Even if bird strike, mechanical failures, pilot errors…. But the plane was on the ground without any fatalities….until it hit the damn concrete wall… if the wall wasn’t there then it would go thru the block fence wall and to open field. I bet fatalities would be less …
You don't lose Hydraulics from a bird strike the engines have no connection to the Hydraulics so why was there no flaps and no gear they hit that wall at over 150 mph when normal landing speed for a 737 is around 120 miles an hour which means they were probably closer to 200 when they first touch the pavement I mean that's just insane even with no Flaps in one engine to be trying to land at that speed
@@badmonkey2222 true but really thats no problem when you have a 2-3km runway and an extra 1 km at the end for a field you could land a plane at 380 km hour and still be ok . Most airports have an open field all that extra space would of slowed the plane down easily
The belly landing didn't kill the passengers. "Flying" full speed into that cement wall caused the plane to explode into thousands of pieces is what killed them!
That damn wall. The plane landed on the runway, sure without it's landing gear deployed but if it didn't hit the wall... that crash video was so haunting to watch
Despite the bird strike, multiple mechanical failure, the pilot landed the plane perfectly. Many would have survived had not the concrete wall been there.
The airport shouldn't be there in the first place. It is used as international airport only for 28 days. Local government that built the airport is responsible for the disaster.
Happened in Poland not long ago, hydraulic failure if I'm correct ,pilots followed check list for emergency landing,dumped fuel,communicated with ATC and the ground crew had runway foamed and ready, plane landed without its landing gears down, no casualties 🙏
From what I read hydraulic is needed to pull the landing gears up. Unlocking some latches manually are all it needs to let the landing gears fall out. Which is baffling the experts now.
@@koruspring1519 Correct you can land any plane with no engine power just by gliding 12km forward to 1km down 12/1 ideal glide rate and using the emergency wind turbine on the plane that is a small generator that used air for power , landing gear goes down with gravity and a lever
The main issue was the plane hitting a wall at the end of the runway, without that wall there is a higher chance the plane would not explode like that and there will be a lot more survivor.
Yes. And it did also mention of the concrete wall at the end of the runway. It is not the bird that cause the fire, but the crash that cause the fire that killed the 177! I’m no analyst , but it quite clear the wall is to be blamed.
@ The media’s problem is this is the propaganda. Not Jeju. Jeju is a different area. And, the airport's name is Muan. Not the 100% flight company’s problem. They are hiding because SK mf propaganda media keep updating and blaming Jeju Flight Company. The truth is Muan Airport’s. Before the airport, already many professionals disagreed about the airport, and the left(Close to China) party politicians pushed to build and open it for their vote. After they built, they didn’t manage well, so the problem happened. For that reason, they didn’t prepare well, and Bird Strikes was also not just an accident. Because they never had a good design for the airport. Just because they wanted the votes so pushed. We need to make sure of the whole situation.
@@kasperoon The media’s problem is this is the propaganda. Not Jeju. Jeju is a different area. And, the airport's name is Muan. Not the 100% flight company’s problem. They are hiding because SK mf propaganda media keep updating and blaming Jeju Flight Company. The truth is Muan Airport’s. Before the airport, already many professionals disagreed about the airport, and the left(Close to China) party politicians pushed to build and open it for their vote. After they built, they didn’t manage well, so the problem happened. For that reason, they didn’t prepare well, and Bird Strikes was also not just an accident. Because they never had a good design for the airport. Just because they wanted the votes so pushed. We need to make sure of the whole situation.
@@kasperoon The left party of South Korea, they are the same line as North Korea and China. And, they are using the Jeju Island name and keep deleting their area called Muan. Because the professionals already warned many times, they opened it hurry because of the vote.
Hitting that wall at over 150 miles per hour did not help either the normal landing speed for a 737 is around 120 miles an hour and that's when it first touches down not at the end of the runway so they were probably going close to 200 when they first touch the pavement over halfway down the runway with no flaps
SEOUL, Dec 30 (Reuters) - A Jeju Air passenger jet that departed Gimpo Airport in Seoul for Jeju on Monday experienced an unidentified landing-gear issue after takeoff and returned to Gimpo where it landed safely, Yonhap news reported, citing an unnamed source.
