The first condition of all localizer antennae is, that it has to be frangible. If the elevation of such a structure is too low, it can be raised on metal posts and not a reinforced concrete berm.
absolutely man!, they put a mortal trap at the end of that runway, very strange!. Like all of them aircraft accidents, a lot of facts where combined with these letal consecuences. All of them will be investigated and apply improvements to avoid this kind of tragedy again.
Why the plane flaps are not in position during landing (as said by the media), why the plane was moving at a high speed during landing and why the plane does not release the jet fuel before landing?
The concrete wall wasn't the main issue. The real problem happened in the cockpit, and I find it very hard to understand why the pilot chose to land halfway down the runway at such high speed. While its likely that the airplane had serious technical issues, it was the pilot's actions that triggered the consequences. There were several miscalculations along the way
The PF did actually pull off a rather remarkable, tight tear drop 180° turn - without stalling - and managed to line up the aircraft with the runway. He would have been seated in the left seat and needed the eyes of the co-pilot, seated in the right seat, to actually see the runway properly since they turned right (as is assumed ) And I'm convinced he thought the landing gear was already down. Imagine the utter shock and disbelief when you are waiting ... and waiting for the wheels to touch down - until you finally realise the truth... Even landing halfway down the runway without any flaps and the excessive speed he would have been able to avoid the embankment with the immense braking power of the landing gear. From hero to zero in a matter of seconds. RIP.
@@charleschimfwembe5528there was enough control of the jet for them to abort landing and then go up and then do a turnaround, aborting landing is way more difficult to manoeuvre than landing with a failed engine or gliding without engines - proving they did have control of the aircraft until they clearly did something to make it worse (after aborting landing and circling back - again, high degree of manoeuvring required in terms of control of aircraft)
I find it very hard to understand why you were not the pilot. You could have saved 179 lives with your fantastic piloting skills. You should start a pilot academy to help save more lives
While the mound is what killed all of these people it's not the full story. This is going to all break down to multiple failures which all played a part. From the work culture at the airlines, to pilot error, to local government policy, to maintenance failure and even air craft design. There are probably different levels of failure on all of them.
Here is an answer to what went on in the cockpit: not 1 thing the crew had been trained to do. Two person crews are trained on bird strikes, engine inop orocedures, engine inop landings, etc. They are trained MERCILESSLY on standard, abnormal, and emergency procedures. This crew did NONE of what their training had taught them.
@gordonbryan8381 there is zero publicly available evidence to support your conclusion! Yes it MAY be that pilot error is eventually found to be causative, but NOT at this point in time when you’ve written your post
I'm not a pilot, but I do feel like this was rushed. Obviously, we need to wait for the investigations to be completed to learn what really happened. But there is some evidence out there, and you don't need some TH-camr to see it. For example, little to no flaps at all, no landing gear, but the reverse thrust was activated at least on the right engine as visible in the videos of that plane making the belly landing. The plane clearly had power to some degree including hydraulics if it was able to deploy the reverse thrust on the suspected damaged engine. They also landed roughly 4 minutes after the suspected bird strike, which implies that the pilots did not have enough time to do any sort of checklists and plan their landing. I'm a nobody though. Maybe both engines experienced issues in the end. The investigation will anwser this for sure.
Yes. How good it would be if you start a pilot training academy and help save thousands of lives... I am so honored to read a comment from such a rare and fine pilot such as yourself. What a privilege.
We can be very confident that the NTSB will succeed in retrieving the full data from the DFDR. The Korean safety board likely only had the equipment to read the data from plugging it to the DFDR’s external data connector, which likely was damaged. The NTSB is capable of entirely disassembling the unit as thoroughly as needed, up to and including each memory chip, possibly even repairing damage to the chip’s pins, all this without risking damaging the data. They work extremely meticulously and have trained experts of this kind of forensic operation. Likely only a matter of weeks.
Even if pilots made mistakes, the people did not die from the landing, they died from hitting a concrete wall that was placed directly in line with the runway... A ticking timebomb! A accident waiting to happen, and likely to happen again if they don't remove it.
@@shareman1727 All fatal plane crashes have a chain of events. Yes the wall should have not been there which we all agree with but what were the pilots responsibility and did they make errors like forget to lower gears and he was on final approach when bird strike happened. Why didn't he just fly straight in and did ATC contribute to the crash.
But if the pilots didn’t make the mistakes they did and responded appropriately they wouldn’t be in that position to hit the wall in the first place? They landed midway down the runway in the opposite direction, that’s like if they had missed the runway altogether and it was a hotel or an air controller tower that they landed right in front instead, you’d blame that building being there, but because of pilot error they ended up there with no margin.
But yes, it is a series of critical errors. Without the wall, the pilots failing to follow procedures would have still escaped the critical situation that the pilot put them in, but without the pilots failures they would not have been in that critical situation in the first place because a bird strike or even engine failure is completely survivable and one of the basics of pilot training - if only they followed any of the protocols 😢
At the very high speed the aircraft was at the end of the runway, especially with a belly landing making the aircraft much more prone to sliding, an EMAS or slowing area would hardly have made any difference. The aircraft would have crashed against the concrete perimeter wall behind the ILS berth anyway. It was really a very high speed runway overrun.
And if not the perimeter then the next "target" was a highway. And even if it somehow passed through that without colliding with a car then possibly the adjoining residential area. As you say, that aircraft had a heap of energy.
Even if EMAS hardly would have made a difference, it might have made some difference and saved a few more lives versus having a paved overrun. A paved overrun right before a concrete barricade is an accident waiting to happen.
The perimeter wall is better described as cinder block, i.e. lightweight foamed concrete, with brick piers. Quite frangible, although at the speed the plane would have been going without the ILS berm, it may have been enough to ignite the fuel.
1:53 If the berm complies with international standards, the people responsible for the international standards need to be put on trial for this accident.
@@MetalDude-s1c No. Beyond the berm was a far less robust wall made of breeze blocks, then a small road, then an empty area of ground. Likely many more would have survived.
Because It complies with airport international standards? In another words, it's not at fault? This is like blaming the house owner that a drunk driving accident crash into. Just stop and think , Jesus christ.
First, it's NOT a WALL. Second, as the above reply stated, it was in compliance with international standards and requirements. Obviously those will probably be reviewed carefully going forward, but its going to be hard to legally go after somebody, if all the requirements were followed.
@@mautre yes that is not wall but reinforced concrete berm. Do you know different wall & concrete dont you? th-cam.com/video/vFHniLWVZ-I/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DERwePlwMU7HLwDL
There are other airports with even worse situations. Airports where you basically fall off a cliff in case of an overrun. Of course they should change the rule because there is no reason for a concrete structure.
@@johnnyrocket80085 did you see the video of the landing? As an expert called it: near perfect for a plane in the condition it probably was. Nice and straight on the runway and then there was that wall. Wonder if air traffic control informed him of that.
@@flemlion13sorry to say sir/captain...it is not perfect landing with no landing gear and flaps...although belly landing let say cannot manually extend landing gear due to technical problem...lock maybe...suppose to be the pilot low the speed below 30 knot and why touch the ground half runaway not at the beginning....the plane is out of control suddenly it skip from runaway and hit the wall structure...due to high speed..
@@flemlion13the landing gear has back up hydraulics and manual override. It’s inconceivable that a bird strike could have caused this. The likely case is that the pilots forgot to lower the landing gear and flaps. Bird strikes might have taken out one engine but planes are flyable with the remaining engine and pilots are trained for such scenarios.
