I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if the CVR and FDR are disabled when both engines fail, then in my opinion that was a deliberate action by Boeing designers. It is outrageous that such a design was accepted by the FAA and this aircraft was approved for worldwide use...
@@myshamey from what I'm told, connection to the batteries was an option, like having an MCAS indication on the Max, and some airlines chose not to connect the black boxes to the battery system. I agree that the option should never have been accepted by the FAA if this is true.
I genuinely find that staggering; I thought the black boxes had an independent power supply. It is clearly going to take time to figure out what happened.
@@eliotmansfieldYou wouldn’t have to fit the battery INSIDE the protected cell would you? That they receive power through a small back-up battery seems perfectly reasonable to me too.
I suspect the Korean officials wiped it out before sending it out to the NTSB. Switching off wrong engine and forgetting to lower lamding gear implies deep cultural shortcomings across Korean aviation. Delete 4 minutes of data and avoid heads rolling, countless lawsuits, cultural changes...etc
Why? It recorded everything that shut the engines down. What else is there to record after the engines quit? You already have the main cause of the failure at that point
The one time you want black boxes to work is in an emergency. Why would they not have numerous redundancies to ensure it’s nearly impossible for them to fail?
@@rivergladesgardenrailroad8834, I understand what you’re saying, but I think the comment is misplaced. This version of the 737 hasn’t been in production for a long time and predates all of the current problems plaguing the company.
@@PhilipFly11, Boeing actually has been trying to update the 737 more than people realize but it’s two biggest customer Ryanair and Southwest Airlines are insistent that any changes to the design cannot affect its type certificate or add to the purchase price that they have been promised. And this is why those two airlines stick with Boeing, as long as Boeing can keep the aircraft within a certain percentage of the efficiency of the larger more modern airbus which it has managed to do. It can undercut that newer aircraft enough on the purchase price to offset any efficiency gains had any other way, and therefore it wouldn’t cost them more to go with airbus.
The flight data recorder should show the engine parameters up to when main power was lost. That should be enough to show the erratic readings from the engine that ingested the birds AND whether the other engine was switched off by the crew or whether they pulled the fire handle on it.
Yes, and I said on other channels, the voice recording should have conversation regarding shutting down an engine in the last seconds of the recording if the pilots actually shut down an engine. The absence of such a conversation should indicate that both engines were damaged and that it wasn’t pilot error shutting down the wrong engine.
@@stephennowlan2637Also from the exact state of the wrecked engines, it's possible to discover which one was/or not running. Possibly even (despite the fire), to find inside some remnants of biological matter, pointing that one affected by a bird.
It truly boggles the mind. I don't know of any combustion powered form of transportation that has electronics running directly off of a generator but is isolated from the battery circuit. That is right there ! It is like running your car radio off of the alternator. So your car has to be running to listen to the radio. But if you just wire it into the system, then it works all the time.
@@Toro_Da_Corsa I've been thinking hard to come up with some sort of benefit of not conecting them to battery instead of the generator... Nothing comes up
At the time, recorders were not considered critical equipment when the is a power failure. All battery power was reserved for flight control critical systems. At a later stage, a system called RIPS was introduced which brought its own, separate battery for the CVR/FDR with a requirement to provide power for minimum of ten minutes.
Hopefully a huge clue will be whether or not they pulled the throttles to idle before moving the fuel selector from idle to cutoff. I believe there will be clues as they took steps to shut down the engine - which should reveal if they were in the process ofnshutting down the wrong engine and subsequently losing the generators.
what is JeJu procedure for birdstrike or engine fail? Does it call for immediate shutdownn of engine? Do they not consult a checklist? Just start yanking levers?
@skyboy1956 there is a list of critical actions pilots must take called "memory items" for certain things. Shutting down an engine is one... BUT you have to be sure it's the proper engine - and there are call/responses for that so they avoid a mistake. The FDR will clearly show any movements of the throttle etc (dozens and dozens of things are recorded).
@ The question was "What is JeJu procedure?" Does JeJu SOP call for immediate engine shutdown actions after a birdstrike? I doubt it. When Catus 1549 hit birds, did they immediately start actioning power levers based on memory items? No. Did they secure the engines before touchdown? No. There won't be any FDR data forthcoming because the FDR shut down.
This is totally unbelievable. Why would such critical instruments not have simple backup batteries? It reminds me of the fact many boats have small GPS beacons that break free and float if the boat sinks out at sea - but commercial aircraft don't. For all the clever technology that goes into the aviation industry, sometimes it looks very slow to adapt.
Commercial aircraft have a fixed Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), portable ELT, locator beacons on both the CVR and FDR, if flying for extended periods over water they also have a fixed low frequency beacon in the nose and might also have a water deployable ELT. What more do they need?
@@declaringpond2276 Wrong. 1st: Boeing offered a battery back up for the FDR and CVR on all NG models. It was optional but FREE. 2nd: It only became mandatory to hook up the FDR and CVR to battery backups AFTER this plane was built, sold and sent on its way 3rd: Ryanair, who originally ordered and owned this aircraft, CHOSE not to have the battery backups installed. 4th: Boeing deliver aircraft to the specifications the airlines order Want to blame someone for greed? Speak to Ryanair and then Jeju for not retrofitting as was suggested in an AD years ago.
@@maltreatedpony 'They "might" have a water deployable beacon'. I understand technology is being upgraded, but it should be next to impossible for any commercial aircraft to go missing if it goes down in water. Maybe a water deployable beacon should be compulsory if flying over water?
Probably not. Because the pilots likely pulled the fire handles. Pulling the engine fire handle on a Boeing 737 engine closes fuel and air shutoff valves, trips the generator, and closes the hydraulic fluid shutoff valve. It seals the engines fate along with the data recorder, marker lights and transponder. Because they are run off the engine which is a terrible design
It's very possible the birdstrike into No.2 could have cause a failure in such a way that the generator stopped working. The heat bloom could have been from a resultant fire. It's happened before. But no bloom from No.1 suggests it was shut down. No engines, no power, unless the APU was brought online.
@@bmused55 That is impossible. The 180 turn was too beatiful for both engine to have lost thrust and hydraulic, and you can see it on landing too. The plane is simply too stable for both engines to fail.
US Air flight 1549 (Miracle on the Hudson) ingested large birds into both engines. One engine shut down completely, the other engine continued to run but at such reduced speed that the generator cut out. The reason they did not lose electrical power is because the Airbus has a ram air turbine that deployed automatically. Also the Captain started the APU which took over after about a minute. It appears to me this accident may be a duplicate of that accident except the 60 year old design doesn't have a ram air turbine and even starting the APU is a more complex procedure, so a vastly different outcome.
@Anonymous-v8s2s The B737 has cables to the control surface and can be flown "beautifully " even without hydraulics, also I speculate that they still had some hydraulic power. Unlike engine generators which have a cut-in speed (minimum engine rpm to work), the engine driven hydraulic pumps will work somewhat even if they are spinning slowly.
I think it's becoming clear the RH engine was used to get it on the ground. But the short return to a mid field landing, with no gear, left few options.
We were much too optimistic about the black boxes. Since the ADS data transmission failed shortly after the bird strike it was reasonable to think that the black boxes had a good chance of missing data as well. I haven't seen any comment on this on all the various aviation channels covering this tragedy.
Correct. Also, even the manufacturers state that it largely ineffective past approx. 70 knots, or about 80 mph, max. (Their successful tests were at speeds even lower than this).
It would be slowed though, if only by the engines digging in (if they didn't break away). Could have reduced tghe impact somewhat and who knows, maybe more survivors than 2.
@@mautre It could have slowed the aircraft done enough though, so that the impact with the concrete wall and mound was not as severe... possibly even entirely survivable.
Installing a trap of this type would surely have prompted the site engineers that there is an extremely hazardous structure at the end of the runway that very obviously should not be there
You are right. The korean gov is at it again. The pilot made serious and fetal consective mistakes and the Korean gov is trying to hide it to avoid trouble. For instance massive law suit against Jeju airline and Korean goverment losing reputation etc... Its best to conclude it to a "bird" instead of human error to save you the time and trouble, similar to MH370 where the pilot was on a suicide mission and the Malayian gov simply concluded the cause as unknown to avoid trouble.
It's not just about the recorders. Every sensor input would need to run on the same battery bus That would make for quite the harness, if you don't have enough power to drive the whole electric system.
And also, any device could fail in such a way that it saps all power from the bus it's on. So, you should be very selective about which devices are allowed onto the critical backup power supply.
As usual; trusted and informative commentary; nice link to Blancolirio and the other guy. It's now going to take a long time as the investigators examine the wreckage for whatever other clues they can find. Yep; walls need to go. Thanks for that and Be Safe 🙂
👍👍 good follow up to the Blancolirio video. As of EMAS passive braking system, it would very likely be ineffective in the Jeju airlines case for fault of having its landing gear extended. The smooth underbelly of the aircraft would have slided on the EMAS without hardly any braking. Furthermore, it was still way too fast.
This seems like an insane design. Why on earth would you ever have the black box connected up to the main power supply and not just a battery of its own. People even do this with their home PCs with a UPS but something this critical wasn't thought of? Insane
Exactly. My modem, router, all electronics are on apc batteries. The house has a generac generator which turn on automatically. Lights are off for maybe 5 seconds, but I can keep gaming. And Boeing paid for these engineers to design this garbage system!
Because the 73 is old. They are allowed to follow some old regulations, because it would cost them too much money to make new planes that are built to modern safety regulations. 2005 plane, 1985 safety.
UPS technology has been around since the 50s. No-one at Boeing in the 70s could envision the main power supply potentially going pop and providing backup to a critical part of the plane that would help massively with an investigation? If anything they could just wire in a backup battery and a switch that is activated when the mains power isn't working. I really can't understand the logic behind it
The two employees seated in the extreme rear of the aircraft survived. If the plane lost all power prior to landing on the runway without landing gear or flaps, would the surviving crew members seated in the back have been able to notice or determine if there was power in the cabin-such as lights or other systems-during this extreme emergency? I understand that the crew members do not remember the moment of impact, but if there was a lack of power inside the airplane as it touched down and glided, they may, over time, be able to help investigators determine what systems were functioning in their part of the plane. Additionally, they might recall whether they could hear the engines. I’ am no expert - only a passenger on planes , but I have several friends who are flight attendants for Alaska Airlines and fly on these planes daily. Understandably, everyone is feeling uneasy right now.
