UPDATE Prelim Report Jeju Airlines CRASH
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- The South Korean ARAIB issues the Prelim Report on the JeJu Airlines 7C2216 Crash at Muan International Airport. While still leaving some big questions yet to be answered, some new information is starting to paint a picture of what happened.
Join AEROVERSE! Use our code TakingOff for 15% off!!! www.aeroverse....
TakingOff is sponsored by:
FlyingEyes - Get 10% using discount code TAKINGOFF at flyingeyesopti... We were customers before they became sponsors!
ColtenTakingOff.com www.coltenmort... - For your residential mortgage or refi needs. Run by a pilot!
67Designs- Cabin Mounts www.67d.com/ Incredibly rugged mounts for your tablets, smart phones and cameras in the airplane. Made in the US!
XeVision.com -Extreme LED Landing Lights, www.xevision.com the only competitor is the sun!
www.clemensins... - Your broker should be advocating on your behalf-call Clemens to have someone in your corner fighting for you!
Marshal Protective Services - mpsprotects.com/ Private Security Elevated!
Join our Hangar Club at takingoff.s-films.com for special previews and exclusive content.
Also, support Christy at Patreon @PilotChristy
The large METAR map on the set is from metarmaps.com/ Mention TakingOff as you go buy one!
The TakingOff Team uses Lightspeed Headsets. Support us by buying your Lightspeed through our link: www.lightspeed...
![[UNCUT] ขยี้ "อลิส" ปม "คลิปลับแตงโม" เปิดชื่อคนพยายามแฮก "มือถือแตงโม" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์I 10ก.พ.68](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_RPLEIi5Sz8/mqdefault.jpg)
We just created a sister Channel moving our hardcore aviation content there, leaving this channel more aviation news focused. If you like aviation content, please check it out and subscribe! th-cam.com/channels/lGPM88XpesqY0QaJc_nQDQ.html
I'm an airline pilot and the thing that confuses me is that even if they called the go around before hitting the birds, normal procedure for most airliners is to only bring the flaps up partially if you intend to return for an immediate landing, because clean speed for an airliner is so much higher than a normal traffic pattern speed. It doesn't make sense why they had the flaps completely up when they crashed. You make an initial small flap retraction when you go around, but you only bring them up more once you've stabalized and things have calmed down. I question the training of these pilots if they intentionally fully retracted the flaps during the go around when they knew they were coming right back for landing. That would have made a significant difference in the impact speed.
I was wondering this exact thing. I only fly Cessna 172s, but even in the 172, I can't imagine losing the engine and then deciding that cleaning up the wings is the right thing to do. Doesn't make any sense.
Good point!
There's actually 4 different things that don't make any sense. The way it's stacking up, I think we're looking at multiple pilot errors.
You wouldn’t bring the flaps up after hitting birds which disable one of the engines entirely and severely limit thrust output on the other?
If that’s the case then I question your trainings or whether you are even an actual pilot…
@@chrisescobar4199You guys must be joking… the first thing you do after an engine failure in a 172 is to minimized the drag as much as possible to extend your gliding ability as far as possible.
Yes, that’s including bring the flaps up.
There’s no way you guys are a real pilot… it’s really that obvious.
"Superior judgment trumps superior skill."
So very true. Pairs perfectly with something I always say: Ego invariably gets in the way of good judgment.
Thanks for following up on this and for the clarity with which you explain things.
Thanks for your continued updates.
You're welcome. Thanks for watching.
@@TakingOff I second Fred - Dan and Blancolirio and Adaptive Aviation (Max I think) are the most concise and well presented sources on Muan Dec 2024.
Thanks for the Video
I've started APU's on many 737-800's. They do not start in 60 seconds. It always takes a bit longer.
a pilot told me it takes no less than 3 minutes. these guys had 4 minutes before the collision so that is incredibly less time
Besides that, the APU has a starter motor that consumes power from the DC circuit (battery). So, if there is no power for the gear and flaps, would there be power to start the APU?
@@cyber5515 The gear and flaps are hydraulic not electric. And yes, the APU starts just fine off the battery, we do it all the time if gate services are not available or we're remote parked.