Every experienced aviation professional I’ve heard so far… every.single.one …has declared that there is zero reason for that berm to be built. ie the ILS localizer, can simply be mounted flush with the ground, and with the aerials simply designed to break away easily if impacted. The big question : What is this gentleman’s agenda for trying to defend that big ol’ berm???
It can be mounted higher if wanted but some other airports have them on easily broken mounts so they would cause little damage to any airplane in the event it hit them. This mount was a cheap way of raising them…. Cheaping out usually ends up costing more in the end
It doesn’t matter if it “complies” with international standards. This Airport opened for international travel like 2 months ago. Clearly the design of the overrun section is faulty. There should never, ever be a solid obstacle at the end of the overrun section of the runway. That’s what accidents are. A runway should have a completely clear way. The localizer antennas could be on a raised metal platform so that if a plane hits them, it can knock them down and continue past the localizers until it comes to a safe stop.
"There should never, ever be a solide obstacle" ??? How far after the end of the runway ? The antennas were 250-300m after the runway, almost at the end of the airport area. And yes, it is legal to have something at that distance after the end of the runway. But the plane was so fast that it took only 2 seconds to collide with the antennas. Even if the antennas were 1km after the end of the runway, the plane would have crashed into it.
@@sassenachaline It is 140m, which is short of the 150m, and is not recorded as a solid obstacle. For reference, the minimum recommended is 390m, and if they can't reach 390m then they should install special material which slows planes in case of overruns.
This "expert" have been paid to protect the Airport managers. He was VERY cautious to NOT TO MENTION THE CONCRETE MOUND THAT WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!!! THE ANTENNAS COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY POLES!!
And do you think the runway & RESA are supposed to just go on forever??? You think every airport has endless empty cleared flatlands around them??? 🙄🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Smaller ones get reported more after big ones because the ratings for a news item on a smaller incident are higher if it is soon after a major event. Just like a small barge hitting a small bridge (causing not much damage) in the US got a lot more news coverage than it otherwise would have got, because a few days previous a large ship destroyed a bridge. The viewers tend not to be aware that those small incidents happen all the time and only make local news, so they mistakenly think that there has been a sudden increase in incidents rather than an increase in media coverage of incidents. Go look at an aviation discussion forum, and see how many incidents are listed there that did not make major news items worldwide.
ICAO Doc 9157 (Aerodrome Design Manual), Part 6 states that structures in critical areas (such as ILS localizers) must: Be frangible and designed to minimize damage on impact. Not exceed necessary dimensions for their function.
If a truck has a brake failure, it has still a chance to stop as long as there is a space to run in. For planes, is that impossible??? Flying is so so dangerous though.
If the truck has brake failure on the interstate it has a lot of room to keep going and even try engine braking cos the wheels are in contact with the ground. If it has brake failure in a car park, it only has the length of the carpark. Airports have boundaries, you run out of runway then not long afterwards, the perimeter fence (or in this case a perimeter wall, just 200ft past that berm that the plane actually hit) Also, there's another difference. A fast moving truck is not generating huge amounts of lift, so most of the truck's weight is still on the ground. With the plane, going as fast as this was, a lot of the weight will be held by the wings, which means less friction with the ground.
The aircraft changed course from a stable straight in landing Runway 01 to a go around then tear drop severe turn (unstable) to land reverse direction Runway 19 almost halfway down at a high aerodynamic speed without any aerodynamic braking (flaps, land ing gear etc) then belly landing that appeared to be well controlled Slight nose up (AoA) but on a low friction mu metal / hard standing and small fuselage / egine nacelles footprint. I did not see any rudder deflection so was it really a single engine (port) or both still powering or both shut down ( but no ac stall). So why the sudden manouevre when surely the two experienced pilots were aware of the ILS raised embankment location. This is the critical stage of the accident that assumes a no-time decision / panic or confusion by smoking (air condition) within the cockpit. Could be another Kegworth.
@@Emolga6274 That's exactly my point changing from a straight in stable ac condition to a high risk teadrop unstable condtion also had a stall risk. Its the root cause that we are chasing. The ILS embankment was an avoidable obstruction when on RW19 approach ie full length landing with flaps slats etc down and out and UC down.
Flaps, landing gear etc are dynamic braking. You could argue that by keeping the nose raised (that’s aerodynamic braking) the wings would still be producing lift and the aircraft never settled firmly onto the ground thus reducing any friction braking.
@@rodblievers620 Wing Flaps slats etc are aerodynamic braking as they change the aerodynamic loading ie drag and lift and reduce kinetic energy whereas wheel braking and reverse thrust on the ground are dynamic braking that affects ground speed (kinetic energy). The wings and any +ve airframe protrusion and flying controls continue to produce lift if at a +ve AoA and the ac aerodynamic speed is exceeded. I do not know the aerodynamic speed of the 737-800. But one ac I spent 12 years on had servo tab operated flying controls; its aerodynamic speed was notionally (ambient conditions dependent) of 70 mph as noted on take off when the flying controls rose to neutral from a damped condition. Contact with the ground light or heavy is slowed by friction (mu) between the two surfaces. My point was that the aircraft speed after belly landing hardly reduced till leaving the runway onto a different surface and hence friction effect was minimal.
Yea everyone is pretty curious, though the flight data recorder had some issues and was to be sent to NTSB in Washington to get that data downloaded but the CVR has been analyzed, at least preliminarily.
I (for one) will be extremely surprised if there was any time available to that crew to have considered the nature of the structure supporting the localiser antenna… they’re very busy just keeping their aircraft airborne! (Far more likely they did not give it any thought at all!) Aviate… navigate… communicate… It would appear they would have been devoting almost all their thought and energy to getting the aircraft on the ground - for reasons that are still unclear to all of us.
*The tragic plane crash of Jeju Air (South Korea) should be included in pilot training curriculum. Why didn't the captain ask air traffic control for permission to land the plane in the second time "by belly landing"?*
the airport complied with international standards for migratory bird habitats but an upgrade to international airport does not equal to be in line with international standards
I'm not an expert but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn. They hit birds, lost an engine, panicked, idled back or turned the wrong engine off, and had no time to set up the aircraft for the second landing. Very rare but it happens.
😂 I know everyone is an expert and 9/10 are full of shite just writing a fluffed up version of a comment they have read in the same thread. I would love to know how many of the comments that start with the good old credential flex stating that they are a pilot actually count sim flying as clout? I've actually clocked up a few hrs feeding my kids with a spoon full of baby food.
my theory that they were attempting another go around after they realized they touched down with no gear. maybe the thrust reverser wasn't deployed, just the cowling got pulled back while skidding along the ground. that would explain the high speed and not slowing down, but they couldn't get quite enough power to lift off again.
If the localizer has to be raised, why a berm? Why not material designed to not blow up a plane? Why didn’t the overrun area have the EMAS system? If this is internationally approved it’s insane. Bad CRM will be the ultimate result.
They didn’t put down the landing gear. I live 11km from an international airport and the wheels are down before they get to me. This plane was near the airport and the bird strike happened there. Landing gear wasn’t down. Total pilot incompetences. They could have avoided the crash had they not been so stupid. My take, I’m not wrong.
I really wonder why the aircraft went straight into the concrete? I do not see any attempts from the cockpit to avoid the concrete at all in the last few seconds. I don’t want to say it’s intentional. But for someone who can see the big wall coming to collide at high speed, as a pilot I would attempt any measures to just to avoid the wall. But in this case, it’s straight into the wall. The pilot did know its gonna explode and I wonder why he didn’t attempt to steer out. I am sorry to say that.