Hi Denys,,, Hi Everybody,,, Thank you for your detailed explanation of this disaster-it was incredibly clear. I’m not an expert, but after watching the bird strike video, I noticed something that caught my attention. It appears that both engines were struck by birds. If you watch the video in slow motion, you can see faint smoke coming from engine #1 just before the larger plume of smoke emerges from engine #2. Additionally, just moments before the plane disappears at the end of the video, you can see slight smoke coming from engine #1 again. Based on this, I believe engine #1 may have stalled immediately after the bird strike, preventing it from providing any further thrust. This might explain why there was no thrust from engine #1 when the plane landed. I wish I could attach pictures to this comment to highlight the moments where smoke is visible coming from engine #1 at two different points.
The person who recorded the aircraft as it flew overhead, said that he heard loud bangs from the aircraft earlier, so he came out onto the balcony and started recording. He also said that the aircraft undercarriage was extended before he started recording. The video shows that the undercarriage was retracted in the video. Hence the video shows that the aircraft is going around. Further, there were compressor stalls that were not recorded, probably in both engines. The ADS-B data suggests that the pilot had elected to ago around, with two good engines, prior to the bird strikes.
@@christopherrobinson7541 Yes - something is going on in the final minute of ADSB data. A sudden viisible drop in the steady descent rate, then a recovery to 'normal' followed by a brief but very rapid ascent rate, a 200 foot increase in altitude (with lag as you'd expect during an engine spool-up), then an equally sharp descent rate and slow decrease in altitude (as if spooled-up engine was failing or stopped). Also, ground speed increased from around 160 mph to 170 then 177 mph at the end of data. All within a minute so it does look somewhat like a go-around decision was made then, albeit not with 2 good engines IMO.
Thank you very much for the Update! It´s indeed a huge setback for the investigation. Hopefully they will figure nevertheless out what really happened here. At least the danger of the concrete wall at the end of runway 19 was recognized.
I was told that on the 737NG, connecting the black boxes to the battery was optional, and only became mandatory after a certain date. Can anyone confirm this? The 737 doesn't have a RAT like the A320. It sounds like there was a dual engine failure at 0859 which killed ADSB and the black boxes. Lots of people are suggesting that this is a deliberate deletion of data by Korean authorities, but remember that one of the black boxes went directly to the NTSB due to the damaged connectors. The data wasn't deleted - it was never recorded. 😭 Edit - according to Chris Brady's video, even the current 737 nax only has battery on the CVR as an option.
Became mandatory in 2010. And yes, FDR went straight to the NTSB, without it ever being opened, or any attempt at data retrieval, in Korea. As for the CVR, as soon as they found the missing 4 minute problem, while transcribing the rest of the data, they also immediately sent the CVR to the NTSB as well.
They were working, though earlier models may have lacked battery backups. The rest of the airplane lost all power, so it wasn't feeding it information even if the boxes had battery power.
To the investigators trying to analyze the data, whether the boxes stopped working or stopped receiving data is essentially the same thing. Either way, critical data is missing for them to analyze.
@@joefish4466 If the issue was just with the generators of the engines the aircraft still had electrical power on some equipment (not all) from the batteries. In the original design it was likely preferred to not load these batteries with the CVR and FDR with the goal to save power for more essential equipment needed to fly the aircraft. As far as I understand later upgrades added dedicated batteries for the CVR and FDR.
This bird was built before installing batteries for the FDR and CVR was MANDATORY. Boeing did offer this for the NG series for free, but up until 2010, it was optional. Ryanair, who ordered this plane, opted NOT to have the batteries installed. Blame the airlines, not Boeing.
@@bmused55 It's still not mandatory for all countries. For these countries, "RIPS" is a customer no cost option. Only later NG's and Max's had the option. Only EASA and FAA-registered aircraft are mandated to have it (N/A to EASA Third Country Operators). EASA only mandated it in 2022. It's only "recommended" for countries outside of these regulation zones.
Great idea to have the floor structure to slow and stop aircraft if it fails to stop normally , what a great idea , should be installed on all major airports. Thanks for a great report for those of us who are not pilots, very well explained.
I don't know the specs for EMAS. But it may be designed to crush at the pressures generated by a plane's landing gear (concentrates the plane's entire weight into a few tires). A plane skidding along in a no-gear landing may distribute the weight over a larger surface area, insufficient to crush the EMAS concrete. Kinda like how your feet will sink right into snow, but if you wear snowshoes you can stand on top of the snow.
The _snow shoe_ effect would be the least of this aircrafts problems with EMAS… As it went off the end of the runway at 150kts, no spoilers deployed, nose high, (resting on engines & rear of fuselage on runway) it's almost at a takeoff rotation attitude and well above takeoff speed. There's going to be very little weight on the ground. So very unlikely to crush EMAS.
Honestly, not a surprise that the flight data is missing. The broadcast of ADSB data ending 4 minutes before the crash was a clue that there may have been a loss of power to critical systems - usually that data covers the flight clear up to a crash.
I was looking for this comment. That's critical. Yes, the flight data recorder could have continued working on battery if the battery had been fitted. However it is very likely there were no data streams to record. A battery in the FDR may not have changed anything if there was a generalized loss of power to the systems to be monitored/recorded. Too some extent, people are barking at the wrong tree here. On the other hand, cockpit voice recorder battery would likely have helped a lot...
I agree. Blancolirio has clarified quite a lot regarding where the power did and didn't come from for adsb and flight recorders. I think also, smoke in the cockpit combined with engine fault annunciators, no doubt coming up, likely a reduction of thrust led to a decision to put the plane immediately on the ground without configuration or a stabilised approach.
This is the reason why newer 737s have WIPS, Wireless Independent Power Systems. Regulation changes meant they had to have backup power for 10minutes. Airlines have the option to retrofit this system. Therefor the questions is why isn’t it mandatory for airlines to install as an AD not an SB
3:20 the 737NG does not necessarily have two batteries. Standard is one battery for 30 minutes stby power. Some jurisdictions (like EASA) require 60 minutes, so a second battery is required.
Well, it was delivered to Jeju with 2 batteries. It's unlikely (but not impossible) that they may have removed the second system, though Korea's MOLIT, like the FAA, only requires 30 minutes. @@googleknowsus8184
Very good - both of you 😊 However, we could see, on touch-down, the exhaust plume from the No. 2 (Right) engine; if it was running, that No. 2 generator would have been suppling power to, almost, all busses? Still some questions remain? John. NZ 🇳🇿
you have a good point there, and i have also seen a video showing the full footage of the landing / crash and it sounds like the engine (right) is throttled up, i guess with the reverser they will increase the power of the engine, but to try to push the airflow / exhaust gas backwards. to me it seems like the left engine was turned off by accident, or for some other reason we don't know, and the ground effect caused the aircraft to float like crazy on the belly landing, then that wall was what really destroyed the aircraft. it's just one of those things, i think everyone in cockpit panic and had no time to follow checklists, and it ended up really bad situation, first thoughts are why do a go around just after you had a bird strike, they should have got the aircraft down straight away. anyway, nothing we can do about it now, damn shame this happened, i got Korean friends, wonderful people. i hope all airports in the world now change the localizer structures / end of runways construction. and Boeing change the recording black box design, so they have their own power source.
But the lack of last 4 min of cockpit voice recorder and the rapid landing of the plane seem to indicate that the plane had no engines. So i guess we going to have to wait for the full report and hope they can work out what actually happened. Plenty of hard questions already been raised about air safety by this accident already though!
Why do you assume that the the other engine was working? What if they had initial engine failure and performed a go-around then suffered a second engine failure from initial bird strike. Korean media is already alluding the fact that they had dual engine failures. Then the teardrop maneuver is exactly what you would do. Also, that could explain the lack of time to the gravity extension since captain took the right turn and FO was busy locating the runway.
You and Juan make a great couple actually 😅 Crazy how it is possible black boxes can stop recording, thinking aviation has triple systems for almost everything. Maybe this accident will finally force them to upload data to a cloud. C'mon we can do that and more, It's 2025
Yeah data can be uploaded via satellite and whatnot, but it's sold as a value-added upgrade rather than an essential safety system. Also, I don't think it checks in constantly, rather every few minutes, so it may not have helped all that much in this situation. But it sure would have helped for finding MH370!
The ADS-B data transmissions cut out at the same moment the CVR and FDR did. That's why the plane's flight path on various websites stops during its initial landing approach. Given that it, the CVR, and FDR all lost power at the same moment, the same thing likely would've happened to any equipment continuously uploading data to the cloud.
You and Juan are both great. After thinking about it this does not change the thought about continuing the landing in full drag configuration on original course. I mean the go around and belly landing was all a waste.
I believe that requirement came into effect in 2003 and this plane was built (or delivered?) in 2009. Planes that had already been ordered were grandfathered in. It’s not clear what the timeline was for this particular plane.
@@Chucanellithis was mandated by the FAA from April 2010. Also, the aircraft was delivered into an EASA operation (Ryanair) where it is required from September 2022.
Examination of the cockpit area of the wreckage in great detail is going to be required here. What switches were off or on? What were the readings on any relevent dials or indicators? This may be the only route to finding out exactly what was happening to this 737 in it's final moments.
Dan Gryder suspects the pilots pulled the fire handle for both engines (in error, in a panic perhaps) thereby shutting both engines down. But the video evidence suggests that at least the right engine was generating power (heat waves) as the plane floated halfway down the runway.
@@mostevil1082 So the engine is running, but it isn't producing meaningful thrust. One engine out entirely, one damaged. That is the simplest explanation until we get more evidence.
@@mostevil1082 True but it did seem to have veered right of center as it left the end of the runway, but only slightly i think, so maybe that was just more of a random thing due to differential friction. It all happened so fast. Maybe there is some communication with the controller that has not come to light yet? (Frankly there shouldn't be as communication is last in priority.) So tragic - like hitting a driver going the wrong way on the freeway.
Shame what happened to the 225. I see the model on your shelf. I've flown on the 124 a few times. Great channel thank you. I find it hard to believe there wasn't or isn't a UPS for the FDR and CVR.
We will have the data leading up to the power failure. If they shut down the wrong engine, the engine shut down will be the last thing on the record. Also if the engine were to come apart, we should again have the final reading as the engine was lost. We won't know what happened once the aircraft lost power, But what was happening before losing power will be highly informative. I've followed other crash investigations and the recorders generally have the final "bang" of impact as their final moment. So we should learn enough that we can prevent the initial cause. What we won't know is how to improve handling this situation afterwards.
Wouldn’t the last few seconds of the FDR still have shown some malfunction before the engine(s) failed and/or were shut down? Plus, if the starboard turbines were still turning as it appeared from the videos, would it still be generating power? Something seems fishy here. 🤔
That engine seemed to produce some thrust (and heat) on the recordings. I was thinking if it was possible that the bird ingestion destroyed for example the gearbox driving the generator or the generator itself while the compressors and turbines kept working.
@@piast99 That would make a lot of sense! There was definitely some thrust from that engine as you can clearly see the reverse thrust had been applied, but no electrical power from the generator?