@@CanyonBlue737Capt if you were to suddenly lose all generator power in flight, would starting the APU be a reflex action or memory item, or something only done while working down the appropriate checklist?
@@Juttutin There are technically no immediate action items on the "Loss of both engine driven generators" checklist but in much the same way that most experienced pilots know to reach up and start the APU on an engine failure checklist, most 737 pilots would start it when reaching for the Quick Reference Card in the checklist pocket on top of the glare shield. Starting the APU is the 4th line item on the loss of all generators check list. But here's the thing. It has to be available for start. The APU can be inoperative and the airplane still legally dispatched under the approved Minimum Equipment List. I've been trying to search for whether or not the JeJu airplane had the APU MEL'd but can't find anything.
Something that might explain the power loss is they run at 400 hertz and if they drop to 380 or 360 (sorry mechanic not avionic) they will be kicked offline. Which I cant see an 800 doing as it has an IDG (integrated drive generator). So from idle to full power you will have the 400hertz. But just a thought if the birds went through the motor
Thanks Dan. The most credible explanation I've heard so far. I agree totally that one or both engines had partial thrust to enable 3 or so minutes of flying around the circuit after the bird strike(s). It's horrible and sickening to endure, but listen to the sound track of the HD version of the accident and you'll clearly hear at least one turbine spooling down after the collision. Besides, everyone agrees there is hot jet vapour coming from the right engine during the belly landing.
Thank you for the update Dan. This accident will be a massive undertaking to figure out. Keep up the excellent work. Safe skies my friend 🇺🇸🛩️
There is just a whole lot here that just doesn't add up at all, and with that substantial period of missing CVR and FDR data this is shaping up to be one of those "We'll just never know for sure" type of accident investigations. One thing is for sure; the construction process used to secure that localizer antenna was inexcusable and needs addressed immediately!
Well, that puts a nice bow to it, right?
They are apparently, in South Korea at least they are now. Took a lot of live though to realize how bad an idea that thing was.
You will never know what happened cause over their they cover things up
Agree with paulw4310 that it doesn't add up. E.g. why was the landing gear retracted when the 2nd attempt to land would occur in less than 4 mins? I suspect the last 4 mins of VCR and FDR were deleted (cough, cough) to cover up in correction instructions of Muon ATC.
There was a berm like that at YHZ back in early 2000s, which caused / contributed to a crash on take off. AFAIK it has since been removed, possibly incidentally due to runway extension, or intentionally for safety.
Kiitos, mielenkiintoinen selostus
Power to the CVR and FDR would have immediately been cut when both engines were out. They require 115V AC on transfer bus 2 (engine 2) - or engine 1 or the APU via the tie bus if engine 2 is out. The radios lasting longer than the CVR and FDR isn’t a mystery given they require 24v and can be powered by the 737s batteries which are 36 amp, 24 volt for critical flight systems. The CVR and FDR aren’t critical flight systems and require 115v. Flight controls, radio, emergency lights etc - they’re critical and run on 24v. The NG also has 2 separate batteries specifically for fuel shut off valves and the flight display. The only thing that would have got the CVR and FDR running again was the engines or the APU. They obviously didn’t get to start the APU.
Thank you for your detailed information. Facts!
I am a design engineer with twenty-plus years of experience in aerospace gas turbine engine design. The N1 Spool is usually the high pressure spool. N2 is low pressure. In other words, for two-spool engines (leave aside Rolls-Royce's three-spool Rube Goldberg engines), the fan is on the N2 or LP spool. What you are calling the "second fan" is actually the HP compressor section on the HP spool. It is not "geared". It is driven directly by the HP turbine. There is a power off-take pinion (usually a spiral or Zerol bevel) on the HP shaft which drives the accessory gear train to provide power to the fuel pump, oil pump, generator, and other accessories.
There are some engines in development (maybe a couple in production) that use geared fans. Those are still N2 driven. This allows the turbine to operate at a higher, more efficient speed while driving through the gear set to a large, high bypass fan. That is a different animal all together.