The landing gear was not down whhen the plane landed. The real question, in my opinion, is why they were not able to deploy the landing gear. But even then, I don't think it's really possible for an airliner to turn at that speed even with the gear down when landing without something going horribly wrong. I'm not a pilot or "expert", just my thoughts.
Why in the world would you pave the overrun area of the runway instead of making it of material that would slow the plane down, especially if you’re gonna put a massive concrete barricade right after that?
Keep in mind that 2 people survived this crash with nothing slowing the plane down. So, even if the EMAS system just slowed the plane a little more and saved, say 10 more lives, then that would have been worth it. Also, keep in mind that it’s about making things as safe as possible going forward. So, who’s to say there won’t be another plane that overshoots but at a slower speed where the EMAS will completely save the lives of everyone on that plane.
Let us assume pilot error.. as a Rtd Training Capt. East African and Pilot Union rep at regional air accident investigations..IF not catastrophic mechanical failure.. then.. ..most likely pilot error. 2 main causes, brain switched off from hangover, fatigue, both common, or at a time when pilot/s usually in REM deep sleep. eg. JAL DC8 out of Moscow, all died. Korean 747 into Guam, all died. East African DC3, into Uganda Game Park with Duke of Edinburgh onboard, Capt cut both engines on early approach. Glided in safely... Capt grounded. New Capt on Command check Comet4c, coming from F27 turboprop, mind shut down before approach. Hangover. I failed him, he was grounded and fired. Then incompetent pilots who go into uncontrolled panic..eg Kenya Airways out of Accra, all died. This one.. we'll hear from the Black Box
…the main reason why the Boeing plane even being landed successfully by the experience pilot on the runway, bcuz the plane landing gear & brakes system not working, the pilot can’t stop the speeding plane that’s why it crash into the concrete wall.
Take motor racing such as F1 or NASCAR. Following deaths, the sports made changes. You don't see concrete barriers on any corners at F1 track, they line walls with TecPro barriers. Same as NASCAR introduced Safer Barriers after Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident. Concrete walls at 90-degrees to any moving object will cause fatalities. I'd suggest the aviation regulations need updating.
They tend to get updated after things like this. They are often a compromise between recommendation and practical concerns like cost, location etc. This one though although technically outside the minimum distance did not fit the expressed statement that all reasonable steps as far as possible should be taken to avoid such obstacles. So they should have either used a different base or raised the ground in front of it so it wasn't a 'sudden stop' . A different base would probably be cheaper and quicker, especially with considerations for water drainage etc. It would still have hit the perimeter wall though, although a bit more forgiving, but that wall was built for defense purposes rather than aviation purposes (it has sentry posts too to repel any attack from North Korean forces).
I have checked google maps and street view. I am sure that if there were no concrete walls in the way, the plane would have continued to slide and no one would have died because it is a flat area and there are almost no cars on the road.Or maybe there would be fewer deaths if the plane had hit some cars on the road, but the airport designers chose to protect cars rather than planes.
Are you delusional? So accordingly random cars on their day to day lives that have nothing to do with the plane errors, should simply be hit on the way that they should'nt be to save the plane that is landing by errors made? Perhaps offer yourself driving by such an occurance then, to save a plane. In no way should an emergency landing protocol, hit random civilians passing by on the road car to save a plane. They simply should have made a safer airport location in the first place, because that location is apparently also a bird habitat.
@@lawrencedavidson6195 Correct! If anything, there should be lose sand that the plane can gradually sink into & slow down. Having a solid concrete wall in that location was flat-out crazy!
*the knew what went wrong in the same second it happen but they think we are stupid, the pilot came from the wrong side on the other side there is no wall*
_Everyone_ can see that is what happened, what they're trying to figure out is _why_ . Multiple other things must have gone wrong. Do you not understand that the pilot was originally lined up for runway 01? Landing on Runway19 was an emergency decision. They opted for a go around, which usually means they will circle around and go back out and try again, but something happened and they had to scrap that idea, and get on the runway ASAP, and if they could only line up for RWY19 at that point, that's what they had to do. For all we know, they opted to go around with the one good engine, and then hit a second flock of birds, and suddenly they only have partial thrust in the remaining engine, so they aren't going to stay up in the air long enough to do the approach that they want to do.
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport. Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency. This is common sense.
According to the “737-800 Quick Reference Manual”, with the landing gears down and breaking system (reverse, breaks, spoilers) full functional, it needs 10,100 ft of runway to stop the aircraft with 0 degree flaps! Without the concrete ILS “base”, the aircraft still needs fairly long distance to stop. Can anyone guarantee the aircraft can safely stop even without the concrete structure there? If u look at the map, by extending 10,100 ft from the touch down location, it will be in the middle of the sea southern to the runway 19…
This is real good analyst, all the other analysts ikve heard were directly blabbing about the wall, overlooking some many facts. I would like to rais a serious concern regarding these Boeing 737-max or whatever. Why the that type of plane struggles, why isn't there anything done about it. It's a widely used model, why there's no actions are taken on this regard?? These planes need to undergo an international inspection not Boeing inspection, international inspection.
Most reporters don't know anything about aviation. It's not just this channel. At least the guest is knowledgeable. His channel on here might be interesting for you, as he's giving his explanation without journalist asking him anything.
Becos they are not real reporters ..I agree I was once asked by my late mom in the 80s ..why not take journalism ..I told her you must realize mom this is Singapore media...
Othelli is a good reporter. They prepared questions to ask experts if you were not satisfied theres other specialised channels that will satisfy your curiousity😊
At most western airports the ILS systems are just attached to posts that go into the ground so that if something hits them they will just fall away. Crazy to have the ils positioned on a concrete mound, apparently many eastern airports have the ILS on mounds that are bigger still. End of the day though that jeju air should not of been travelling at that speed off the end of the runway, no landing gear, no flaps, bonkers id say!
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport. Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency. This is common sense.
This "expert" have been paid to protect the Airport managers. He was VERY cautious to NOT TO MENTION THE CONCRETE MOUND THAT WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!!! THE ANTENNAS COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY POLES!!
Oh, stupid up the "wall" was made for a reason it's on the airport blueprints specification it does meet regulations the reason the wall exists is that this airport is prone to flooding and typhoon damage so the reinforce wall was created to elevate protect the ILS system . Wall or no wall that jet was traveling at 181 knots their is a brick wall surrounding the airport perimeter the end result would have been exactly the same so stop your ignorant bullshit comments!
Yeah, it was also a concrete wall that killed Ayrton Senna... No need to investigate the chain of "outlandish" and unexplainable events since the bird strike, right?????
@robbedontuesday the jet was traveling at between 155-165 knots per hour at time of impact the flight was doomed wall or no wall besides there is a perimeter brick wall just 15 meters from the Ils wall the end result would have been exactly the same!
at 150 knots and no gear, the emass system acts exactly like the concrete ILS enbankment. Engines get immediately blocked in it and the fuseage receive a destructive sudden pitch down momentum.
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport. Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency. This is common sense.
@@chaddissanayake9520 OK but how far from the runway then ? 1km, 2km, 5km ? It easy to say "no concrete surrounding runway" but airport are not very extendable. Some airports don't have concrete after their runways, but forests, sea, city, etc
All respect to the victims and families but from the speed of that belly slide I would predict that the plane will still be going fast even if there was no obstruction from that concrete structure and the result will highly likely to end up in a fireball anyway.