No reinforced concrete wall built across the end of the Runway then everybody on that flight would be alive right now. This would normally be a metal structure supporting the antennas and sand sand sand in the runoff area after it. I have seen military aircraft overrun and burst through metal hinged crash gates at the end of the runway many times - its why they are there!
You should probably rephrase that the bird strike was not the cause of the accident it was the cause of the loss of the right engine you don't lose Hydraulics from a bird strike the hydraulic system on these Jets is completely redundant also they hit that wall at over 150 mph normal landing speed for a 737 is around 1:20 to 1:30 ground effect floated it halfway down the runway no flaps no gear you could see the right thrust reverser had been deployed but was it deployed as a result of the bird strike because that could be a major issue butt the main question is why were they going so fast?
bollocks. there are over 20000 bird strikes a year in the states alone. the planes are MADE TO FLY RIGHT ON. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR NO LANDING GEAR?!?!??!??!??!?
Can anybody tell if a plane loose both engines ,flaps and landing gear won't work? There were senarios when a plane lost both engines but flaps and landing gear were functional and they landed. Landing gear could work manually but flaps? Some says the pilot panicked and in the panic first they tried to land but sooner realized that it won't work so they were going for a go around, let's say if they panicked they forgot landing gear but flaps, undercarriage etc.. really confused.. my deepest condolences for those who lost their loved ones..
let me just ask this. IF the wheels are down the plane is going to overshot the runway anyway becos the flaps and reverse thrust are not fully functioning and still hit the "small hill" and possible explode too. SO what is similar in this scenario? The small hill right? IF the "hill" is not there the plane can come to its own stop without explosion with wheels or not.
I think the airport ceo owned thr land infrint of thr runway and didn’t want any plane to mess with the soil , so he built a wall . These ceo care about land , not people
It appears the thrust reversers are deployed. Would this have been done knowing that the engines were non-functional after a bird strike? If they were still producing thrust then why no flaps, spoilers or landing gear? Captain Sullenberger please weigh in on this crash. After doing a very rough calculation of the time it took for the plane to travel its length (180FT) I came up with an impact speed of around 147 mph. If this plane touched down at the recommended speed of 180 mph airspeed it should not have had this velocity after even 1000 ft of travel. It raises so many questions.
Why Boeing? The landing gear has a manual release, which is entirely mechanical. It’s extremely unlikely that the landing gear could fail, especially since the aircraft seemingly still had the mechanical redundancy for the control surfaces. It’s more likely that the landing itself was a case of pilot error. More importantly however, is the airport design. This plane landed quite well. Boeings, and commercial airliners in general, are designed to withstand a belly landing if necessary. What they obviously can’t withstand, however, is a giant concrete wall. Blame whatever genius put a concrete wall 200m from the end of a runway.
I machined aerospace parts for Goodrich back in the 90's. And if I remember correctly, hydrolic hoses go through the wings. If the bird strike damaged the engine, then in turn, the engine could have damaged the wing. If so, then they couldn't control the plane. Those pilots flew that plane, just ran out of runway. 🙏
As with most Asian cultures with the TOP DOWN APPROACH, I suspect that people or designers in the industry KNOWS that the reinforced wall shouldn’t be there. HOWEVER, even if One were to notice the dangers and raise the issue up. If It’s gonna COST MONEY, the higher ups are not willing to spluge on something that they view as “unlikely to happen”. That is, until someone pays for it dearly with their lives and ONLY THEN, will they be willing to make drastic safety changes.
This is a typical 'Swiss cheese' accident, a number of issues prior to landing that contributed to the disaster Engine/compressor stall - on first approach - why did they not continue to land? Rushed approach to land on the opposite runway - why change runways? Unstable approach, too fast, no gear, no flaps, a bird strike would not have caused all these to fail? Way too fast a landing and ground effect float (estimated 200 mph landing) ? What is South Koreas policy on runway Runway End Safety Area (RESA), Stopway clearway? Is it ICAO compliant, was the structure 'deleathalised'? The final 'hole in the cheese' was the ILS localiser structure Flight crew error? Was the Airport Certificated to ICAO SARPs? Tragic accident that could have been avoided at a number of points before the final impact
I feel that 2 engines got struck by birds causing it to malfunction and reduced its thrust. Unable to power the integrated drive generators and Engine driven pumps for system A and B hydraulics. System B pressurize Flaps and slats, stand by pumps 115V to pressurize hydraulics for flaps and slats was also inoperative due to lack of 115V supplies from both engines. Unable to apply speed brakes (spoilers and flaps) , the pilots decided to glide. Using manual gear extention will cause more speed during landing with the lack of breaks (using hydraulics) . Knowing there will be limited runway length, pilots opted to use friction thru belly landing. Unfortunately , a concrete barrier ended the pilots effort for a safe stop.