Whatever happened to the plane, it’s now absolutely clear that they suffered major power issue after the bird strike. Whether it was a single engine or dual engine failure, both engine drive generators stopped functioning.
The RIPS (Recorder Independent Power Supply) provides power to the cockpit voice recorder for 10 minutes after aircraft power is interrupted either by normal shutdown or by any other loss of power. -- This is available in B737-800. However, I don't know if this is standard in ALL B737. This is taken from a B737 FCOM
@@rockman1942 The 737 still has mechanical connection between the control column in the cockpit and the control surfaces. It's not a fly by wire aircraft. You can control ailerons, elevator and rudder without any electric or hydraulic power.
@@Itsjustme-Justme if no power, they would not get hydraulic power as well to control the ailerons and elevators. Normally you would activate the APU / switching into manual reversion mode of hydraulic system. I doubt it’s quite impossible for a plane like 737 do the 180 degree turn with perfect belly landing with manual control..
@ and I don’t think you can control the rudder in this situation since it’s under standby hydraulic system.. if no power, no rudder control as well. It is extremely difficult to 180 degree turn the power losses 737 without rudder
@@rockman1942 Windmilling engines can still provide some hydraulic power. One engine running can provide some hydraulic power to the rudder. Initially, they had enough hydraulic power to retract the gear and flaps.
One thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere is what the electrical load of keeping the fdr and cvr online via battery would be. The black boxes themselves probably don't use that much electricity. But you have to power all the collection and transfer points as well.
Hmm, I wonder if EMOS would have actually helped with JuJu since it was in a gear up configuration. I would think that would reduce the surface pressure on the EMOS, since its the fuselage transferring the weight of the aircraft vs. the gear. That being said, EMOS at the end of runways would be a huge step up in safety, since most overruns are with gear down.
The underbelly might not crush as deeply as the wheels, however a far larger area of EMAS blocks are crushed - total energy dissipated may well be higher with the belly gouge. EMAS qual procedures should now look at testing this.
Excellent points. From a safety standpoint going forward, EMAS would help in a predominant amount of cases where the overruns are with gear down. And it should be studied how EMAS performs in no-gear situations. I’ve heard people dismiss that EMAS wouldn’t have made a difference here, but we don’t know that. What we don’t know is unfortunately the overrun area leading up to the barrier was paved - so that was probably about the worst set up for a no-gear overrun.
Careful analysis of the last few seconds of recorded data before the power loss will be crucial. The bird strike happened, then the crew noticed it. It took at least a second before initial action was taken, probably more. Humans don't react and reach for switches in milliseconds. Then the captain radioed to the ATC. The radio communication took a few seconds too. During that radio communication, they obviously still had power and the data recorder should have been recording. The damage caused by the bird strike should immediatelly get visible in the data readings of the damaged engine. There must have been some loss of compressor pressure, loss of rotation speed, loss of temperature or odd temperature, loss of oil pressure or something else that indicates that the engine wasn't working properly anymore. That must have happened before the crew started to react to the damage and therefore before power and data recording was lost. Video clearly shows the flaps were out in the moment of the bird strike. Eye witness confirmed the landing gear was out too. When they crashed, flaps and landing gear were up, landing gear doors were closed. You need hydraulic power for retracting flaps and landing gear and hydraulic power is generated by electric pumps. Retracting should have happened before the data recorder lost power.
The "funny" thing concerning electric power supply: the landing lights (visible in one video shortly before touch down) were visible and working. As far as I remember the landing lights are supplied by one of the AC-Busses (not the Emer-AC-Buss relaying on the inverter). If I am wrong please correct it.
Jeju would of skipped right over any EMAS imo they just had WAY to much energy. I’m sure it would of helped. The real question is way not any rudder input when they were hurling down the runway? Did they not look up? So many questions…
I am really surprised this particular aircraft even had both boxes installed. Under the current DEI conditions within Boeing, many parts are not installed or deemed superfluous.
Maybe #2 N1 failure with severe damage. Then accidental shut down of #1 engine. Hopefully the FDR has enough supporting data to determine what happened.
It’s clear to see they had no standby power or main power, also explains why they had no gear down as the bypass valve for manual extend is an electrical solenoid
So the CVR isn't considered critical? What about the APU? How were both engines taken out? That happened before the power went out or in conjunction with the outage. Did the pilots shut down a good engine or were both engines struck by birds?
A plane can fly just find without the CVR or FDR working. In fact there are planes in the air, right now, with one or both not working due to a fault. It happens. The FDR and CVR only become critical in accident investigations.
@ But if the engines are going to fail it's most likely at takeoff when bird strike probability and engine stress is maxed out. Or at landing when the engines have been running a long time and the plane approaches the ground. Meaning that the APU needs to function within a reasonable period of time at low altitude and the black box needs to function in that scenario. If there are multiple aircraft sensors indicating a problem below an altitude threshold the system should be considered critical. It is critical to understanding what happened in this situation.
LaGuardia's runways are over the water of the Long Island Sound and planes have skidded off the runway and into the water in the past. So having the pads is the different between being on dry land or being in the water. I remember when Pence's plane skidded off the runway. It was winter and poor weather conditions.
To my knowledge, the Boeing 737NG was designed prior to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) mandate requiring battery backups for the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). When the FAA implemented this requirement, it did not mandate retrofitting existing aircraft. Consequently, since the 737NG was constructed before the mandate, it lacks battery backups for the FDR and CVR. In the event of a complete loss of AC power, the aircraft’s recorders would be rendered inoperable.
The plane didn't need separate batteries. It just needed to be wired to the 2 batteries that are already in the plane. Backup batteries are only for when wires burn off or get cut. The wires on the 737 don't even exist. The data recorders aren't even wired into the planes electrical system. They are just wired directly to the generator.
@@Sergekal On this 737, correct. This bird was built before installing batteries for the FDR and CVR was MANDATORY. Boeing did offer this for the NG series for free, but up until 2010, it was optional. Ryanair, who ordered this plane, opted NOT to have the batteries installed.
Shame that we don't have the final four minutes but we should still be able to hear what they were doing before they lost power on both generators. For example, possibly shutting off the wrong engine and whatever else happened on the initial approach.
The more you dig-in the more it becomes apparent that they shut down the wrong engine. Thats why they did not spool up APU. Check fuselage and it will show if it was running or not😊
Remember that the devices feeding data into the FDR also most likely lost power, so in this case, the fact that the FDR stopped is only one symptom of a bigger problem onboard.this flight - there wound't have been any data being generated for the FDR to record. There is video of a compressor stall (eg. bird injestion on the #2 engine), but no video of compressor stall on the #1 engine, but the lack of such video still allows for the possibility that both engines actually did injest birds. We know they lost Transponder, CVR (powered by AC bus 1), FDR (powered by AC bus 2) and can infer that they lost comms radios as well, and everything else in the E&E bay. From the pilots' perspectives, Its probable that they would have lost all instruments, other than standby and panicked. We'll never now be able to understand why they chose to go around or change the aircraft's configuration, which is a missed opportunity. Maybe some sim sessions will shed some light on it. Its particularlry hard on relatives to not even have the prospect of receiving answers for the losses of their family members.
No, there is actually a lot of things (video clip, possible* still images, and multiple eyewitness reports) pointing towards engine #1 being affected as well, probably prior to #2.
@@mmmquaOK thanks - I’d not seen any visuals, other than the video. If there is other imagery showing a compressor stall in engine #1, then that’s obviously a significant factor. We do know that both AC buses #1 & #2 were lost, since both recorders stopped (although probably not at exactly the same time).
@roscozone8092 No problem! And, as far as I've seen, IF there was a compressor stall out of #1, it was right before anybody started recording, because it was the multiple very loud "bangs" and "explosions" (approx. 7+) that caused many of the eyewitnesses to come out, look up, or start recording in the first place. They have said they saw smoke & sparks out of #1, and there are images of white puffs of smoke, and some liquid out of #1, too. Then a bit later on, we see the compressor stall out of #2. (There is also one of the surviving flight attendants statement about seeing one of the engines smoking, then "exploding", but I don't believe they have confirmed for sure that was #1, at least not yet, but it seems hinted towards that way.) I believe you're right about the recorders stopping (*although there is the additional issue of them possibly not being transmitted any data to record anyway, depending on how severe this electric/power failure actually was), but it wasn't just the recorders...this also corresponds with roughly when the ADS-B stopped transmitting, and also the comms to ATC going out, seemingly right after the Mayday call. I believe we should have more exact times to the seconds, for most of these events pretty soon. *Actually, just saw you already brought up this point in your OP! 😉
@roscozone8092 You're very welcome! 🤗 I'm happy to help. I'm Korean, and got the majority of these details from Korean reports, interviews, official statements, etc., and it's a bit frustrating when I don't see a lot of the information being given out or covered by the international channels, so then a lot of people go on with wrong ideas because they only have bits and pieces or misinformation. Thanks for your interest in this terrible tragedy... I only hope we can get answers for the mourning families and their loved ones, and also for their peace. 💔🙏🕊️ It's also just really nice to see a level headed, intelligent, rational person in these comments for once. 😉
As of 2010, backup power for the recorders is mandatory. All post 2010 built 737s have it. Boeing did offer this for free, but up until 2010, it was optional. Ryanair, who ordered this plane, opted NOT to have the batteries installed.
The Engine Computer should normally be connected to some kind of Engineer/Maintenace Department of Airlines. Some major cases like engine shutdown should normally be detected by them. Anyway, great content. thank you so much for sticking with this case.
I suspect the #2 engine was running but had taken so much damage from the bird strike that it could not maintain the RPM to power the generator, the conclusion has to be that the #1 was ether not running at all due to bird strike or crew action.
ESPECIALLY when the engines aren’t working The first century of flight was thought to have fixed all the obvious problems and dangers associated with air travel, the so called ‘low hanging fruit’ as it were. But this particular tragedy highlights everything that could go wrong ... going wrong.
Or Boeing doing what they shouldn't. The 737 should have remained as it was, not mod it into the NG and MAX variants. Of course the airport did something wrong as well, and probably the pilots.
During a longer video taken from the fence line about 9 seconds after the aircraft hits the berm if you listen carefully you can you can hear 2 inches spooling down one after the other I believe the first one is the main engine and I believe the second one could be an APU. I worked on these aircraft for decades before retiring a few years ago I haven't heard anyone address the sound of engine spooling down after impact with the berm.
This crash is a complete clusterf*** 🤦♂️ Shutting down the wrong engine, forgetting to deploy the landing gear, missing data on the black boxes, non-compliant airport with concrete obstructions…
The problem with the energy absorbing material being close to the runway threshold can be an issue for planes that do a dragging take-off for whatever reason!