So according to this expert geof, every runway needs a wall at end of it. Maybe they should start being gigantic concrete walls at end of all run ways from now on cuz geoff said it’s ok
Totally not what he said. Why are you twisting his words just because you don't like what he said? The minimum distance a hard object like that is allowed from the end of the runway is 240m. And this object was 260m from the end of the runway. He literally just told you what the regulations are and that this object complied with the _minimum_ . He did not say it _should_ be built of concrete and it should be on a steep beam.
I know that in a freeze frame we can see 1 pilot, but the plane is pretty much abeam of the camera man at that point so the other pilot may simply be obscured. Where are you getting this from?
parece que a aviação não anda muito bem na foto com a galera lá de cima não, toda hora tem uma tragédia...ficam falando que os aviões estão cada vez mais modernos..seguros...blá-blá-blá..que só falta falar, tem tanta tecnologia que daqui a pouco nem vai precisar mais de piloto, mas o que temos vistos é que com todo esse progresso...toda essa tecnologia não adianta nada se não treinarem bem o homem, pois uma manobra errada tudo isso vira fumaça..escombros junto com as vidas das pessoas..te. erros primários que poderiam ser evitados com uma tripulação mais bem treinada...formada..muito triste
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport. Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency. This is common sense.
How can he say. hosting landing instrumentation on a reinforced concrete is the International (ICAO) standard? This kind of concrete is good to make bunkers to protect from enemy fire. LOL
Sounded to me like he was saying that the standard establishes a minimum distance that hard structures should be from the runway, and this structure was about 20 metres beyond that, so it met with with _minimum_ standard.
@@jimbobeire Yes, you're correct, but the numbers might be slightly off...? From what I've seen, it was quite a bit further out than the REQUIRED clearance (but a bit under the "recommended" amount, though that extra 60ish or so meters would not have made any difference here anyway).
@@mautre I agree, the difference between minimum and recommended is often lost on journalists and audiences in short snippets. Long form videos from experts tend to be better, but only people with an interest tend to watch those.
@@jimbobeire Yes, 100% right! And then the people in the comments are even far worse... But really the amount of misinformation being regurgitated, over and over again about this case, is just astounding (and frustrating)! 😓
Unfortunately, the pilot made very wrongful, grave and risky decision to land the plane on its belly without the landing gears! Even if the end of runway had no concrete wall or object, some of the passengers were also died instantly due to very heavy shock and impact when the plane belly hits the runway ground with an enormous force and unfortunately without the landing there was no shock absorber to cushion and absorb the very heavy impact!
However, I think the passengers that were sitting in the mid section of the plane especially in belly of the plane perhaps would be instantly died because of the very strong impact and heavy sock unfortunately! It is very traumatic, tragic, sad and unfortunate that the passengers, the crew members and the pilots did not survived the disasterous crash!
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport. Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency. This is common sense.
Why not have two or three powerful engines mounted on the bottom transitioning from high speed horizontal flight, to vertical helicopter like flight to make landing that much safer? Vertical thrusters along with emergency parachute deployment could make commercial planes infinitely safer. Birds fly into the side mounted jets? no problem, let's just activate the vertical thrusters. I hope Elon musk would make this happen, he's the only one that can make fast and effective change like this.
Right so they're not assassinating rebels or foreign leaders, just killing tourists on budget airlines? At some stage you have to ask if your paranoia outweighs your common sense.
The first condition of all localizer antennae is, that it has to be frangible. If the elevation of such a structure is too low, it can be raised on metal posts and not a reinforced concrete berm.
absolutely man!, they put a mortal trap at the end of that runway, very strange!. Like all of them aircraft accidents, a lot of facts where combined with these letal consecuences. All of them will be investigated and apply improvements to avoid this kind of tragedy again.
@@FlytoInnsbruck 300m after the end of the runway....
Why the plane flaps are not in position during landing (as said by the media), why the plane was moving at a high speed during landing and why the plane does not release the jet fuel before landing?
Hello if u dunno jeju has typhoons n hurricanes so u cant just secure them without concrete reinforcement otherwise they get blown away -_-
@@ZetaTango83 Muan airport is not in Jeju island though...
The concrete wall wasn't the main issue. The real problem happened in the cockpit, and I find it very hard to understand why the pilot chose to land halfway down the runway at such high speed. While its likely that the airplane had serious technical issues, it was the pilot's actions that triggered the consequences. There were several miscalculations along the way
There were no controls on that jet so it could have landed anywhere.
The PF did actually pull off a rather remarkable, tight tear drop 180° turn - without stalling - and managed to line up the aircraft with the runway. He would have been seated in the left seat and needed the eyes of the co-pilot, seated in the right seat, to actually see the runway properly since they turned right (as is assumed )
And I'm convinced he thought the landing gear was already down. Imagine the utter shock and disbelief when you are waiting ... and waiting for the wheels to touch down - until you finally realise the truth...
Even landing halfway down the runway without any flaps and the excessive speed he would have been able to avoid the embankment with the immense braking power of the landing gear.
From hero to zero in a matter of seconds. RIP.
@@charleschimfwembe5528there was enough control of the jet for them to abort landing and then go up and then do a turnaround, aborting landing is way more difficult to manoeuvre than landing with a failed engine or gliding without engines - proving they did have control of the aircraft until they clearly did something to make it worse (after aborting landing and circling back - again, high degree of manoeuvring required in terms of control of aircraft)
I find it very hard to understand why you were not the pilot. You could have saved 179 lives with your fantastic piloting skills. You should start a pilot academy to help save more lives
While the mound is what killed all of these people it's not the full story. This is going to all break down to multiple failures which all played a part. From the work culture at the airlines, to pilot error, to local government policy, to maintenance failure and even air craft design. There are probably different levels of failure on all of them.
Here is an answer to what went on in the cockpit: not 1 thing the crew had been trained to do. Two person crews are trained on bird strikes, engine inop orocedures, engine inop landings, etc. They are trained MERCILESSLY on standard, abnormal, and emergency procedures. This crew did NONE of what their training had taught them.
Agreed. I think they panicked and this was the result
Good analysis (NOT) by watching You Tube & listening to hundreds of other opinions by people that dont have the real data. Geeeeze.
@gordonbryan8381 there is zero publicly available evidence to support your conclusion! Yes it MAY be that pilot error is eventually found to be causative, but NOT at this point in time when you’ve written your post
I'm not a pilot, but I do feel like this was rushed. Obviously, we need to wait for the investigations to be completed to learn what really happened. But there is some evidence out there, and you don't need some TH-camr to see it. For example, little to no flaps at all, no landing gear, but the reverse thrust was activated at least on the right engine as visible in the videos of that plane making the belly landing. The plane clearly had power to some degree including hydraulics if it was able to deploy the reverse thrust on the suspected damaged engine. They also landed roughly 4 minutes after the suspected bird strike, which implies that the pilots did not have enough time to do any sort of checklists and plan their landing. I'm a nobody though. Maybe both engines experienced issues in the end. The investigation will anwser this for sure.
Yes. How good it would be if you start a pilot training academy and help save thousands of lives... I am so honored to read a comment from such a rare and fine pilot such as yourself. What a privilege.
We can be very confident that the NTSB will succeed in retrieving the full data from the DFDR. The Korean safety board likely only had the equipment to read the data from plugging it to the DFDR’s external data connector, which likely was damaged. The NTSB is capable of entirely disassembling the unit as thoroughly as needed, up to and including each memory chip, possibly even repairing damage to the chip’s pins, all this without risking damaging the data. They work extremely meticulously and have trained experts of this kind of forensic operation. Likely only a matter of weeks.