The vertical stabilizer is set for takeoff (visible in video), holding the nose high, and providing lift. The opposite would have pushed the nose downward and created more friction and stopping power. There spears to be no bleed-off of speed, but rather acceleration from the cockpit.
its possible as soon as they landed they saw the Wall up ahead and tried to do a go around but was too late
13 วันที่ผ่านมา
The primar cause of death is a plane coliding the massive wall. That is it. Pilot successfuly made that plane slide on runway, and with no such obstacles it could continue to slide decelerate and had much more chances to if not stay intact, but the outcome could be much more dramatic and tragic. Persons who decided that the errection of the solid obstacle on the end of the runway is ok - are definitely guilty. If only pilots knew... at least ATC could inform that at the end is a bloody wall, pilots would never decide to land on that runway - at least next to it, on a grass. And a major issue in global aviation is that criteras for pilots are decreased - with a proper discipline, pilots would never shut down the wrong engine would never make such fast approach with such reserve of speed and flaps for the final... same as in Hudson wonder, pilot should be able to improvise if the situation is super unusual.
@@stephanieadams3747 SK as a country certainly has a good safety record, i agree. But it doesnt seem that this dude on screen was even referring to South Korea
foxtrot oscar with that sully story...reading from the tiny hat news script...and sully never applied normal stanadrd ops upon close examination..he also shut down wrong engine..the engines were fine..
Bird strike seems to be the immediate excuse..the same thing was said about the Azerbaijan planet that crashed earlier this week, when in fact it was a missile..I find that it would be interesting to know about the Air Jeju's pilot and co-pilot backgrounds...something about the landing was off, it was attempting a second landing, no gear, high speed...the same plane had a Mayday issue a few days ago in China...yet, nothing has been mentioned yet about this on the media.
The bird strike caused the mayday, and the emergency landing. The bird strike, as footage appears to show, disabled the right engine, and possibly some hydraulic function. I don’t understand the pilots not using the mechanical redundancy system for the landing gear, or why somebody put a concrete embankment, and the ILS, 200m from the runway end. There was a bird strike, but the bird strike didn’t kill people, and neither did the flaps up belly landing. The inexplicably placed wall did.
Even if bird strike, mechanical failures, pilot errors…. But the plane was on the ground without any fatalities….until it hit the damn concrete wall… if the wall wasn’t there then it would go thru the block fence wall and to open field. I bet fatalities would be less …
innocent concrete wall was minding its own business..
True
You don't lose Hydraulics from a bird strike the engines have no connection to the Hydraulics so why was there no flaps and no gear they hit that wall at over 150 mph when normal landing speed for a 737 is around 120 miles an hour which means they were probably closer to 200 when they first touch the pavement I mean that's just insane even with no Flaps in one engine to be trying to land at that speed
@@badmonkey2222 true but really thats no problem when you have a 2-3km runway and an extra 1 km at the end for a field you could land a plane at 380 km hour and still be ok . Most airports have an open field all that extra space would of slowed the plane down easily
@@paulgifis1908 reinforced concete wall mind you
The belly landing didn't kill the passengers. "Flying" full speed into that cement wall caused the plane to explode into thousands of pieces is what killed them!
That damn wall. The plane landed on the runway, sure without it's landing gear deployed but if it didn't hit the wall... that crash video was so haunting to watch
Poor wall. Crashed and shattered to pieces while sitting there peacefully since it was born.
From being A Retired Pilot I believe PILOT ERROR was Responsible!
I know pilot didn't read "No tresspassing" sign on concrete wall.
Despite the bird strike, multiple mechanical failure, the pilot landed the plane perfectly. Many would have survived had not the concrete wall been there.
Exactly...💯💯💯....
Poor wall. The experts are saying you crashed into the plane.