"leave aside Rolls-Royce's three-spool Rube Goldberg engines"
No, let's talk about this!😁
Interesting... you speak with enough technical information that I believe you when you say you are a design engineer with decades of experience. Thanks for sharing, Ronald.
I'm not an engineer, but I am a 20 year 737 Captain. On the CFM56's powering the NG's, the N1 and N2 designations are opposite of what you say. N1 speed is a percentage of the fan maximum rotational speed. N2 is the speed of the high pressure compressor and associated turbine.
In 737NG's, one sets thrust using N1 value.
@@CanyonBlue737Capt that must be a result of the joint venture between GE and Safran that produced the CFM 56. I have not worked on those. Every Allison, General Electric, Garrett, and Rolls-Royce engine that I have touched has the HP spool identified as N1. The French do a lot of things backwards. 🤔
@@ronaldschoolcraft8654 Incorrect. N1 almost always means LP spool while N2 means HP spool in the brands you mentioned.
Im a korean american kid who knows nothing at all about aviation. I appreciate the heck out of channels like this, you have no idea. I was so invested in this incident and watched every video on TH-cam even if they all said the same thing. It breaks my heart that this happened and pray for the victims/families involved first and foremost. But I was really hoping they could get cockpit recorder data so we could hear exactly the crews thought process to help future accidents. It makes it so much worse we will never know for sure. I hope everyone can let go of any petty drama in their lives and live happy/fulfilling lives since nothing is guaranteed. Love yall💜
I am not korean nor american, and nevertheless I have TOO watch every video there is on YT, because this accident smells like dung.
Hi! As a "mirror image", i'm an american korean guy who has flown in my spry years and now only do virtual, but like you my heart is totally invested in this incident. Yes, there are cultural factors, and there are issues of covering one's back in various departments. The bottom line is that we must pull all together. Korea and U.S. are intimately bound together by blood, and marriage too, and cultural exchange. I fly Korean all the time, including Jeju Airlines, which we're fond of, and sure hope everything comes out on top, as we know it finally will, and every movie must have a good ending, right? Love y'all💜
Question for the young Korean American man ..Young taak
What is the difference between South Korea and Japan in the aviation industry? Or China?
Is South Korea stuck between the 2 work culture wise?
Thanks.
A kid from the UK that follows all aviation channels like Mentour Pilot, Green dot aviation, this one and many more!
Great to hear. Don’t bother to watch every video. A few serious aviation safety experts with YT channels will bring you all the reliable info and sound analysis that you need.
This YT channel is one. Another very reliable one is Blancolirio (Juan Browne).
@@manygoodman I am a Korean living in Canada. Not sure what you mean by "2 work culture wise?"
Besides, China and Japan are probably completely different country for us and distant in many many ways. Japan is a lot familiar to us compared to China. But that is about it. China is a completely foreign country and diffirent political/econonomical/cultural system to us and unkown in too many ways. East Asia is not like Europe. We don't know each other and we are much more different than you might think. Japan has similar systems to Korea. So somewhat similar and even in terms of culturally. But than there are too many things that Koreans and Japanese do not understand each other.
...many, many thanks! Great job to present the facts as they are know. in such a clear and calm way. ...it is very bizarre...I also have my thoughts beeing an engineer in aviation...and you mentioned them in the video.....
Thank You!
The 1st TOGA push in the 737 achieves approximately a 1000fpm climb rate. The thrust value is dependent on things like weight, temperature, etc. The 2nd TOGA push in a 737 achieves maximum N1, which could be more or less than 100% N1. Depends primarily on temperature and altitude.
You explane things so well and have a wonderful calming way of talking.
Also at beginning on vidio you get right to the point, no nonsense talk. Thank you very much .
In a lot of the video replays of this incident, it does show what seems to be an engine heat plume which could indicate that at least one of the engines possibly had thrust which could back up the idea that there was still a possibility of power being available to the electrical systems, and also possibly explain the retained speed of the aircraft at point of impact after a belly landing. Thank you again for you valuable insights - I look forward to your future update videos.