That comment is of a much higher quality than typical internet comments. Good to see people sharing knowledge and in a clear way too.
They will have to put the hard drive on the PS5 and see if the game plays 😊
1:52 There is ZERO chance that despite complying with standards, that any mound like that plane-destroying-bunker will be left in place after 2025
@@archive.garage
Exactly . and that is the ultimate litmus test on whether that was originally done correctly …or not.
Not only that, but EVERY runway must have a soft overrun area to slow the plane down.
Wanna bet?
Even if pilots made mistakes, the people did not die from the landing, they died from hitting a concrete wall that was placed directly in line with the runway... A ticking timebomb! A accident waiting to happen, and likely to happen again if they don't remove it.
@@shareman1727 All fatal plane crashes have a chain of events. Yes the wall should have not been there which we all agree with but what were the pilots responsibility and did they make errors like forget to lower gears and he was on final approach when bird strike happened. Why didn't he just fly straight in and did ATC contribute to the crash.
But if the pilots didn’t make the mistakes they did and responded appropriately they wouldn’t be in that position to hit the wall in the first place? They landed midway down the runway in the opposite direction, that’s like if they had missed the runway altogether and it was a hotel or an air controller tower that they landed right in front instead, you’d blame that building being there, but because of pilot error they ended up there with no margin.
But yes, it is a series of critical errors. Without the wall, the pilots failing to follow procedures would have still escaped the critical situation that the pilot put them in, but without the pilots failures they would not have been in that critical situation in the first place because a bird strike or even engine failure is completely survivable and one of the basics of pilot training - if only they followed any of the protocols 😢
At the very high speed the aircraft was at the end of the runway, especially with a belly landing making the aircraft much more prone to sliding, an EMAS or slowing area would hardly have made any difference.
The aircraft would have crashed against the concrete perimeter wall behind the ILS berth anyway. It was really a very high speed runway overrun.
And if not the perimeter then the next "target" was a highway. And even if it somehow passed through that without colliding with a car then possibly the adjoining residential area. As you say, that aircraft had a heap of energy.
That was a single brick wall. That would have given way far easier than the earth reinforced concrete wall to be fair.
Even if EMAS hardly would have made a difference, it might have made some difference and saved a few more lives versus having a paved overrun. A paved overrun right before a concrete barricade is an accident waiting to happen.
The perimeter wall is better described as cinder block, i.e. lightweight foamed concrete, with brick piers. Quite frangible, although at the speed the plane would have been going without the ILS berm, it may have been enough to ignite the fuel.
How do you know it would not make any difference???
1:53 If the berm complies with international standards, the people responsible for the international standards need to be put on trial for this accident.
they would've died anyway, did you think the plane was heading to land safely anywhere?
@@MetalDude-s1c No. Beyond the berm was a far less robust wall made of breeze blocks, then a small road, then an empty area of ground. Likely many more would have survived.
He never said the word "Concrete" a material that will obliterate any type of aircraft if both collided.
Horrible situation. My heart goes out to friend and family
Why are they not going after the person who authorized the construction of the WALL?
Because It complies with airport international standards? In another words, it's not at fault?
This is like blaming the house owner that a drunk driving accident crash into.
Just stop and think , Jesus christ.
First, it's NOT a WALL. Second, as the above reply stated, it was in compliance with international standards and requirements. Obviously those will probably be reviewed carefully going forward, but its going to be hard to legally go after somebody, if all the requirements were followed.
@@mautre yes that is not wall but reinforced concrete berm. Do you know different wall & concrete dont you? th-cam.com/video/vFHniLWVZ-I/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DERwePlwMU7HLwDL
There are other airports with even worse situations. Airports where you basically fall off a cliff in case of an overrun. Of course they should change the rule because there is no reason for a concrete structure.
I Heard it was the military, that’s why.
This structure to be compliant with international standards is simply wrong!
Time to learn from this and most likely update those airport regulations
Lesson 1
Stop employing incompatent pilots!
@@johnnyrocket80085 did you see the video of the landing? As an expert called it: near perfect for a plane in the condition it probably was. Nice and straight on the runway and then there was that wall.
Wonder if air traffic control informed him of that.
@@flemlion13sorry to say sir/captain...it is not perfect landing with no landing gear and flaps...although belly landing let say cannot manually extend landing gear due to technical problem...lock maybe...suppose to be the pilot low the speed below 30 knot and why touch the ground half runaway not at the beginning....the plane is out of control suddenly it skip from runaway and hit the wall structure...due to high speed..
@@SitiAishah-n5f you missed 'with the plane in the state it was'. Of course it was not a perfect landing, it was an EMERGENCY landing
@@flemlion13the landing gear has back up hydraulics and manual override. It’s inconceivable that a bird strike could have caused this. The likely case is that the pilots forgot to lower the landing gear and flaps. Bird strikes might have taken out one engine but planes are flyable with the remaining engine and pilots are trained for such scenarios.
Every experienced aviation professional I’ve heard so far… every.single.one …has declared that there is zero reason for that berm to be built. ie the ILS localizer, can simply be mounted flush with the ground, and with the aerials simply designed to break away easily if impacted.
The big question : What is this gentleman’s agenda for trying to defend that big ol’ berm???
It can be mounted higher if wanted but some other airports have them on easily broken mounts so they would cause little damage to any airplane in the event it hit them. This mount was a cheap way of raising them…. Cheaping out usually ends up costing more in the end
@
Not sure what you are suggesting?? Is the safety of passengers really a decision factor in ‘cheaping out’ or not?
He put it there
@@pushslice clearly it was
@@E2theWHY indeed that seems to be the only reasonable explanation 🤷
Video footage shows a flock of birds almost the size of the plane in thousands fly around the plane minutes before mayday call.
It doesn’t matter if it “complies” with international standards. This Airport opened for international travel like 2 months ago. Clearly the design of the overrun section is faulty. There should never, ever be a solid obstacle at the end of the overrun section of the runway. That’s what accidents are. A runway should have a completely clear way. The localizer antennas could be on a raised metal platform so that if a plane hits them, it can knock them down and continue past the localizers until it comes to a safe stop.
"There should never, ever be a solide obstacle" ??? How far after the end of the runway ? The antennas were 250-300m after the runway, almost at the end of the airport area. And yes, it is legal to have something at that distance after the end of the runway. But the plane was so fast that it took only 2 seconds to collide with the antennas. Even if the antennas were 1km after the end of the runway, the plane would have crashed into it.
@@sassenachaline It is 140m, which is short of the 150m, and is not recorded as a solid obstacle. For reference, the minimum recommended is 390m, and if they can't reach 390m then they should install special material which slows planes in case of overruns.
This "expert" have been paid to protect the Airport managers. He was VERY cautious to NOT TO MENTION THE CONCRETE MOUND THAT WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!!! THE ANTENNAS COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY POLES!!
did you watch the video or are you deaf as your name implies?
And do you think the runway & RESA are supposed to just go on forever??? You think every airport has endless empty cleared flatlands around them??? 🙄🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
There is nothing new in this report we don't already know.
Pilot error poor judgement.
Got it in ONE.
So far, there’ve been 7 aviation accidents since Dec 29, what’s going on?
Smaller ones get reported more after big ones because the ratings for a news item on a smaller incident are higher if it is soon after a major event.