The airport shouldn't be there in the first place. It is used as international airport only for 28 days. Local government that built the airport is responsible for the disaster.
true 100%
Happened in Poland not long ago, hydraulic failure if I'm correct ,pilots followed check list for emergency landing,dumped fuel,communicated with ATC and the ground crew had runway foamed and ready, plane landed without its landing gears down, no casualties 🙏
From what I read hydraulic is needed to pull the landing gears up. Unlocking some latches manually are all it needs to let the landing gears fall out. Which is baffling the experts now.
@@koruspring1519 Correct you can land any plane with no engine power just by gliding 12km forward to 1km down 12/1 ideal glide rate and using the emergency wind turbine on the plane that is a small generator that used air for power , landing gear goes down with gravity and a lever
The Jeju Boeing 737-800 had no fuel dump system installed, it was a 15 year old craft.
The main issue was the plane hitting a wall at the end of the runway, without that wall there is a higher chance the plane would not explode like that and there will be a lot more survivor.
I think we can all agree there are multiple issues here
The "Wall": Without that plane, I would still be in one piece.
Bird strike, bird strike, bird strike!?! Not a word. about the ridiculous wall at the end of the runway.
SKY News: “Analysis: South Korea airport design was ‘unbelievably awful’ “
Yes. And it did also mention of the concrete wall at the end of the runway. It is not the bird that cause the fire, but the crash that cause the fire that killed the 177!
I’m no analyst , but it quite clear the wall is to be blamed.
@
The media’s problem is this is the propaganda. Not Jeju.
Jeju is a different area.
And, the airport's name is Muan.
Not the 100% flight company’s problem.
They are hiding because SK mf propaganda media keep updating and blaming Jeju Flight Company.
The truth is Muan Airport’s.
Before the airport, already many professionals disagreed about the airport, and the left(Close to China) party politicians pushed to build and open it for their vote.
After they built, they didn’t manage well, so the problem happened.
For that reason, they didn’t prepare well, and Bird Strikes was also not just an accident.
Because they never had a good design for the airport.
Just because they wanted the votes so pushed.
We need to make sure of the whole situation.
@@kasperoon
The media’s problem is this is the propaganda. Not Jeju.
Jeju is a different area.
And, the airport's name is Muan.
Not the 100% flight company’s problem.
They are hiding because SK mf propaganda media keep updating and blaming Jeju Flight Company.
The truth is Muan Airport’s.
Before the airport, already many professionals disagreed about the airport, and the left(Close to China) party politicians pushed to build and open it for their vote.
After they built, they didn’t manage well, so the problem happened.
For that reason, they didn’t prepare well, and Bird Strikes was also not just an accident.
Because they never had a good design for the airport.
Just because they wanted the votes so pushed.
We need to make sure of the whole situation.
@@kasperoon
EXACTLY TELL YOU ‘JEJU’ is a propaganda word.
@@kasperoon
The left party of South Korea, they are the same line as North Korea and China. And, they are using the Jeju Island name and keep deleting their area called Muan.
Because the professionals already warned many times, they opened it hurry because of the vote.
The plane was landed perfectly. Everyone is already saying it the comments - why was there a wall at the end of the runway?
Investigating the physics of one soft object impacting a very hard object.
The wall should get removed
But why that damn wall at the end of the runaway?!
Are they crazy?!
The "Wall": Why makes me the scapegoat. I have been sitting there minding my own business for ages and now I am crashed.
The airport barrier structure at the end of the runway killed them!
Hitting that wall at over 150 miles per hour did not help either the normal landing speed for a 737 is around 120 miles an hour and that's when it first touches down not at the end of the runway so they were probably going close to 200 when they first touch the pavement over halfway down the runway with no flaps
Are you one of the investigators? Tell me more.
@@ninakhan3803 Are u Korean? Why do mainstream media in Korea not telling the truth?
@@badmonkey2222 U can see many videos that the wall destroyed it
All the other TV stations warned the violent graphic but CNA showed the whole explosion without warning.
Good . I hate censorship
SEOUL, Dec 30 (Reuters) - A Jeju Air passenger jet that departed Gimpo Airport in Seoul for Jeju on Monday experienced an unidentified landing-gear issue after takeoff and returned to Gimpo where it landed safely, Yonhap news reported, citing an unnamed source.
The wall is involved
also gravity at fault
It was. That's why it was shattered to pieces by the plane for reasons unknown still.