Sigh.
The battery powers Captain's instruments and radio. It does not power the recorders. Therefore if the aircraft loses both engine generators (as it likely did), recorders will stop but radio comms will still be possible.
Also, it is possible for an engine to be damaged in such a way, that it does not shut down completely, but the generator stops working.
True. Below 50% N2, engines still generate thrust, but no electricity.
And the hydraulic electric pump? Can the battery power some hydraulic power for the landing gear deployment? Or the windmiling engine?
@sierramikekilo6925 No, batteries cannot run the hydraulic pumps and 737 does not have RAT. We don't know anything about APU. It may not be operating at all. It is not in MEL in 737.
But they must have some hydraulics power. Oil pressure does not suddenly disappear like AC power. However we don't know how much they had.
Yup. Recorders - 115v. Radios, flight displays, emergency lighting etc - 24v. The battery - 24v.
@@sierramikekilo6925 The aircraft could have hydraulic pressure but if the gear and flap selector are electrically operated, it would cause their inputs to be useless.
Good morning from Minnesota. Good update
Thank you for raising the speed issue towards the end. This has been bugging me and I still have no answer .
Love your videos
Thank you Dan
I still want to know how on earth in this day and age a commercial passenger plane made in the US could sustain a complete loss of power and lose both data recorders.
Two birds hitting both engines at once. It’s happened before but it is weird that it happened twice
@@TheGryfonclawthis shouldn’t shut down the black box recordings since this plane should have included backup batteries originally, from what I heard
1) Boeing gets to charge thousands per plane to effectively change a wire by making it optional.
2) Because the pilot's union would demand another salary per year to fly multiple Type Ratings.
3) The FAA Employee manual reads: Do the opposite of whatever NTSB asks us to do.
4) RyanAir.
@@TheGryfonclaw The requirement for RIPS packs for the CVR came out of the SwissAir MD11 crash (3 engine airplane) where they lost FDR and CVR data for the last 6 minutes of the flight. It's possible to have an electrical system failure even if there are working generators.
United had a 767 lose all AC power with both engine generators working normally. Turned out there was corrosion in a grounding block that caused a short.
@@crosscompiler5) DEI instead of merit based hiring
if you watch the "second" crash video, the one from the left front quadrant, you can see the #2 engine with an exhaust plume where the #1 does not. a lot of mysteries about this one.
Excelente trabajo
I have a question
7:30 - a photo of the gear was down on final
8:58 - video of the plane slide on tarmac, i cant see it being down
Q: did they had to bring it back up during the go around, and second time the gear didnt go down?
Yes
So even if the last 4 mins of the voice recording is missing, wouldn't there still be something useful of the pilots talking about going around? If they decided to go around before the bird strike damaged the engines, then there would be recording of the pilots maybe saying something like "there's birds ahead, lets go around...." Will that be made public I wonder?
That's how they know the crew did goa bfr to ingest birds... And they also know on CVR and DVDR everything till Second ENGine failure...
The N1 fan is not freely turning. It is connected to and driven by the low pressure turbine.
@@antondebeer2337 I think he meant free turning in that it's only connected to it's turbines and not a bunch of accessory gearing, so on some planes if it's windy you will see the N1 fan spinning in the wind at the gate. I know the CRJs I used to fly did this all the time.
How did they have power to fly the 180 back to runway 29. But not have power to run generators for adsb or black boxes?
Yes, exactly. The plane actually *_accelerated_* as it slid down the runway, instead of *_decelerating_* . They were skidding at 165MPH when they crashed, faster than when they touched down. So, the engines were producing thrust. So, why no transponder, ADSB, recorders, slats, flaps, spoilers, landing gear, brakes, thrust reversers? Very bizarre. I'm pretty sure we're missing crucial information, because the info we *_do_* have just doesn't add up.