Just like a small barge hitting a small bridge (causing not much damage) in the US got a lot more news coverage than it otherwise would have got, because a few days previous a large ship destroyed a bridge. The viewers tend not to be aware that those small incidents happen all the time and only make local news, so they mistakenly think that there has been a sudden increase in incidents rather than an increase in media coverage of incidents.
Go look at an aviation discussion forum, and see how many incidents are listed there that did not make major news items worldwide.
ICAO Doc 9157 (Aerodrome Design Manual), Part 6 states that structures in critical areas (such as ILS localizers) must:
Be frangible and designed to minimize damage on impact.
Not exceed necessary dimensions for their function.
If a truck has a brake failure, it has still a chance to stop as long as there is a space to run in. For planes, is that impossible??? Flying is so so dangerous though.
If the truck has brake failure on the interstate it has a lot of room to keep going and even try engine braking cos the wheels are in contact with the ground. If it has brake failure in a car park, it only has the length of the carpark.
Airports have boundaries, you run out of runway then not long afterwards, the perimeter fence (or in this case a perimeter wall, just 200ft past that berm that the plane actually hit)
Also, there's another difference. A fast moving truck is not generating huge amounts of lift, so most of the truck's weight is still on the ground. With the plane, going as fast as this was, a lot of the weight will be held by the wings, which means less friction with the ground.
I believe this Jeju Air jet is the first plane to overrun on the runway at Muan airport while making a gear-up landing.
The aircraft changed course from a stable straight in landing Runway 01 to a go around then tear drop severe turn (unstable) to land reverse direction Runway 19 almost halfway down at a high aerodynamic speed without any aerodynamic braking (flaps, land ing gear etc) then belly landing that appeared to be well controlled Slight nose up (AoA) but on a low friction mu metal / hard standing and small fuselage / egine nacelles footprint. I did not see any rudder deflection so was it really a single engine (port) or both still powering or both shut down ( but no ac stall). So why the sudden manouevre when surely the two experienced pilots were aware of the ILS raised embankment location. This is the critical stage of the accident that assumes a no-time decision / panic or confusion by smoking (air condition) within the cockpit. Could be another Kegworth.
They should of landed normal instead of trying to be fancy
@@Emolga6274 That's exactly my point changing from a straight in stable ac condition to a high risk teadrop unstable condtion also had a stall risk. Its the root cause that we are chasing. The ILS embankment was an avoidable obstruction when on RW19 approach ie full length landing with flaps slats etc down and out and UC down.
Flaps, landing gear etc are dynamic braking. You could argue that by keeping the nose raised (that’s aerodynamic braking) the wings would still be producing lift and the aircraft never settled firmly onto the ground thus reducing any friction braking.
@@rodblievers620 Wing Flaps slats etc are aerodynamic braking as they change the aerodynamic loading ie drag and lift and reduce kinetic energy whereas wheel braking and reverse thrust on the ground are dynamic braking that affects ground speed (kinetic energy). The wings and any +ve airframe protrusion and flying controls continue to produce lift if at a +ve AoA and the ac aerodynamic speed is exceeded. I do not know the aerodynamic speed of the 737-800. But one ac I spent 12 years on had servo tab operated flying controls; its aerodynamic speed was notionally (ambient conditions dependent) of 70 mph as noted on take off when the flying controls rose to neutral from a damped condition. Contact with the ground light or heavy is slowed by friction (mu) between the two surfaces. My point was that the aircraft speed after belly landing hardly reduced till leaving the runway onto a different surface and hence friction effect was minimal.
SPOT ON.
Solid reporting and educational responses.
why would they decode the black box recording for three years? I mean what do they need to do for 1000 days every day technically?
We're still waiting for the final report of the China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 crash from 21/3/2022
Yea everyone is pretty curious, though the flight data recorder had some issues and was to be sent to NTSB in Washington to get that data downloaded but the CVR has been analyzed, at least preliminarily.
THANKS!
Ma, se i piloti pensavano di fare un atterraggio pensando che fosse di terra il muro di cemento?
I (for one) will be extremely surprised if there was any time available to that crew to have considered the nature of the structure supporting the localiser antenna… they’re very busy just keeping their aircraft airborne! (Far more likely they did not give it any thought at all!)
Aviate… navigate… communicate…
It would appear they would have been devoting almost all their thought and energy to getting the aircraft on the ground - for reasons that are still unclear to all of us.
*The tragic plane crash of Jeju Air (South Korea) should be included in pilot training curriculum. Why didn't the captain ask air traffic control for permission to land the plane in the second time "by belly landing"?*
the airport complied with international standards for migratory bird habitats
but an upgrade to international airport
does not equal
to be in line with international standards
They were talking about the international standards and requirements for the clearance distance and placement of the ILS berm.
All airlines are subject to accidents too. Need this expert
Is there a possibility that the cockpit recorder transcripts can be manipulated?
Do airports have an emergency runway with a cable catching system like aircraft carriers use or something like it to help slow down the aircraft?
No.
All the "experts" in the TH-cam comments are hilarious - kindly shut the hell up.
I'm not an expert but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn. They hit birds, lost an engine, panicked, idled back or turned the wrong engine off, and had no time to set up the aircraft for the second landing. Very rare but it happens.
😂 I know everyone is an expert and 9/10 are full of shite just writing a fluffed up version of a comment they have read in the same thread. I would love to know how many of the comments that start with the good old credential flex stating that they are a pilot actually count sim flying as clout? I've actually clocked up a few hrs feeding my kids with a spoon full of baby food.
This guy dodges the question: WHY use concrete to raise the localizer.
How could he possibly have an answer to that question? He wasn't involved in building it.
I can think of a half-dozen legitimate reasons.
The transcript isn’t going to be good seconds from hitting that wall 😔
its a possibility that the captains windshield outer pane was shattered causing loss of vision
Ha Ha his brain had gone out the window lol
my theory that they were attempting another go around after they realized they touched down with no gear. maybe the thrust reverser wasn't deployed, just the cowling got pulled back while skidding along the ground. that would explain the high speed and not slowing down, but they couldn't get quite enough power to lift off again.
Could it be any more robotic than the way this Singaporean "journalist" was programmed to ask her questions??
If the localizer has to be raised, why a berm? Why not material designed to not blow up a plane? Why didn’t the overrun area have the EMAS system? If this is internationally approved it’s insane. Bad CRM will be the ultimate result.
The plane Blue the wall ffs .
I think he’s wrong. Another pilot said whatever the localizer is built on, by law has to be frangible (easily broken).
HE had not got the wheels down to BREAK it lol
They didn’t put down the landing gear.
I live 11km from an international airport and the wheels are down before they get to me.
This plane was near the airport and the bird strike happened there.
Landing gear wasn’t down.
Total pilot incompetences.
They could have avoided the crash had they not been so stupid.
My take, I’m not wrong.
Geoffrey Thomas is a good guest for this topic.
Geoffrey Thomas is not an expert he’s a baggage collector
Is that an appropriate actual landing place for airplanes if it is why is there a wall???
tell us of more airports that comply with international standards in that way so we can AVOID THEM!
There are quite a few in the USA as well
I really wonder why the aircraft went straight into the concrete?
I do not see any attempts from the cockpit to avoid the concrete at all in the last few seconds. I don’t want to say it’s intentional. But for someone who can see the big wall coming to collide at high speed, as a pilot I would attempt any measures to just to avoid the wall. But in this case, it’s straight into the wall. The pilot did know its gonna explode and I wonder why he didn’t attempt to steer out. I am sorry to say that.