No reinforced concrete wall built across the end of the Runway then everybody on that flight would be alive right now. This would normally be a metal structure supporting the antennas and sand sand sand in the runoff area after it. I have seen military aircraft overrun and burst through metal hinged crash gates at the end of the runway many times - its why they are there!
If ONLY there was NO other problems before the "wall" was shattered to pieces.
You should probably rephrase that the bird strike was not the cause of the accident it was the cause of the loss of the right engine you don't lose Hydraulics from a bird strike the hydraulic system on these Jets is completely redundant also they hit that wall at over 150 mph normal landing speed for a 737 is around 1:20 to 1:30 ground effect floated it halfway down the runway no flaps no gear you could see the right thrust reverser had been deployed but was it deployed as a result of the bird strike because that could be a major issue butt the main question is why were they going so fast?
…if only the landing gear is working properly, there will be no accident.
That wall makes me sick. Which genius did it? We need a name.
Someone needs to explain why theres a wall at the end of the runway
bollocks. there are over 20000 bird strikes a year in the states alone. the planes are MADE TO FLY RIGHT ON.
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR NO LANDING GEAR?!?!??!??!??!?
Bad piloting and poor airport design all contributed to this disaster. It is never just one factor that could create this tragedy
Can anybody tell if a plane loose both engines ,flaps and landing gear won't work? There were senarios when a plane lost both engines but flaps and landing gear were functional and they landed. Landing gear could work manually but flaps? Some says the pilot panicked and in the panic first they tried to land but sooner realized that it won't work so they were going for a go around, let's say if they panicked they forgot landing gear but flaps, undercarriage etc.. really confused.. my deepest condolences for those who lost their loved ones..
let me just ask this. IF the wheels are down the plane is going to overshot the runway anyway becos the flaps and reverse thrust are not fully functioning and still hit the "small hill" and possible explode too. SO what is similar in this scenario? The small hill right? IF the "hill" is not there the plane can come to its own stop without explosion with wheels or not.
I think the airport ceo owned thr land infrint of thr runway and didn’t want any plane to mess with the soil , so he built a wall . These ceo care about land , not people
Poor bird all the time get blame
179
Runway extension with a Wall…. What could go wrong….
It was flying, not landing
A birdstike in one engine could never shutdown all the aircraft electrics. This guy is no expert.
The wall hitting did the most damage. If it were me I would not put a wall at the end of a runway. But hey, that’s just me.
It appears the thrust reversers are deployed. Would this have been done knowing that the engines were non-functional after a bird strike? If they were still producing thrust then why no flaps, spoilers or landing gear? Captain Sullenberger please weigh in on this crash.
After doing a very rough calculation of the time it took for the plane to travel its length (180FT) I came up with an impact speed of around 147 mph. If this plane touched down at the recommended speed of 180 mph airspeed it should not have had this velocity after even 1000 ft of travel. It raises so many questions.
737-800
Investigates first Boeing, why the landing gear did function, & sued Boeing damages to pay those innocents victims.
Why Boeing? The landing gear has a manual release, which is entirely mechanical. It’s extremely unlikely that the landing gear could fail, especially since the aircraft seemingly still had the mechanical redundancy for the control surfaces. It’s more likely that the landing itself was a case of pilot error. More importantly however, is the airport design. This plane landed quite well. Boeings, and commercial airliners in general, are designed to withstand a belly landing if necessary. What they obviously can’t withstand, however, is a giant concrete wall. Blame whatever genius put a concrete wall 200m from the end of a runway.
I machined aerospace parts for Goodrich back in the 90's. And if I remember correctly, hydrolic hoses go through the wings. If the bird strike damaged the engine, then in turn, the engine could have damaged the wing. If so, then they couldn't control the plane. Those pilots flew that plane, just ran out of runway. 🙏
Its not a bird strike, it's a Chinese missile
No? We literally have footage of the bird strike.
ppl say there are plalying kpop song on board when bird strike.
As with most Asian cultures with the TOP DOWN APPROACH, I suspect that people or designers in the industry KNOWS that the reinforced wall shouldn’t be there. HOWEVER, even if One were to notice the dangers and raise the issue up. If It’s gonna COST MONEY, the higher ups are not willing to spluge on something that they view as “unlikely to happen”.