Cam was awake to get you that😊
LOL. Yeah the FLightRadar link was very helpful.
hello, retired Boeing engineer here. according to this report... the flight data recorder stops BEFORE the Pilot radio's mayday/ go around!! So bird strike damage happened before deciding to go around! or Korean government erased the last 4 minutes.?! Clearly the aircraft was still operating well enough to retract the landing gear and flaps, accelerate , climb and maneuver long after the end of the flight and voice data. in my knowledgeable and educated opinion.... something rotten is going on here. 😢
No. Please stop spewing baseless conspiracy theories. The actual sequence of events was apparently this, based on the evidence we have so-far:
1. The plane was on final approach for landing.
2. The pilots received a "possible bird strike warning" from ATC.
3. The pilots saw birds.
4. The pilots initiated a go-around.
5. The plane hit birds.
6. The birds, though small and light, somehow severely damaged the plane, inexplicably knocking-out power to the transponder, both recorders, ADSB, flaps, and landing gear, but *_not_* the engines and *_not_* the radios. (This part I find very perplexing, as the birds they hit were small 1LB ducks, not huge birds like the geese that wrecked Sully's plane.)
7. The plane looped around, landed from wrong direction, touched-down half-way down the runway, skidded along under nearly full forward (not reverse!) engine power, and slammed into a concrete embankment at 165MPH. (This, also, I find exceedingly bizarre. Unless the thrust reversers, while visually appearing to be deployed, weren't actually reversing, but rather, applying full forward thrust.)
Note that the transponder and ADSB stopped at the exact same moment that the recorders stopped, showing that the "missing data" is missing because it was never recorded, not because someone erased it. Pulling circuit breakers would do that. But someone erasing the data on the ground would *_not_* produce the evidence that we have.
with all due respect, the last piece of data sent from the ADS-B shows the aircraft in a stable and controlled decent. which is not consistent with your timeline of the go around starting before the bird strike! also if there is no coverup happening here, why is the government refusing to release the cockpit voice recorder transcript???
@@RobbieHatley At least one "fact" you stated makes no sense: if the thrust reverser is deployed, it is physically impossible for the engine to have forward thrust. Can't happen. Nope. Categorically. When the sleeves (thrust reverser doors) on the CFM56-7B24 open, airflow redirects and blows forward. Ya cannae change the laws of physics! Everything you said right up to "but rather, applying full forward thrust" is plausible if not outright correct. When the engine is producing low thrust (as would be the case after damage from a bird strike), the thrust reverser might have deployed but with insufficient braking action to meaningfully alter the airplane's speed.
Also, if I'm going to nit-pick, it didn't land from the "wrong" direction, merely the opposite direction from the normal landing direction for the wind direction that day at that time. In an emergency, there is no such thing as "the wrong direction."
And, we don't know if the pilot tried to reconfigure for landing after he initiated the go-around. If he was on a stabilized approach (flaps set, speed correct, gear down, on glideslope) and initiated a go-around, and IF he followed procedure and double-tapped the TOGA button, went to flaps-15, then on positive rate of climb, finished retracting the flaps, he'd have been in a clean configuration and accelerating. The missing FDR would answer the question about what he did. He should have understood his energy state better during the emergency. I can only guess that after cleaning up the airplane then initiating his turn onto short final, it was then he tried but could not get flaps and gear back down to slow his ship...and by the time he understood this, he was unable to change the outcome.
@@RobbieHatley You know the difference betweeen the truth and a conspiracy theory ? 6 months.
just because we don't know yet what happened doesn't mean the SK Govt are going around deleting data, or aliens did it or other conspiracy theories
Blancolirio has done a early video on this, the schematic showed the batteries do not backup the flight data recorders.
Yes. I can't recommend his channel enough
Juan is GOAT
Why would they need a battery, engine number 2 was running and generator should be operational
That is correct. It is likely that this particular plane built in 2009 for delivery to Ryan Air did not implement the 2008 FAA guidelines for improved backup power (10 mins) for the CVR and FDR because EASA requirements had not yet incorporated the new guidelines into their requirements for licensing new aircraft. The guidelines were not retroactive.