The landing gear was not down whhen the plane landed. The real question, in my opinion, is why they were not able to deploy the landing gear. But even then, I don't think it's really possible for an airliner to turn at that speed even with the gear down when landing without something going horribly wrong. I'm not a pilot or "expert", just my thoughts.
He was live from 'a picture of BKK Suvarnhabhumi Airport' not Perth.
One can always set a background image for a video call.
@@teeviibox Yes, if I was live on the TV from , say, Australia, I would have an image of Perth, not from a different country.
Why in the world would you pave the overrun area of the runway instead of making it of material that would slow the plane down, especially if you’re gonna put a massive concrete barricade right after that?
Even the most high tech EMAS systems would not have been effective at that speed.
Keep in mind that 2 people survived this crash with nothing slowing the plane down. So, even if the EMAS system just slowed the plane a little more and saved, say 10 more lives, then that would have been worth it. Also, keep in mind that it’s about making things as safe as possible going forward. So, who’s to say there won’t be another plane that overshoots but at a slower speed where the EMAS will completely save the lives of everyone on that plane.
WHY would it have mattered NO WHEELS to break it ffs.
@brianwebb- 99.9% of planes landing there have wheels down. So, it the airport wasn’t very well thought out from a safety standpoint is my point.
Let us assume pilot error.. as a Rtd Training Capt. East African and Pilot Union rep at regional air accident investigations..IF not catastrophic mechanical failure.. then.. ..most likely pilot error. 2 main causes, brain switched off from hangover, fatigue, both common, or at a time when pilot/s usually in REM deep sleep. eg. JAL DC8 out of Moscow, all died. Korean 747 into Guam, all died. East African DC3, into Uganda Game Park with Duke of Edinburgh onboard, Capt cut both engines on early approach. Glided in safely... Capt grounded. New Capt on Command check Comet4c, coming from F27 turboprop, mind shut down before approach. Hangover. I failed him, he was grounded and fired. Then incompetent pilots who go into uncontrolled panic..eg Kenya Airways out of Accra, all died. This one.. we'll hear from the Black Box
WAS Pilot error ? who else could it have been? the tea boy ??.
Why was he so angry?
When K-pop dancing is more important than public safety,😂😂
haven't you seen the fans? they'd think so!
…the main reason why the Boeing plane even being landed successfully by the experience pilot on the runway, bcuz the plane landing gear & brakes system not working, the pilot can’t stop the speeding plane that’s why it crash into the concrete wall.
Why have an overrun with a mound like that at the end of it… professional negligence!
Smooth 🧠
But he didn't answer the first question
Take motor racing such as F1 or NASCAR. Following deaths, the sports made changes. You don't see concrete barriers on any corners at F1 track, they line walls with TecPro barriers. Same as NASCAR introduced Safer Barriers after Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident. Concrete walls at 90-degrees to any moving object will cause fatalities. I'd suggest the aviation regulations need updating.
They tend to get updated after things like this. They are often a compromise between recommendation and practical concerns like cost, location etc.
This one though although technically outside the minimum distance did not fit the expressed statement that all reasonable steps as far as possible should be taken to avoid such obstacles. So they should have either used a different base or raised the ground in front of it so it wasn't a 'sudden stop' . A different base would probably be cheaper and quicker, especially with considerations for water drainage etc.
It would still have hit the perimeter wall though, although a bit more forgiving, but that wall was built for defense purposes rather than aviation purposes (it has sentry posts too to repel any attack from North Korean forces).
Alright. No more blaming on the wall (or mount or berm) for being there.
Why not?
No, just the people that allowed it to be there
That's because the pilot was landing from the other end
blaming on the wall.
@@liarliar3412 i say again, what u think is the "end" of the runway is actually the beginning.
I have checked google maps and street view. I am sure that if there were no concrete walls in the way, the plane would have continued to slide and no one would have died because it is a flat area and there are almost no cars on the road.Or maybe there would be fewer deaths if the plane had hit some cars on the road, but the airport designers chose to protect cars rather than planes.
Are you delusional? So accordingly random cars on their day to day lives that have nothing to do with the plane errors, should simply be hit on the way that they should'nt be to save the plane that is landing by errors made?
Perhaps offer yourself driving by such an occurance then, to save a plane. In no way should an emergency landing protocol, hit random civilians passing by on the road car to save a plane.
They simply should have made a safer airport location in the first place, because that location is apparently also a bird habitat.
Same thing happened in Jamaica and everyone survived because there was no wall there to kill them.
@@lawrencedavidson6195 🥲Yes
@@lawrencedavidson6195 Correct! If anything, there should be lose sand that the plane can gradually sink into & slow down. Having a solid concrete wall in that location was flat-out crazy!
@@Afrocanuk Sand blowing around an airport? Do you understand how many problems that would cause?
*the knew what went wrong in the same second it happen but they think we are stupid, the pilot came from the wrong side on the other side there is no wall*
_Everyone_ can see that is what happened, what they're trying to figure out is _why_ . Multiple other things must have gone wrong.
Do you not understand that the pilot was originally lined up for runway 01? Landing on Runway19 was an emergency decision. They opted for a go around, which usually means they will circle around and go back out and try again, but something happened and they had to scrap that idea, and get on the runway ASAP, and if they could only line up for RWY19 at that point, that's what they had to do.
For all we know, they opted to go around with the one good engine, and then hit a second flock of birds, and suddenly they only have partial thrust in the remaining engine, so they aren't going to stay up in the air long enough to do the approach that they want to do.
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport.
Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency.
This is common sense.
You keep repeating the rubbish about wrong way, there IS no such thing as wrong way.
WORSE than that: he WAS on the right safe side n changed it!
According to the “737-800 Quick Reference Manual”, with the landing gears down and breaking system (reverse, breaks, spoilers) full functional, it needs 10,100 ft of runway to stop the aircraft with 0 degree flaps! Without the concrete ILS “base”, the aircraft still needs fairly long distance to stop. Can anyone guarantee the aircraft can safely stop even without the concrete structure there? If u look at the map, by extending 10,100 ft from the touch down location, it will be in the middle of the sea southern to the runway 19…
Talk about struggling to make news. Speculation
was many plane crashes at same period of times in different areas for last weeks
"The quicker the information is disseminated, the better". I see. Note that the US NTSB takes 2-3 years to publish their final accident feports. ???
Suddenly so many aviation expert appears to comment😂😂 same as covid times all become doctors 😮
I hear they actually wanted built an anti-aircraft battery there Decided otherwise due to high cost
This is real good analyst, all the other analysts ikve heard were directly blabbing about the wall, overlooking some many facts. I would like to rais a serious concern regarding these Boeing 737-max or whatever. Why the that type of plane struggles, why isn't there anything done about it. It's a widely used model, why there's no actions are taken on this regard??
These planes need to undergo an international inspection not Boeing inspection, international inspection.
This aircraft is not a 737MAX but if you're interested in knowing more about its troubles listen to the Warning Bells podcast.
This reporter is asking the dumbest questions. Singaporean journalists are just bad.
Most reporters don't know anything about aviation. It's not just this channel. At least the guest is knowledgeable. His channel on here might be interesting for you, as he's giving his explanation without journalist asking him anything.
Becos they are not real reporters ..I agree I was once asked by my late mom in the 80s ..why not take journalism ..I told her you must realize mom this is Singapore media...