That is, until someone pays for it dearly with their lives and ONLY THEN, will they be willing to make drastic safety changes.
This is a typical 'Swiss cheese' accident, a number of issues prior to landing that contributed to the disaster
Engine/compressor stall - on first approach - why did they not continue to land?
Rushed approach to land on the opposite runway - why change runways?
Unstable approach, too fast, no gear, no flaps, a bird strike would not have caused all these to fail?
Way too fast a landing and ground effect float (estimated 200 mph landing) ?
What is South Koreas policy on runway Runway End Safety Area (RESA), Stopway clearway? Is it ICAO compliant, was the structure 'deleathalised'?
The final 'hole in the cheese' was the ILS localiser structure
Flight crew error?
Was the Airport Certificated to ICAO SARPs?
Tragic accident that could have been avoided at a number of points before the final impact
Blame the Bird as always
I feel that 2 engines got struck by birds causing it to malfunction and reduced its thrust. Unable to power the integrated drive generators and Engine driven pumps for system A and B hydraulics. System B pressurize Flaps and slats, stand by pumps 115V to pressurize hydraulics for flaps and slats was also inoperative due to lack of 115V supplies from both engines. Unable to apply speed brakes (spoilers and flaps) , the pilots decided to glide. Using manual gear extention will cause more speed during landing with the lack of breaks (using hydraulics) . Knowing there will be limited runway length, pilots opted to use friction thru belly landing. Unfortunately , a concrete barrier ended the pilots effort for a safe stop.
バードストライクが翼に引っかかっていたから。
The vertical stabilizer is set for takeoff (visible in video), holding the nose high, and providing lift.
The opposite would have pushed the nose downward and created more friction and stopping power.
There spears to be no bleed-off of speed, but rather acceleration from the cockpit.
its possible as soon as they landed they saw the Wall up ahead and tried to do a go around but was too late
The primar cause of death is a plane coliding the massive wall. That is it. Pilot successfuly made that plane slide on runway, and with no such obstacles it could continue to slide decelerate and had much more chances to if not stay intact, but the outcome could be much more dramatic and tragic. Persons who decided that the errection of the solid obstacle on the end of the runway is ok - are definitely guilty. If only pilots knew... at least ATC could inform that at the end is a bloody wall, pilots would never decide to land on that runway - at least next to it, on a grass.
And a major issue in global aviation is that criteras for pilots are decreased - with a proper discipline, pilots would never shut down the wrong engine would never make such fast approach with such reserve of speed and flaps for the final... same as in Hudson wonder, pilot should be able to improvise if the situation is super unusual.
PILOT ERROR
BAD AIRPORT DESIGN
NOT THE MECHANICS.
1000000%
"Good safety record"? How do you define good, huh?
No crashes with any fatalities since 1997. That's pretty incredible!
@@stephanieadams3747 i know that. i think this fella was referring to the 737-800 having a supposedly "good safety record"
@@stephanieadams3747 SK as a country certainly has a good safety record, i agree. But it doesnt seem that this dude on screen was even referring to South Korea
foxtrot oscar with that sully story...reading from the tiny hat news script...and sully never applied normal stanadrd ops upon close examination..he also shut down wrong engine..the engines were fine..
Bird strike seems to be the immediate excuse..the same thing was said about the Azerbaijan planet that crashed earlier this week, when in fact it was a missile..I find that it would be interesting to know about the Air Jeju's pilot and co-pilot backgrounds...something about the landing was off, it was attempting a second landing, no gear, high speed...the same plane had a Mayday issue a few days ago in China...yet, nothing has been mentioned yet about this on the media.
The bird strike caused the mayday, and the emergency landing. The bird strike, as footage appears to show, disabled the right engine, and possibly some hydraulic function. I don’t understand the pilots not using the mechanical redundancy system for the landing gear, or why somebody put a concrete embankment, and the ILS, 200m from the runway end. There was a bird strike, but the bird strike didn’t kill people, and neither did the flaps up belly landing. The inexplicably placed wall did.
kolea pilot driving to fast and furious
CHANGE THE NAME.
NOT JEJU.
YES MUAN, JEON-RA-DO.
it is Muan Airport’s problem.
it' the concrete wall's fault...only in south korea that the plain landing area sorround by concrete walls..
R u guys also fake news?
May I accuse you guys? 😂
computer shut down. solution debird