I had to double check but in the CRJ I fly the FDR and CVR are on the essential bus which remains powered by the ADG ram air generator if all else fails.
Denys, I wasn't sure if you were saying EMAS was more or less effective in the case of a belly landing? There would be no landing gear with concentrated pressure to penetrate the EMAS surface and get 'bogged' into the EMAS. In a gear up landing, would the engines become the contact point with the surface, and would there then still be a risk of an explosion with fuel leaks and engines embedded and dragged through the EMAS?
Question. I live close to a small airport that occasionally gets medium sized airliners. I'm far enough away that I can't hear them landing. However, I can often hear thrust reversers engaging over the distance. In the belly landing video, after the wall impact it seems you can hear the mechanical winding down of a tubine. But as it passes the person taking video just prior impact, where you can see the thrust reverser open, does it seem to you there's not the expected level of engine noise? it doesn't seem there's the roar of the reverser one would expect. Could the engines just be windmilling or at idle at this point? I'm sure people are looking at every detail but I haven't heard the sounds we heard discussed anywhere. Thank you for your insight and commentary. I appreciate your work on this difficult topic.
The engine was damaged by birds and the ground impact. It may have been applying thrust instead of reverse thrust (depending on the engine model and the damage)… assuming reverse thrust was even intended. That would help to explain two things: The sound of thrust in the runway video and what looked like sustained speed as it skidded down the runway.
@WiseWik Correct. Another explanation could be that assuming the pilots actually shut down the wrong (still functional) engine the lack of noise might be due to the damaged engine not being able to produce the amount of thrust needed to create the loud "roar".
Both engines took a bird, both engines failed, one engine took a turbine fan which completely damaged it, while other engine was only giving off minimal power
I would hope, the very least that comes out of this, is a required increase in reliability to the flight data recording systems power supplies, and removal of all obstructions (or made safely collapsible) at the end of runways, along with adding safe emergency stopping material like suggested in the video.
NTSB should look at the engines ECU which have a NonVolatileMemory to collect and use A/C data . Depending of the vintage of the engines , they may have some interesting data to look at. For example if the engine has been commanded Off and when. There are ways to get some data even from an old aircraft like this 737NG.
In the video showing the white puff come from right engine, at nearly the same time, a white streak can be seen coming from left engine. Bird strike in both engines? I think probably so. Did that happen after go-round already started? I think probably so.
Good point. And as @peterpetersen4619 stated in comments " If this was a bad decision by the pilots, this event should still be recorded on both data recorders, CVR and FDR."
This tragic incident raises some critical questions, especially with the discovery that the black boxes stopped recording just four minutes before the crash. It’s interesting to think about what the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) might have captured prior to that point-engine performance, control inputs, and system warnings. If the pilots inadvertently shut down the wrong engine, the FDR could hold clues, such as the specific control commands made. The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) could also provide vital context. Were the pilots discussing which engine to shut down? Were there any signs of confusion or miscommunication in the cockpit? This would be especially important if they were under pressure to make split-second decisions after the reported bird strike. If a wrong engine shutdown did occur, it highlights the importance of clear protocols and situational awareness in such emergencies. Bird strikes are complex to handle, but proper identification of the affected engine is critical before taking action. I hope investigators can retrieve enough from the available data to shed light on the pilots’ decisions and actions. It’s a tragic reminder of how even small errors in high-pressure situations can lead to devastating consequences.
Aircraft was built before that became mandatory and neither Ryanair (who initially ordered and owned the aircraft) or Jeju saw fit to retrofit the recorders with a battery backup. Its sad, because Boeing did offer such as a factory fitted option on all NG models, for free, but Ryanair chose not to have it.
imagine how the loved ones of those lost in the accident must feel to learn that they'll never have real answers to why their friends and family perished in the crash... this is truly awful news.
@@ederss7 nothing truly conclusive though. the final report will probably have some likely scenarios but again, it's not a real "answer" (inasmuch as any crash investigation has answers.) personally i'm hopefully the last few seconds of the CVR and FDR data they DO have sheds some light on what happened, because if this was in fact a result of human error (such as shutting off the wrong engine) the crew probably talked about it before power was lost.
So much work done to make the boxes virtually indestructible, thereby recognising their importance, and then not to ensure an uninterrupted power supply. That beggars belief.
While it is bad that the recorders failed, I feel that we saw with our own eyes what is by far the most critical cause of loss of life. The wall, that should not have been built.That wall is why everyone died. We saw how well the crew did to get the plane on the ground in one piece. They only died because of that wall. So removing that wall from all airports where such walls have been built is the most important take away.
Absolutely - many people also have this attitude - everything else is subject to in flight conditions (random to some degree), but a plane shredder in the overrun zone is either 100% there, or 100% not there - remove that risk factor completely. Remember the Severity vs Probability curves giving the overall Risk - well the severity is very severe, so even low probabilities still imply a high risk associated with a plane shredding structure - therefore remove them all where frangible structures should be installed
Incompetent pilots, multiple engine out landing with no or limited causality. The pilots either panicked or were incompetent. They flew the plane into the ground. Sad for the passengers. Reason number one I do not fly Korean airlines.
Yeah there is a reason why half the people on the azerbaijan flight survived way rougher landing vs. only two surviving this. What was the difference? The reinforced wall
In my comment at 29 Dec 2024 at 21:35 UTC for a previous episode on this channel I wrote "[...] I also wonder if it would be useful to have some sort of engineered trap at the end of every runway, such as deep sand" so it is interesting to learn that there is such a system available. In comments to the Blancolirio video, several people suggested that the procedures for critical phases of flight should make APU power on mandatory, albeit at some slight fuel penalty.
Passengers may have been recording on their phones. If they can recover any data from passenger phones it will give valuable data with sounds heard or not heard and possibly show engine danage
Security and fire systems have backup batteries. It was a complete surprise to me that aircraft black boxes don't have them. There were arguments that recorders are "closed cells", and therefore they can't have batteries inside. They don't have to be inside, it would be enough to supplement the design with a couple of contacts for a backup battery. Recorders aren't ovens, small battery would be enough.
Thats good design to have the black box stop working in an emergency.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if the CVR and FDR are disabled when both engines fail, then in my opinion that was a deliberate action by Boeing designers. It is outrageous that such a design was accepted by the FAA and this aircraft was approved for worldwide use...
Well the 737MAX was designed to spontaneously de-altitude upon collision with air molecules. Boeing Quality™. ✨👌✨
It's Boeing...
@@myshamey from what I'm told, connection to the batteries was an option, like having an MCAS indication on the Max, and some airlines chose not to connect the black boxes to the battery system. I agree that the option should never have been accepted by the FAA if this is true.
considering all the tech we have, I find it nuts we essentially have 60s tech in planes still. what else is backwards ? good lord
I genuinely find that staggering; I thought the black boxes had an independent power supply. It is clearly going to take time to figure out what happened.
fan blade from airstrike severed planes electrical systems looks like
An engine can clearly be heard running in the video.
It's happened before on commercial airlines when the power to engine is cut and system lines are severed
Iirc they typically have battery power, these ones don't for some ungodly reason
It terrified me that a possible bird was able to cause all this.
As an electronics engineer i have to say it is NUTS that those devices do not have an internal power back-up, N U T S.
Do you want a battery inside it when it’s submerged deep in the sea?
@@eliotmansfieldYou wouldn’t have to fit the battery INSIDE the protected cell would you? That they receive power through a small back-up battery seems perfectly reasonable to me too.
Batteries are a liability, the boxes are safer without them.
@@eliotmansfield it still can be totally sealed and have a battery backup.
@eliotmansfield Lots of black boxes have been retrieved from the ocean, I’m not sure that’s relevant here
this is so disappointing that is absolutely unbeliviable
Absolutely, don't believe this either.
It is.
Particularly as the engine can be heard running before the plane hits the runway.
Literally unbelievable.
I suspect the Korean officials wiped it out before sending it out to the NTSB. Switching off wrong engine and forgetting to lower lamding gear implies deep cultural shortcomings across Korean aviation.
Delete 4 minutes of data and avoid heads rolling, countless lawsuits, cultural changes...etc
Why? It recorded everything that shut the engines down. What else is there to record after the engines quit? You already have the main cause of the failure at that point
The one time you want black boxes to work is in an emergency. Why would they not have numerous redundancies to ensure it’s nearly impossible for them to fail?
indeed, Boeing need to get their sh1t together.
Because . . . . Boeing bean counters decided not to include stuff that was not required by regulations.
@@rivergladesgardenrailroad8834, I understand what you’re saying, but I think the comment is misplaced. This version of the 737 hasn’t been in production for a long time and predates all of the current problems plaguing the company.
@@PhilipFly11, Boeing actually has been trying to update the 737 more than people realize but it’s two biggest customer Ryanair and Southwest Airlines are insistent that any changes to the design cannot affect its type certificate or add to the purchase price that they have been promised.
And this is why those two airlines stick with Boeing, as long as Boeing can keep the aircraft within a certain percentage of the efficiency of the larger more modern airbus which it has managed to do. It can undercut that newer aircraft enough on the purchase price to offset any efficiency gains had any other way, and therefore it wouldn’t cost them more to go with airbus.
@DaveP-uv1ml ok, sorry, but it seems commonsense to have independent battery back-up 🤔🙃
The flight data recorder should show the engine parameters up to when main power was lost. That should be enough to show the erratic readings from the engine that ingested the birds AND whether the other engine was switched off by the crew or whether they pulled the fire handle on it.
Yes, and I said on other channels, the voice recording should have conversation regarding shutting down an engine in the last seconds of the recording if the pilots actually shut down an engine. The absence of such a conversation should indicate that both engines were damaged and that it wasn’t pilot error shutting down the wrong engine.
@@stephennowlan2637Also from the exact state of the wrecked engines, it's possible to discover which one was/or not running. Possibly even (despite the fire), to find inside some remnants of biological matter, pointing that one affected by a bird.
I agree
@@stephennowlan2637 ATC authorized landing on runway 19... So they had communication... why no one said anything????
The pilots must have switched them off with intent, they expected their own wrong decisions to occur.
Juan's voice is very precise and factual, but look to his eyes and you see how upset he is by this.
That is his demeanor always, seems to me, though I interpret that as a byproduct of his fierce attention to detail.
It truly boggles the mind. I don't know of any combustion powered form of transportation that has electronics running directly off of a generator but is isolated from the battery circuit. That is right there ! It is like running your car radio off of the alternator. So your car has to be running to listen to the radio. But if you just wire it into the system, then it works all the time.
@@Toro_Da_Corsa I've been thinking hard to come up with some sort of benefit of not conecting them to battery instead of the generator... Nothing comes up
upset that he doesn't know anything more than anyone else.
