationships between pilots unions and airlines, with pilots commanding far too much power as far as the airlines are concerned, and AI represents an opportunity for massive savings in costs and liability.
My prediction, and I can promise you this will come true, is that eventually all commercial flights will be automated flights. The capability is already there and human pilots and their unions are only getting in the way at this point.
It's happening whether you like it or not. I don't like it either, but my feelings don't matter, and neither do yours.
Hey you’re posting this 2 days after other videos but you’re missing a fair bit of info and understanding. For instance you can tell if the video is mirrored or not because of the sun and shadow on the plane. The Beijing flight diversion has been noted to be an inflight health emergency. You did your best but for a late video on the topic you’ve missed a few things.
Great documented piece, one of the most clearly informative of all doing the rounds over the past few days, thank you. Let's hope the in-flight recorders shed more light soon on this very unfortunate tragedy, allowing us to learn some good from it. Respect to the families of the deceased.
A Brazilian youtuber (an aircraft mechanic who has hosted an aviation channel called Aviões e Músicas for many years) said that the image of the airplane is not inverted. He reached this conclusion by looking at a mountain in the background of the footage.
Great breakdown, Ricky. I appreciate your insight.
I think the proper analogy for EMAS to a highway feature would be to a runaway truck ramp on a mountain road, rather than a water barrel barrier at an exit ramp. Same idea, more gradually expend the energy of the vehicle to stop it while minimizing damage (not that using one of those ramps is not a violent experience).
IF:- They had multiple bird strikes, a damaged but running no.2 and a total flame out on no.1 (possibly indicated by the video footage of the 2nd approach, it’s likely they didn’t have the aircraft performance to maintain altitude after the initial go-around. This could be why they opted to come straight in on the reciprocal runway, possibly struggling to in effect glide to make the runway. If you are ‘stretching’ the glide, you don’t want additional drag such as gear or flaps, and you certainly don’t have time to run any emergency checklists? Thrust reverse will activate below 10ft radio altitude on the 737 without the weight on wheels, and the video suggests thrust reverser deployment on the no.2 engine (possibly running but damaged) and no deployment on no.1 (possibly shut down)? This could explain the urgency to land and the lack of configuration.
The "regular media" are studiously ignoring the inappropriate construction of the wall the plane hit.
Somebody important goofed off and all sorts of stories about the plane "veering" are being put about. The video shows the plane going straight off the end and the pictures from above show that wall was directly in the runway Centreline (obviously given its job).
The pilots are dead so they are first in line as scapegoats.
Meanwhile in the irregular media, it is mentioned in every video, and the pilots aren't scapegoats. You are watching this. why complain about the other?
Thanks
why give $2
Two things can be true at the same time:
Should there not have been a reinforced berm at the end of the runway? OF COURSE NOT.
Did the pilots follow anything even resembling proper procedures? ALSO NO.
It's interesting that in that discussion about ground effect the vision used @ 4:31 that aircraft in the footage only had one reverser (starboard) in operation. I would have though that uneven reverse thrust would tend to slew the aircraft slightly.
Just as a correction. System A and B electric hydraulic pump is not driven by their respective engine. They share the same hydraulic system as the engines but they’re not driven by them. They’re driven by 115ACV provided by the aircraft. You can drive both Hydraulic Electric Pumps from the 115ACV from the Auxiliary Power unit, Ground power, or either engine. So if Engine 2 had a flame out as long as Engine 1 is providing electrical power, it can operate and run System B Electric Hydraulic pump and vise versa.
If you have both engines out you can still operate the hydraulic system from the electric pump from electricity provided by the APU or Ram Air Turbine
Great study. You mention the possibility of the bird strike / flame out video being a mirror image. This is not the case unless the two landing videos are also mirror images. That’s clear from the lighting direction (sun position) on the fuselage. Lighting orientation switches to opposite sides as expected when plane orients from southern approach to northern approach.