Othelli is a good reporter. They prepared questions to ask experts if you were not satisfied theres other specialised channels that will satisfy your curiousity😊
At most western airports the ILS systems are just attached to posts that go into the ground so that if something hits them they will just fall away. Crazy to have the ils positioned on a concrete mound, apparently many eastern airports have the ILS on mounds that are bigger still. End of the day though that jeju air should not of been travelling at that speed off the end of the runway, no landing gear, no flaps, bonkers id say!
Hello Geoff the expert.
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport.
Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency.
This is common sense.
are you sure this team is qualified to discuss the issue and maybe start with we are sorry foe the loss
We will know sheet...
Jowls, facelift
This "expert" have been paid to protect the Airport managers. He was VERY cautious to NOT TO MENTION THE CONCRETE MOUND THAT WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!!! THE ANTENNAS COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY POLES!!
Oh, stupid up the "wall" was made for a reason it's on the airport blueprints specification it does meet regulations the reason the wall exists is that this airport is prone to flooding and typhoon damage so the reinforce wall was created to elevate protect the ILS system . Wall or no wall that jet was traveling at 181 knots their is a brick wall surrounding the airport perimeter the end result would have been exactly the same so stop your ignorant bullshit comments!
Yeah, it was also a concrete wall that killed Ayrton Senna...
No need to investigate the chain of "outlandish" and unexplainable events since the bird strike, right?????
@robbedontuesday the jet was traveling at between 155-165 knots per hour at time of impact the flight was doomed wall or no wall besides there is a perimeter brick wall just 15 meters from the Ils wall the end result would have been exactly the same!
How many planes have hit it in the past then ?? Do Tell.
Investigates the Boeing plane maintenance…
at 150 knots and no gear, the emass system acts exactly like the concrete ILS enbankment. Engines get immediately blocked in it and the fuseage receive a destructive sudden pitch down momentum.
At that speed without gear, the plane would probably have just slided on the EMAS.
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport.
Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency.
This is common sense.
@@chaddissanayake9520 OK but how far from the runway then ? 1km, 2km, 5km ? It easy to say "no concrete surrounding runway" but airport are not very extendable. Some airports don't have concrete after their runways, but forests, sea, city, etc
All respect to the victims and families but from the speed of that belly slide I would predict that the plane will still be going fast even if there was no obstruction from that concrete structure and the result will highly likely to end up in a fireball anyway.
@@chaddissanayake9520 can't do much if the pilot messes up or the aircraft is fucked, which it clearly was
I'm an expert on analyzing the experts.
It’s ALREADY KNOWN!!!! It just hasn’t been RELEASED!!!
lol who is this
So according to this expert geof, every runway needs a wall at end of it. Maybe they should start being gigantic concrete walls at end of all run ways from now on cuz geoff said it’s ok
Totally not what he said. Why are you twisting his words just because you don't like what he said? The minimum distance a hard object like that is allowed from the end of the runway is 240m. And this object was 260m from the end of the runway. He literally just told you what the regulations are and that this object complied with the _minimum_ .
He did not say it _should_ be built of concrete and it should be on a steep beam.
he also said there's a drop off in terrain... you think going full speed into a ditch would've been better for the chances of survival?
revoke AOC ! victims R.I.P.
it is clear. Only one pilot was at the controls and the other pilot was not even in the cockpit
Where did that come from? Talk about mis information.
I know that in a freeze frame we can see 1 pilot, but the plane is pretty much abeam of the camera man at that point so the other pilot may simply be obscured. Where are you getting this from?
Singapore airline using 737-800 from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur 🦋🦋
parece que a aviação não anda muito bem na foto com a galera lá de cima não, toda hora tem uma tragédia...ficam falando que os aviões estão cada vez mais modernos..seguros...blá-blá-blá..que só falta falar, tem tanta tecnologia que daqui a pouco nem vai precisar mais de piloto, mas o que temos vistos é que com todo esse progresso...toda essa tecnologia não adianta nada se não treinarem bem o homem, pois uma manobra errada tudo isso vira fumaça..escombros junto com as vidas das pessoas..te. erros primários que poderiam ser evitados com uma tripulação mais bem treinada...formada..muito triste
This airport not comply with RESA300, both of runway 01 & 19. Then obstacles should be FRANGBILITY material
That is incorrect... Please go read up on details before commenting misinformation, especially when done with grammar as atrocious as yours.
@ do you know about RESA 300? do you know obstacles in overrun area should be frangible? th-cam.com/video/fAvfSVVnxGs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=S27woC6ttLZ9qKgn
Why have a wall concret wall its not régulation
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport.
Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency.
This is common sense.
Some claim it was raised because of seasonal typhoons.
@@chaddissanayake9520 alright mr expert, what are your credentials?
To stop planes when an Idiot is flying it?
How can he say. hosting landing instrumentation on a reinforced concrete is the International (ICAO) standard?
This kind of concrete is good to make bunkers to protect from enemy fire. LOL
Sounded to me like he was saying that the standard establishes a minimum distance that hard structures should be from the runway, and this structure was about 20 metres beyond that, so it met with with _minimum_ standard.
do you have any idea what you're talking about? no
@@jimbobeire Yes, you're correct, but the numbers might be slightly off...? From what I've seen, it was quite a bit further out than the REQUIRED clearance (but a bit under the "recommended" amount, though that extra 60ish or so meters would not have made any difference here anyway).
@@mautre I agree, the difference between minimum and recommended is often lost on journalists and audiences in short snippets. Long form videos from experts tend to be better, but only people with an interest tend to watch those.
@@jimbobeire Yes, 100% right! And then the people in the comments are even far worse... But really the amount of misinformation being regurgitated, over and over again about this case, is just astounding (and frustrating)! 😓
Pilot must've thought the mound will help stop the plane, but the great wall of jeju was too strong
it was supposed to make with
fragility when it was planned. Pilots trusted that was made fragile as other air ports.
MH370 also got no answer from Malaysia what about this
Unfortunately, the pilot made very wrongful, grave and risky decision to land the plane on its belly without the landing gears! Even if the end of runway had no concrete wall or object, some of the passengers were also died instantly due to very heavy shock and impact when the plane belly hits the runway ground with an enormous force and unfortunately without the landing there was no shock absorber to cushion and absorb the very heavy impact!
However, I think the passengers that were sitting in the mid section of the plane especially in belly of the plane perhaps would be instantly died because of the very strong impact and heavy sock unfortunately!
It is very traumatic, tragic, sad and unfortunate that the passengers, the crew members and the pilots did not survived the disasterous crash!
It was No on its Belly it was still flying ?
WRONG STRUCTURES on the wall ( wrongly constructed )! Mistaken as a runway!🤜🤛
ahhhh it is so evident that starts to sound even silly.
Beautiful news gal. Just beautiful.
the kolea pilot landing on the wrong direction
there should not be any wall or concrete any surrounding landing area of an airport.
Because, a plane can overshoot from any direction in a case of an emergency.
This is common sense.
@@chaddissanayake9520 not at 150kn at the end of the runway.
It was almost like suicidal.
She is Gorgeous!!❤
Why not have two or three powerful engines mounted on the bottom transitioning from high speed horizontal flight, to vertical helicopter like flight to make landing that much safer? Vertical thrusters along with emergency parachute deployment could make commercial planes infinitely safer. Birds fly into the side mounted jets? no problem, let's just activate the vertical thrusters. I hope Elon musk would make this happen, he's the only one that can make fast and effective change like this.
See-Eye-Yay need time to cook, sarr 👨🏻🍳🍳🥘
Right so they're not assassinating rebels or foreign leaders, just killing tourists on budget airlines? At some stage you have to ask if your paranoia outweighs your common sense.