At the time, recorders were not considered critical equipment when the is a power failure. All battery power was reserved for flight control critical systems.
At a later stage, a system called RIPS was introduced which brought its own, separate battery for the CVR/FDR with a requirement to provide power for minimum of ten minutes.
Thanks Denis, excellent video and very good to reference Blancolirio. I am an aeronautical engineer from South Africa/New Zealand.
I appreciate your work! Thanks for keeping us up to date on this.
Hopefully a huge clue will be whether or not they pulled the throttles to idle before moving the fuel selector from idle to cutoff. I believe there will be clues as they took steps to shut down the engine - which should reveal if they were in the process ofnshutting down the wrong engine and subsequently losing the generators.
Thanks for your sensible comment (increasingly rare)!
what is JeJu procedure for birdstrike or engine fail? Does it call for immediate shutdownn of engine? Do they not consult a checklist? Just start yanking levers?
@skyboy1956 there is a list of critical actions pilots must take called "memory items" for certain things. Shutting down an engine is one... BUT you have to be sure it's the proper engine - and there are call/responses for that so they avoid a mistake. The FDR will clearly show any movements of the throttle etc (dozens and dozens of things are recorded).
@ The question was "What is JeJu procedure?"
Does JeJu SOP call for immediate engine shutdown actions after a birdstrike? I doubt it.
When Catus 1549 hit birds, did they immediately start actioning power levers based on memory items? No. Did they secure the engines before touchdown? No.
There won't be any FDR data forthcoming because the FDR shut down.
@@skyboy1956, ask Jeju. From Boeing, who manufactures the aircraft, the following applies via the QRH;
ENGINE FIRE or Engine Severe Damage or Separation
Autothrottle (if engaged) . . . . . . . . . . .Disengage
Thrust lever (affected engine) . . . . . . . . Confirm . . . . . Close
Engine start lever (affected engine) . . . . . . . . Confirm . . . CUTOFF
This is totally unbelievable. Why would such critical instruments not have simple backup batteries? It reminds me of the fact many boats have small GPS beacons that break free and float if the boat sinks out at sea - but commercial aircraft don't. For all the clever technology that goes into the aviation industry, sometimes it looks very slow to adapt.
because the airline opted out of having that, when they sell planes, alot of stuff is sold as optional, because boeing is greedy
Commercial aircraft have a fixed Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), portable ELT, locator beacons on both the CVR and FDR, if flying for extended periods over water they also have a fixed low frequency beacon in the nose and might also have a water deployable ELT. What more do they need?
@@declaringpond2276 Wrong.
1st: Boeing offered a battery back up for the FDR and CVR on all NG models. It was optional but FREE.
2nd: It only became mandatory to hook up the FDR and CVR to battery backups AFTER this plane was built, sold and sent on its way
3rd: Ryanair, who originally ordered and owned this aircraft, CHOSE not to have the battery backups installed.
4th: Boeing deliver aircraft to the specifications the airlines order
Want to blame someone for greed? Speak to Ryanair and then Jeju for not retrofitting as was suggested in an AD years ago.
@@maltreatedpony 'They "might" have a water deployable beacon'. I understand technology is being upgraded, but it should be next to impossible for any commercial aircraft to go missing if it goes down in water. Maybe a water deployable beacon should be compulsory if flying over water?
@@bmused55why would the airlines choose not to have the backups installed if they were free?
What an absolute nightmare. We all saw the video with the heat coming out of engine #2. How could there be no electrical power at that moment?
Probably not. Because the pilots likely pulled the fire handles. Pulling the engine fire handle on a Boeing 737 engine closes fuel and air shutoff valves, trips the generator, and closes the hydraulic fluid shutoff valve. It seals the engines fate along with the data recorder, marker lights and transponder. Because they are run off the engine which is a terrible design
It's very possible the birdstrike into No.2 could have cause a failure in such a way that the generator stopped working. The heat bloom could have been from a resultant fire. It's happened before. But no bloom from No.1 suggests it was shut down.
No engines, no power, unless the APU was brought online.
@@bmused55 That is impossible. The 180 turn was too beatiful for both engine to have lost thrust and hydraulic, and you can see it on landing too. The plane is simply too stable for both engines to fail.
US Air flight 1549 (Miracle on the Hudson) ingested large birds into both engines. One engine shut down completely, the other engine continued to run but at such reduced speed that the generator cut out. The reason they did not lose electrical power is because the Airbus has a ram air turbine that deployed automatically. Also the Captain started the APU which took over after about a minute. It appears to me this accident may be a duplicate of that accident except the 60 year old design doesn't have a ram air turbine and even starting the APU is a more complex procedure, so a vastly different outcome.
@Anonymous-v8s2s The B737 has cables to the control surface and can be flown "beautifully " even without hydraulics, also I speculate that they still had some hydraulic power. Unlike engine generators which have a cut-in speed (minimum engine rpm to work), the engine driven hydraulic pumps will work somewhat even if they are spinning slowly.
I think it's becoming clear the RH engine was used to get it on the ground. But the short return to a mid field landing, with no gear, left few options.
Gravity got it to the ground. What happened to the electrical power is the question?
#1 engine was still spooling down after impact. Pilot did not reduce power after touch down. Did not even use spoilers. Pilot flew with a death wish.
@@davidbaldwin1591 no it’s not clear at all, it’s clear they had no engines
We were much too optimistic about the black boxes. Since the ADS data transmission failed shortly after the bird strike it was reasonable to think that the black boxes had a good chance of missing data as well.
I haven't seen any comment on this on all the various aviation channels covering this tragedy.
Not sure how well EMAS would work without the gear down. It requires a very high loading over a small area.
Correct. Also, even the manufacturers state that it largely ineffective past approx. 70 knots, or about 80 mph, max. (Their successful tests were at speeds even lower than this).
It would be slowed though, if only by the engines digging in (if they didn't break away). Could have reduced tghe impact somewhat and who knows, maybe more survivors than 2.
it would work way better then a concrete obstacle.
@@mautre It could have slowed the aircraft done enough though, so that the impact with the concrete wall and mound was not as severe... possibly even entirely survivable.
Installing a trap of this type would surely have prompted the site engineers that there is an extremely hazardous structure at the end of the runway that very obviously should not be there
I’m beginning to suspect that the ONLY thing that worked as expected for this crash was the Saving Face Mechanism. So far 100% operational.
Asian Culture?
Me too. I predicted that might be the case the very day it happened as well.
Big Wig losing face is worse than 200 citizen losing their lives. What a great culture.
You are right. The korean gov is at it again. The pilot made serious and fetal consective mistakes and the Korean gov is trying to hide it to avoid trouble. For instance massive law suit against Jeju airline and Korean goverment losing reputation etc... Its best to conclude it to a "bird" instead of human error to save you the time and trouble, similar to MH370 where the pilot was on a suicide mission and the Malayian gov simply concluded the cause as unknown to avoid trouble.
Well, the NTSB is involved in the investigation of the BB's. Are you saying the NTSB is lying?
It's not just about the recorders. Every sensor input would need to run on the same battery bus That would make for quite the harness, if you don't have enough power to drive the whole electric system.
Having recorders with a backup supply means that selected sensors could still be monitored.
And also, any device could fail in such a way that it saps all power from the bus it's on. So, you should be very selective about which devices are allowed onto the critical backup power supply.
Thanks Denys! Great job as always.
As usual; trusted and informative commentary; nice link to Blancolirio and the other guy.
It's now going to take a long time as the investigators examine the wreckage for whatever other clues they can find.
Yep; walls need to go. Thanks for that and Be Safe 🙂
👍👍 good follow up to the Blancolirio video.
As of EMAS passive braking system, it would very likely be ineffective in the Jeju airlines case for fault of having its landing gear extended. The smooth underbelly of the aircraft would have slided on the EMAS without hardly any braking. Furthermore, it was still way too fast.
This seems like an insane design. Why on earth would you ever have the black box connected up to the main power supply and not just a battery of its own. People even do this with their home PCs with a UPS but something this critical wasn't thought of? Insane
Exactly. My modem, router, all electronics are on apc batteries. The house has a generac generator which turn on automatically. Lights are off for maybe 5 seconds, but I can keep gaming. And Boeing paid for these engineers to design this garbage system!
typical Boeing cost cutting
@@matthouston8411 that's the thing, they haven't paid engineers anything, they shoved it all into shareholder's pockets.
Because the 73 is old. They are allowed to follow some old regulations, because it would cost them too much money to make new planes that are built to modern safety regulations.
2005 plane, 1985 safety.
UPS technology has been around since the 50s. No-one at Boeing in the 70s could envision the main power supply potentially going pop and providing backup to a critical part of the plane that would help massively with an investigation? If anything they could just wire in a backup battery and a switch that is activated when the mains power isn't working. I really can't understand the logic behind it
The two employees seated in the extreme rear of the aircraft survived. If the plane lost all power prior to landing on the runway without landing gear or flaps, would the surviving crew members seated in the back have been able to notice or determine if there was power in the cabin-such as lights or other systems-during this extreme emergency?
I understand that the crew members do not remember the moment of impact, but if there was a lack of power inside the airplane as it touched down and glided, they may, over time, be able to help investigators determine what systems were functioning in their part of the plane. Additionally, they might recall whether they could hear the engines.
I’ am no expert - only a passenger on planes , but I have several friends who are flight attendants for Alaska Airlines and fly on these planes daily. Understandably, everyone is feeling uneasy right now.
Hi Denys,,, Hi Everybody,,,
Thank you for your detailed explanation of this disaster-it was incredibly clear. I’m not an expert, but after watching the bird strike video, I noticed something that caught my attention. It appears that both engines were struck by birds. If you watch the video in slow motion, you can see faint smoke coming from engine #1 just before the larger plume of smoke emerges from engine #2.
Additionally, just moments before the plane disappears at the end of the video, you can see slight smoke coming from engine #1 again. Based on this, I believe engine #1 may have stalled immediately after the bird strike, preventing it from providing any further thrust. This might explain why there was no thrust from engine #1 when the plane landed.
I wish I could attach pictures to this comment to highlight the moments where smoke is visible coming from engine #1 at two different points.
I saw that too.
The person who recorded the aircraft as it flew overhead, said that he heard loud bangs from the aircraft earlier, so he came out onto the balcony and started recording. He also said that the aircraft undercarriage was extended before he started recording. The video shows that the undercarriage was retracted in the video. Hence the video shows that the aircraft is going around.
Further, there were compressor stalls that were not recorded, probably in both engines.
The ADS-B data suggests that the pilot had elected to ago around, with two good engines, prior to the bird strikes.
@@christopherrobinson7541 Yes - something is going on in the final minute of ADSB data. A sudden viisible drop in the steady descent rate, then a recovery to 'normal' followed by a brief but very rapid ascent rate, a 200 foot increase in altitude (with lag as you'd expect during an engine spool-up), then an equally sharp descent rate and slow decrease in altitude (as if spooled-up engine was failing or stopped). Also, ground speed increased from around 160 mph to 170 then 177 mph at the end of data. All within a minute so it does look somewhat like a go-around decision was made then, albeit not with 2 good engines IMO.
it has been confirmed that bird debris and blood was found in both engines.
Thank you very much for the Update! It´s indeed a huge setback for the investigation. Hopefully they will figure nevertheless out what really happened here. At least the danger of the concrete wall at the end of runway 19 was recognized.
I was told that on the 737NG, connecting the black boxes to the battery was optional, and only became mandatory after a certain date. Can anyone confirm this? The 737 doesn't have a RAT like the A320. It sounds like there was a dual engine failure at 0859 which killed ADSB and the black boxes. Lots of people are suggesting that this is a deliberate deletion of data by Korean authorities, but remember that one of the black boxes went directly to the NTSB due to the damaged connectors. The data wasn't deleted - it was never recorded. 😭
Edit - according to Chris Brady's video, even the current 737 nax only has battery on the CVR as an option.
Became mandatory in 2010.
And yes, FDR went straight to the NTSB, without it ever being opened, or any attempt at data retrieval, in Korea. As for the CVR, as soon as they found the missing 4 minute problem, while transcribing the rest of the data, they also immediately sent the CVR to the NTSB as well.
Thanks for combining information sources, especially other people that "know". Combined with your knowledge is good.
What was sad to see was the First Officer had his right arm pushing up the windscreen pillar to brace for the impact - all to no avail.
where can i see it?
@@digie3823 In the crash video ofc. Zoom in on the cockpit before impact.
@@digie3823 in the closer view of the runway video, many videos pointed that out
is it necessary to share these gory details?
I think this is completely unseen in aviation history. Black box shutting down before crash. Like what. Is it the truth?
wtf is the purpose of having an fdr and cvr if they stop working in case of a major elec. or double engine failure? Unreal.
They were working, though earlier models may have lacked battery backups. The rest of the airplane lost all power, so it wasn't feeding it information even if the boxes had battery power.
To the investigators trying to analyze the data, whether the boxes stopped working or stopped receiving data is essentially the same thing. Either way, critical data is missing for them to analyze.
@@joefish4466 If the issue was just with the generators of the engines the aircraft still had electrical power on some equipment (not all) from the batteries. In the original design it was likely preferred to not load these batteries with the CVR and FDR with the goal to save power for more essential equipment needed to fly the aircraft. As far as I understand later upgrades added dedicated batteries for the CVR and FDR.
This bird was built before installing batteries for the FDR and CVR was MANDATORY.
Boeing did offer this for the NG series for free, but up until 2010, it was optional. Ryanair, who ordered this plane, opted NOT to have the batteries installed.
Blame the airlines, not Boeing.
@@bmused55 It's still not mandatory for all countries. For these countries, "RIPS" is a customer no cost option. Only later NG's and Max's had the option. Only EASA and FAA-registered aircraft are mandated to have it (N/A to EASA Third Country Operators). EASA only mandated it in 2022. It's only "recommended" for countries outside of these regulation zones.
Great idea to have the floor structure to slow and stop aircraft if it fails to stop normally , what a great idea , should be installed on all major airports. Thanks for a great report for those of us who are not pilots, very well explained.
I don't know the specs for EMAS. But it may be designed to crush at the pressures generated by a plane's landing gear (concentrates the plane's entire weight into a few tires). A plane skidding along in a no-gear landing may distribute the weight over a larger surface area, insufficient to crush the EMAS concrete. Kinda like how your feet will sink right into snow, but if you wear snowshoes you can stand on top of the snow.
I’d assume this has been tested to some extent?
Would be interesting to know.
Correct, also EMAS only works up to 70 kts, this aircraft left the runway at 150kts, wit 4 times the energy.
The _snow shoe_ effect would be the least of this aircrafts problems with EMAS…
As it went off the end of the runway at 150kts, no spoilers deployed, nose high, (resting on engines & rear of fuselage on runway) it's almost at a takeoff rotation attitude and well above takeoff speed. There's going to be very little weight on the ground. So very unlikely to crush EMAS.
Honestly, not a surprise that the flight data is missing. The broadcast of ADSB data ending 4 minutes before the crash was a clue that there may have been a loss of power to critical systems - usually that data covers the flight clear up to a crash.
I was looking for this comment. That's critical.
Yes, the flight data recorder could have continued working on battery if the battery had been fitted.
However it is very likely there were no data streams to record. A battery in the FDR may not have changed anything if there was a generalized loss of power to the systems to be monitored/recorded.
Too some extent, people are barking at the wrong tree here.
On the other hand, cockpit voice recorder battery would likely have helped a lot...
Be quiet
I agree. Blancolirio has clarified quite a lot regarding where the power did and didn't come from for adsb and flight recorders. I think also, smoke in the cockpit combined with engine fault annunciators, no doubt coming up, likely a reduction of thrust led to a decision to put the plane immediately on the ground without configuration or a stabilised approach.
This is the reason why newer 737s have WIPS, Wireless Independent Power Systems. Regulation changes meant they had to have backup power for 10minutes. Airlines have the option to retrofit this system. Therefor the questions is why isn’t it mandatory for airlines to install as an AD not an SB
No, was was it not mandatory for the aircraft design to be approved for flight !!
ADs are issued to address an unsafe condition with an aircraft, not to override regulations for operators.
It’s optional for flight company, and this is the cheapest flight you can get in Korean 😢
@@rockman1942 Jeju Air didn't order this aircraft from Boeing, they purchased it from Ryanair 8 years after it was manufactured. 🙄
Korea has their own aviation regs.
This is going to be one of those crashes that will be cited in 30 years as a reason for a major change in airplane manufacturing going forward
3:20 the 737NG does not necessarily have two batteries. Standard is one battery for 30 minutes stby power. Some jurisdictions (like EASA) require 60 minutes, so a second battery is required.
So when the plane was a RYR plane before it would’ve been equipped and that has changed with the operator change?
Well, it was delivered to Jeju with 2 batteries. It's unlikely (but not impossible) that they may have removed the second system, though Korea's MOLIT, like the FAA, only requires 30 minutes. @@googleknowsus8184
@@maltreatedpony I’m pretty sure all NGs have a main and Aux battery regardless
Appreciate ya. Thanks for sharing.
Very good - both of you 😊 However, we could see, on touch-down, the exhaust plume from the No. 2 (Right) engine; if it was running, that No. 2 generator would have been suppling power to, almost, all busses? Still some questions remain? John. NZ 🇳🇿
you have a good point there, and i have also seen a video showing the full footage of the landing / crash and it sounds like the engine (right) is throttled up, i guess with the reverser they will increase the power of the engine, but to try to push the airflow / exhaust gas backwards. to me it seems like the left engine was turned off by accident, or for some other reason we don't know, and the ground effect caused the aircraft to float like crazy on the belly landing, then that wall was what really destroyed the aircraft.
it's just one of those things, i think everyone in cockpit panic and had no time to follow checklists, and it ended up really bad situation, first thoughts are why do a go around just after you had a bird strike, they should have got the aircraft down straight away. anyway, nothing we can do about it now, damn shame this happened, i got Korean friends, wonderful people.
i hope all airports in the world now change the localizer structures / end of runways construction. and Boeing change the recording black box design, so they have their own power source.
But the lack of last 4 min of cockpit voice recorder and the rapid landing of the plane seem to indicate that the plane had no engines. So i guess we going to have to wait for the full report and hope they can work out what actually happened. Plenty of hard questions already been raised about air safety by this accident already though!
Why do you assume that the the other engine was working? What if they had initial engine failure and performed a go-around then suffered a second engine failure from initial bird strike. Korean media is already alluding the fact that they had dual engine failures. Then the teardrop maneuver is exactly what you would do. Also, that could explain the lack of time to the gravity extension since captain took the right turn and FO was busy locating the runway.
You and Juan make a great couple actually 😅
Crazy how it is possible black boxes can stop recording, thinking aviation has triple systems for almost everything.
Maybe this accident will finally force them to upload data to a cloud. C'mon we can do that and more, It's 2025
Yeah data can be uploaded via satellite and whatnot, but it's sold as a value-added upgrade rather than an essential safety system. Also, I don't think it checks in constantly, rather every few minutes, so it may not have helped all that much in this situation. But it sure would have helped for finding MH370!
@ not via satellite, that crazy expensive. Via starlink or similar
The ADS-B data transmissions cut out at the same moment the CVR and FDR did. That's why the plane's flight path on various websites stops during its initial landing approach. Given that it, the CVR, and FDR all lost power at the same moment, the same thing likely would've happened to any equipment continuously uploading data to the cloud.
@@solandri69 💯💯💯💯💯
@@Julian3vil you realise that Starlink is a satellite system, right?
You and Juan are both great. After thinking about it this does not change the thought about continuing the landing in full drag configuration on original course. I mean the go around and belly landing was all a waste.
I am surprised that when they implemented the requirement for independent power for the boxes, the old aircraft were not modified.
Boeing would have cried about it.
I believe that requirement came into effect in 2003 and this plane was built (or delivered?) in 2009. Planes that had already been ordered were grandfathered in. It’s not clear what the timeline was for this particular plane.
@@povertyspec9651
more likely the airlines ! They cry, FAA folds, people DIE !
@@Chucanellithis was mandated by the FAA from April 2010. Also, the aircraft was delivered into an EASA operation (Ryanair) where it is required from September 2022.
Jokers, greedy and unbelievably irresponsible!!!
Examination of the cockpit area of the wreckage in great detail is going to be required here. What switches were off or on? What were the readings on any relevent dials or indicators? This may be the only route to finding out exactly what was happening to this 737 in it's final moments.
Dan Gryder suspects the pilots pulled the fire handle for both engines (in error, in a panic perhaps) thereby shutting both engines down. But the video evidence suggests that at least the right engine was generating power (heat waves) as the plane floated halfway down the runway.
It should be easily identified if they popped any of the bottles… hopefully they find some answers.
Don't forget smoke (screen) in the cockpit and cabin...
yet the thrust reverser was out and yet it wasn't visibly yawing or slowing.
@@mostevil1082 So the engine is running, but it isn't producing meaningful thrust. One engine out entirely, one damaged. That is the simplest explanation until we get more evidence.
@@mostevil1082 True but it did seem to have veered right of center as it left the end of the runway, but only slightly i think, so maybe that was just more of a random thing due to differential friction. It all happened so fast. Maybe there is some communication with the controller that has not come to light yet? (Frankly there shouldn't be as communication is last in priority.)
So tragic - like hitting a driver going the wrong way on the freeway.
Shame what happened to the 225. I see the model on your shelf. I've flown on the 124 a few times. Great channel thank you.
I find it hard to believe there wasn't or isn't a UPS for the FDR and CVR.
We will have the data leading up to the power failure. If they shut down the wrong engine, the engine shut down will be the last thing on the record. Also if the engine were to come apart, we should again have the final reading as the engine was lost. We won't know what happened once the aircraft lost power, But what was happening before losing power will be highly informative. I've followed other crash investigations and the recorders generally have the final "bang" of impact as their final moment. So we should learn enough that we can prevent the initial cause. What we won't know is how to improve handling this situation afterwards.
Wouldn’t the last few seconds of the FDR still have shown some malfunction before the engine(s) failed and/or were shut down? Plus, if the starboard turbines were still turning as it appeared from the videos, would it still be generating power? Something seems fishy here. 🤔
That engine seemed to produce some thrust (and heat) on the recordings. I was thinking if it was possible that the bird ingestion destroyed for example the gearbox driving the generator or the generator itself while the compressors and turbines kept working.
@@piast99 That would make a lot of sense! There was definitely some thrust from that engine as you can clearly see the reverse thrust had been applied, but no electrical power from the generator?
MONEY ........
The timing of the electric failure looks like an important clue.
Whatever happened to the plane, it’s now absolutely clear that they suffered major power issue after the bird strike. Whether it was a single engine or dual engine failure, both engine drive generators stopped functioning.
Thank you for this update. I saw the headlines but was looking forward to your analysis.
The RIPS (Recorder Independent Power Supply) provides power to the cockpit
voice recorder for 10 minutes after aircraft power is interrupted either by normal
shutdown or by any other loss of power. -- This is available in B737-800. However, I don't know if this is standard in ALL B737. This is taken from a B737 FCOM
they def had no power, the NAV lights and the Strobes were off on final
But how could the plane turn 180 and land on belly without power, does it make any senses?
@@rockman1942 The 737 still has mechanical connection between the control column in the cockpit and the control surfaces. It's not a fly by wire aircraft. You can control ailerons, elevator and rudder without any electric or hydraulic power.
@@Itsjustme-Justme if no power, they would not get hydraulic power as well to control the ailerons and elevators. Normally you would activate the APU / switching into manual reversion mode of hydraulic system. I doubt it’s quite impossible for a plane like 737 do the 180 degree turn with perfect belly landing with manual control..
@ and I don’t think you can control the rudder in this situation since it’s under standby hydraulic system.. if no power, no rudder control as well. It is extremely difficult to 180 degree turn the power losses 737 without rudder
@@rockman1942 Windmilling engines can still provide some hydraulic power. One engine running can provide some hydraulic power to the rudder. Initially, they had enough hydraulic power to retract the gear and flaps.
One thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere is what the electrical load of keeping the fdr and cvr online via battery would be. The black boxes themselves probably don't use that much electricity. But you have to power all the collection and transfer points as well.
Hmm, I wonder if EMOS would have actually helped with JuJu since it was in a gear up configuration. I would think that would reduce the surface pressure on the EMOS, since its the fuselage transferring the weight of the aircraft vs. the gear. That being said, EMOS at the end of runways would be a huge step up in safety, since most overruns are with gear down.
The underbelly might not crush as deeply as the wheels, however a far larger area of EMAS blocks are crushed - total energy dissipated may well be higher with the belly gouge. EMAS qual procedures should now look at testing this.
*EMAS, not EMOS.
Excellent points. From a safety standpoint going forward, EMAS would help in a predominant amount of cases where the overruns are with gear down. And it should be studied how EMAS performs in no-gear situations. I’ve heard people dismiss that EMAS wouldn’t have made a difference here, but we don’t know that. What we don’t know is unfortunately the overrun area leading up to the barrier was paved - so that was probably about the worst set up for a no-gear overrun.
Chris Brady put out an excellent video yesterday on the topic of CVR and FDR power.
Careful analysis of the last few seconds of recorded data before the power loss will be crucial.
The bird strike happened, then the crew noticed it. It took at least a second before initial action was taken, probably more. Humans don't react and reach for switches in milliseconds. Then the captain radioed to the ATC. The radio communication took a few seconds too. During that radio communication, they obviously still had power and the data recorder should have been recording.
The damage caused by the bird strike should immediatelly get visible in the data readings of the damaged engine. There must have been some loss of compressor pressure, loss of rotation speed, loss of temperature or odd temperature, loss of oil pressure or something else that indicates that the engine wasn't working properly anymore. That must have happened before the crew started to react to the damage and therefore before power and data recording was lost.
Video clearly shows the flaps were out in the moment of the bird strike. Eye witness confirmed the landing gear was out too. When they crashed, flaps and landing gear were up, landing gear doors were closed. You need hydraulic power for retracting flaps and landing gear and hydraulic power is generated by electric pumps. Retracting should have happened before the data recorder lost power.
The "funny" thing concerning electric power supply: the landing lights (visible in one video shortly before touch down) were visible and working. As far as I remember the landing lights are supplied by one of the AC-Busses (not the Emer-AC-Buss relaying on the inverter). If I am wrong please correct it.
Jeju would of skipped right over any EMAS imo they just had WAY to much energy. I’m sure it would of helped. The real question is way not any rudder input when they were hurling down the runway? Did they not look up? So many questions…
I think the rudder might need hydraulic pressure which would have all been used up by then, but I'm not 100℅
I am really surprised this particular aircraft even had both boxes installed. Under the current DEI conditions within Boeing, many parts are not installed or deemed superfluous.
Maybe #2 N1 failure with severe damage.
Then accidental shut down of #1 engine.
Hopefully the FDR has enough supporting data to determine what happened.
N2 runs the gearbox not N1
@@bash102 Not relevant to my point, thanks
@ oh you think the fan damaged the IDG. Highly doubtful
@@bash102 Wrong again dude
@TommeoAndJuliet well explain it then because your initial post explains nothing clearly? Are you another clueless one ?
It’s clear to see they had no standby power or main power, also explains why they had no gear down as the bypass valve for manual extend is an electrical solenoid
So the CVR isn't considered critical? What about the APU? How were both engines taken out? That happened before the power went out or in conjunction with the outage. Did the pilots shut down a good engine or were both engines struck by birds?
@@jameschalkwig787 Bad birds indeed. Seriously with the super bunker wall these birds were more deadly than an anti-aircraft weapon system.
A plane can fly just find without the CVR or FDR working. In fact there are planes in the air, right now, with one or both not working due to a fault. It happens.
The FDR and CVR only become critical in accident investigations.
@ But if the engines are going to fail it's most likely at takeoff when bird strike probability and engine stress is maxed out. Or at landing when the engines have been running a long time and the plane approaches the ground.
Meaning that the APU needs to function within a reasonable period of time at low altitude and the black box needs to function in that scenario.
If there are multiple aircraft sensors indicating a problem below an altitude threshold the system should be considered critical. It is critical to understanding what happened in this situation.
LaGuardia's runways are over the water of the Long Island Sound and planes have skidded off the runway and into the water in the past. So having the pads is the different between being on dry land or being in the water. I remember when Pence's plane skidded off the runway. It was winter and poor weather conditions.
To my knowledge, the Boeing 737NG was designed prior to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) mandate requiring battery backups for the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). When the FAA implemented this requirement, it did not mandate retrofitting existing aircraft. Consequently, since the 737NG was constructed before the mandate, it lacks battery backups for the FDR and CVR. In the event of a complete loss of AC power, the aircraft’s recorders would be rendered inoperable.
The plane didn't need separate batteries. It just needed to be wired to the 2 batteries that are already in the plane. Backup batteries are only for when wires burn off or get cut. The wires on the 737 don't even exist. The data recorders aren't even wired into the planes electrical system. They are just wired directly to the generator.
@ what are you talking about about? The wires on the 737 don’t even exist ?
@Sergekal 100% correct.
@@Sergekal On this 737, correct.
This bird was built before installing batteries for the FDR and CVR was MANDATORY.
Boeing did offer this for the NG series for free, but up until 2010, it was optional. Ryanair, who ordered this plane, opted NOT to have the batteries installed.
@@Toro_Da_Corsa The original CVR runs on AC power. Good luck getting the CVR to run on DC.
Shame that we don't have the final four minutes but we should still be able to hear what they were doing before they lost power on both generators. For example, possibly shutting off the wrong engine and whatever else happened on the initial approach.
No black boxes everything about this crash is so disheartening we need info for why rip souls lost and families
The more you dig-in the more it becomes apparent that they shut down the wrong engine. Thats why they did not spool up APU. Check fuselage and it will show if it was running or not😊
Remember that the devices feeding data into the FDR also most likely lost power, so in this case, the fact that the FDR stopped is only one symptom of a bigger problem onboard.this flight - there wound't have been any data being generated for the FDR to record. There is video of a compressor stall (eg. bird injestion on the #2 engine), but no video of compressor stall on the #1 engine, but the lack of such video still allows for the possibility that both engines actually did injest birds.
We know they lost Transponder, CVR (powered by AC bus 1), FDR (powered by AC bus 2) and can infer that they lost comms radios as well, and everything else in the E&E bay. From the pilots' perspectives, Its probable that they would have lost all instruments, other than standby and panicked.
We'll never now be able to understand why they chose to go around or change the aircraft's configuration, which is a missed opportunity. Maybe some sim sessions will shed some light on it.
Its particularlry hard on relatives to not even have the prospect of receiving answers for the losses of their family members.
No, there is actually a lot of things (video clip, possible* still images, and multiple eyewitness reports) pointing towards engine #1 being affected as well, probably prior to #2.
@@mmmquaOK thanks - I’d not seen any visuals, other than the video. If there is other imagery showing a compressor stall in engine #1, then that’s obviously a significant factor. We do know that both AC buses #1 & #2 were lost, since both recorders stopped (although probably not at exactly the same time).
@roscozone8092 No problem! And, as far as I've seen, IF there was a compressor stall out of #1, it was right before anybody started recording, because it was the multiple very loud "bangs" and "explosions" (approx. 7+) that caused many of the eyewitnesses to come out, look up, or start recording in the first place. They have said they saw smoke & sparks out of #1, and there are images of white puffs of smoke, and some liquid out of #1, too. Then a bit later on, we see the compressor stall out of #2. (There is also one of the surviving flight attendants statement about seeing one of the engines smoking, then "exploding", but I don't believe they have confirmed for sure that was #1, at least not yet, but it seems hinted towards that way.)
I believe you're right about the recorders stopping (*although there is the additional issue of them possibly not being transmitted any data to record anyway, depending on how severe this electric/power failure actually was), but it wasn't just the recorders...this also corresponds with roughly when the ADS-B stopped transmitting, and also the comms to ATC going out, seemingly right after the Mayday call. I believe we should have more exact times to the seconds, for most of these events pretty soon.
*Actually, just saw you already brought up this point in your OP! 😉
@@mmmquaVery detailed - gives much additional context… thanks again. 🙂
@roscozone8092 You're very welcome! 🤗 I'm happy to help. I'm Korean, and got the majority of these details from Korean reports, interviews, official statements, etc., and it's a bit frustrating when I don't see a lot of the information being given out or covered by the international channels, so then a lot of people go on with wrong ideas because they only have bits and pieces or misinformation.
Thanks for your interest in this terrible tragedy... I only hope we can get answers for the mourning families and their loved ones, and also for their peace. 💔🙏🕊️
It's also just really nice to see a level headed, intelligent, rational person in these comments for once. 😉
Right, should have back up power to the black box. Hope this changes policy. Thank you Denys! 👍.
As of 2010, backup power for the recorders is mandatory. All post 2010 built 737s have it.
Boeing did offer this for free, but up until 2010, it was optional. Ryanair, who ordered this plane, opted NOT to have the batteries installed.
The Engine Computer should normally be connected to some kind of Engineer/Maintenace Department of Airlines. Some major cases like engine shutdown should normally be detected by them. Anyway, great content. thank you so much for sticking with this case.
I suspect the #2 engine was running but had taken so much damage from the bird strike that it could not maintain the RPM to power the generator, the conclusion has to be that the #1 was ether not running at all due to bird strike or crew action.
ESPECIALLY when the engines aren’t working
The first century of flight was thought to have fixed all the obvious problems and dangers associated with air travel, the so called ‘low hanging fruit’ as it were. But this particular tragedy highlights everything that could go wrong ... going wrong.
Talk about failing the swiss cheese model.
Or Boeing doing what they shouldn't. The 737 should have remained as it was, not mod it into the NG and MAX variants. Of course the airport did something wrong as well, and probably the pilots.
During a longer video taken from the fence line about 9 seconds after the aircraft hits the berm if you listen carefully you can you can hear 2 inches spooling down one after the other I believe the first one is the main engine and I believe the second one could be an APU. I worked on these aircraft for decades before retiring a few years ago I haven't heard anyone address the sound of engine spooling down after impact with the berm.
This crash is a complete clusterf*** 🤦♂️
Shutting down the wrong engine, forgetting to deploy the landing gear, missing data on the black boxes, non-compliant airport with concrete obstructions…
ZERO evidence the wrong engine was "shut down" stop speculating.
Gear was kept retracted deliberately.
The problem with the energy absorbing material being close to the runway threshold can be an issue for planes that do a dragging take-off for whatever reason!
I had to double check but in the CRJ I fly the FDR and CVR are on the essential bus which remains powered by the ADG ram air generator if all else fails.
The 737 has a battery not a RAT. I'm told that connecting the black boxes to the battery was optional when the NG was in production. :(
I think Airbus has ram air generators.
This plane doesn't have a RAT.....as indicated in video.
What's with the replies on this comment?? Paul said "CRJ", not "737"... He's just comparing the two
@@alyssap2048 people may not know that the 737 doesn't have a RAT. Some may assume that if the CRJ and Airbus use a RAT, the 737 would also.
this is the first time i've ever heard of this (the black box stopped recording) in my life....
Hey Denys, I like watching Juan also, but I heard it on your channel first: they may have wrongly turned off the wrong engine upon the bird strike
Denys, I wasn't sure if you were saying EMAS was more or less effective in the case of a belly landing? There would be no landing gear with concentrated pressure to penetrate the EMAS surface and get 'bogged' into the EMAS. In a gear up landing, would the engines become the contact point with the surface, and would there then still be a risk of an explosion with fuel leaks and engines embedded and dragged through the EMAS?
Question. I live close to a small airport that occasionally gets medium sized airliners. I'm far enough away that I can't hear them landing. However, I can often hear thrust reversers engaging over the distance. In the belly landing video, after the wall impact it seems you can hear the mechanical winding down of a tubine. But as it passes the person taking video just prior impact, where you can see the thrust reverser open, does it seem to you there's not the expected level of engine noise? it doesn't seem there's the roar of the reverser one would expect. Could the engines just be windmilling or at idle at this point? I'm sure people are looking at every detail but I haven't heard the sounds we heard discussed anywhere. Thank you for your insight and commentary. I appreciate your work on this difficult topic.
The pilots might not have applied full reverse thurst because if the left engine was off, that would have yawed the plane to the right.
The engine was damaged by birds and the ground impact. It may have been applying thrust instead of reverse thrust (depending on the engine model and the damage)… assuming reverse thrust was even intended. That would help to explain two things: The sound of thrust in the runway video and what looked like sustained speed as it skidded down the runway.
@WiseWik Correct. Another explanation could be that assuming the pilots actually shut down the wrong (still functional) engine the lack of noise might be due to the damaged engine not being able to produce the amount of thrust needed to create the loud "roar".
Both engines took a bird, both engines failed, one engine took a turbine fan which completely damaged it, while other engine was only giving off minimal power
@@declaringpond2276 💯💯💯💯💯
I heard both engines were hit by birds
I would hope, the very least that comes out of this, is a required increase in reliability to the flight data recording systems power supplies, and removal of all obstructions (or made safely collapsible) at the end of runways, along with adding safe emergency stopping material like suggested in the video.
NTSB should look at the engines ECU which have a NonVolatileMemory to collect and use A/C data . Depending of the vintage of the engines , they may have some interesting data to look at. For example if the engine has been commanded Off and when. There are ways to get some data even from an old aircraft like this 737NG.
Very strange!
In the video showing the white puff come from right engine, at nearly the same time, a white streak can be seen coming from left engine. Bird strike in both engines? I think probably so.
Did that happen after go-round already started? I think probably so.
Yes.
But they will know the exact state of the engines and systems when the data recording stopped. Ditto for the voice recorder.
Good point. And as @peterpetersen4619 stated in comments " If this was a bad decision by the pilots, this event should still be recorded on both data recorders, CVR and FDR."
This tragic incident raises some critical questions, especially with the discovery that the black boxes stopped recording just four minutes before the crash. It’s interesting to think about what the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) might have captured prior to that point-engine performance, control inputs, and system warnings. If the pilots inadvertently shut down the wrong engine, the FDR could hold clues, such as the specific control commands made.
The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) could also provide vital context. Were the pilots discussing which engine to shut down? Were there any signs of confusion or miscommunication in the cockpit? This would be especially important if they were under pressure to make split-second decisions after the reported bird strike.
If a wrong engine shutdown did occur, it highlights the importance of clear protocols and situational awareness in such emergencies. Bird strikes are complex to handle, but proper identification of the affected engine is critical before taking action.
I hope investigators can retrieve enough from the available data to shed light on the pilots’ decisions and actions. It’s a tragic reminder of how even small errors in high-pressure situations can lead to devastating consequences.
So the pilots shut down the wrong engine?
Great content and information. By chance were you in lanzarote in November,?
I find it staggering these recorders do not have emergency independent batteries.
Unacceptable.
Aircraft was built before that became mandatory and neither Ryanair (who initially ordered and owned the aircraft) or Jeju saw fit to retrofit the recorders with a battery backup.
Its sad, because Boeing did offer such as a factory fitted option on all NG models, for free, but Ryanair chose not to have it.
I have no words 😢
imagine how the loved ones of those lost in the accident must feel to learn that they'll never have real answers to why their friends and family perished in the crash... this is truly awful news.
There are other evidences that could explain what happened.
@@ederss7 nothing truly conclusive though. the final report will probably have some likely scenarios but again, it's not a real "answer" (inasmuch as any crash investigation has answers.)
personally i'm hopefully the last few seconds of the CVR and FDR data they DO have sheds some light on what happened, because if this was in fact a result of human error (such as shutting off the wrong engine) the crew probably talked about it before power was lost.
If you look at pictures of the engines being recovered, the upper part of the left engine shows no rotational fan blade distortions.
So we have them on CVR and FDR shutting down the working engine then, for sure. Yeah it sucks that the rest of the data is lost.
That's not what was said at all...
@@mmmqua skinnybricks is simply pointing what happened.
So much work done to make the boxes virtually indestructible, thereby recognising their importance, and then not to ensure an uninterrupted power supply. That beggars belief.
Boeing kills whistleblowers, you can imagine not working blackboxes are a feature, not a fail.
Thank you from Seoul ❤
While it is bad that the recorders failed, I feel that we saw with our own eyes what is by far the most critical cause of loss of life. The wall, that should not have been built.That wall is why everyone died. We saw how well the crew did to get the plane on the ground in one piece. They only died because of that wall. So removing that wall from all airports where such walls have been built is the most important take away.
Absolutely - many people also have this attitude - everything else is subject to in flight conditions (random to some degree), but a plane shredder in the overrun zone is either 100% there, or 100% not there - remove that risk factor completely.
Remember the Severity vs Probability curves giving the overall Risk - well the severity is very severe, so even low probabilities still imply a high risk associated with a plane shredding structure - therefore remove them all where frangible structures should be installed
no, the cause was landing without gear.
Incompetent pilots, multiple engine out landing with no or limited causality. The pilots either panicked or were incompetent. They flew the plane into the ground. Sad for the passengers. Reason number one I do not fly Korean airlines.
Yeah there is a reason why half the people on the azerbaijan flight survived way rougher landing vs. only two surviving this. What was the difference? The reinforced wall
@@suibian9467 lol, the Azerbaijan pilots did not panic and landed their plane. The Jeju pilots crashed theirs, that was the difference.
In my comment at 29 Dec 2024 at 21:35 UTC for a previous episode on this channel I wrote "[...] I also wonder if it would be useful to have some sort of engineered trap at the end of every runway, such as deep sand" so it is interesting to learn that there is such a system available. In comments to the Blancolirio video, several people suggested that the procedures for critical phases of flight should make APU power on mandatory, albeit at some slight fuel penalty.
Passengers may have been recording on their phones. If they can recover any data from passenger phones it will give valuable data with sounds heard or not heard and possibly show engine danage
Otherwise, if they claimed no information can obtain besides black box, you know something is fishy
Security and fire systems have backup batteries. It was a complete surprise to me that aircraft black boxes don't have them. There were arguments that recorders are "closed cells", and therefore they can't have batteries inside. They don't have to be inside, it would be enough to supplement the design with a couple of contacts for a backup battery. Recorders aren't ovens, small battery would be enough.
Convenient.