The back up batteries power the very basic and essential systems in the plane to allow the pilots to land the plane. This includes the VHF 1 radio. That is why the pilots were still able to communicate with the ATC even after the CVR, FDR and ADS-B data was cut off. Linking the transponder to the backup battery system is an option for airlines and not mandated by FAA regulations because transponders, CVR and FDR are all not considered essential for landing a plane safely.
@@johnsonwdavid they are all trying to make the facts fit the narrative...
Do not spoil their enthusiasm...
The crew may have initiated the go-around before hitting the birds. If so, they evidently didn't report that to the tower until after the bird-strike(s). That's a little difficult to understand.
I agree, but willing to believe they called go around and then a few seconds later had the bird strikes.
Easy explanation for that: birds too called for a go-around...
@@TakingOffAs far as I have heard, the first call they made concerning the bird strike(s) also included the first time they made a go-around call.
Too much mystery and secrecy in the whole thing. For example, why have the names of the pilots been hidden in both the news and, evidently, in the preliminary report??
@@vgrof2315 Maybe because they don't want grieving family members taking revenge on the pilots' families. In one mid-air collision accident over Europe, caused by faulty communication by ATC, a family member of three of the passengers spent months seeking out the address of the ATC staff in question, travelled there and stabbed the ATC staff to death on his doorstep.
179 people lost their lives and we will probably never know for sure exactly what happened because there were no batteries in the recorders!
I've heard that batteries in the recorders to continue recording could result in overwriting critical data as the recording loops.
They will figure it out.
@@jerrycallo Im sure thats true but that loop would be much longer than 4 mins Im sure
@ It's already is, but it still gets overwritten.
This makes more sense if I got it right from the video : they learnt about the birds and decided to go around, then struck birds and lost power/recorders, then decided to shorten the go around to land as fast as possible. That would explain the wrong configuration of the airplane for landing, and the point of landing on the track.
More or less correct ?
@@Delgarothe That explanation would make the most sense of it all in my view
This time lots of new information😊
Because of where it happened I would be surprised if the true reason for this tragedy is ever known.
blancolerio juan explained that on this model of 737, the FDR and CVR are NOT connected to battery backup power but VHF radio 2 is, so that would explain this electrical situation if both engines were out
To be honest if I were the pilot I wouldn't give a crap about recorders working if I was in an emergency situation, apparently the designers would share that opinion. Yeah sure it could hamper the what happened in a crash, but I'd prefer to maximize preventing the crash, then you can just look at the aircraft afterwards. And you always have certain parts of the plane that would give you information about cause and configuration.
You're understanding and explanation of the TOGA switches is not accurate.
First press commands power to achieve 2000 feet per minute rate of climb. If either switch is pressed again it then commands full climb thrust. This is the same whether the autopilot is engaged or not.
With the first press of TOGA engines will give whatever power they require to achieve 2000 feet per minute. This can be up to 100%
I've mentioned this before - if you look closely at the footage of the jet skidding along the runway you can see the right wingtip 'winglet' is damaged, there is a piece missing, bird-strike?
Thank you for the material. I am not an aviation expert, but watched hundreds of videos and listened to hundreds podcasts which were related to air disasters. There will be lots of speculations related to this crash, as usual, so lets wait for the final report.
What strikes me at the moment is how fast they turned and tried to land without the landing gear down? Also, they seemed to be in control of the aircraft, even after the bird strike. We do not even know whether the engines were still working, but it seems like they were working, as the plane was quite quickly turned to land at 160 knots. So they also had flight controls. So losing APU was not a big deal, whatever the reason was for losing APU.
It feels like a crew in panic, acting on the first wrong diagnosis made by the captain. That could trigger chain of events, which proved fatal. I used to be a surgeon and I know how dangerous sudden situations are: instead of analysing what is going on, there is an enormous push to immediately save the patient's life. It's always better to stop and think and (the most important) rely on basics and on other members of the team, instead on abrupt, private conclusions. It requires cool head, which comes with experience. Catastrophe is never imminent.
I am interested in this because I feel that health services should learn from aviation safety protocols. I could explain it more, but not in the "Comments" section 😊
There is no sign of a panic. On the opposite, they must have stayed quite controlled to successfully handle that teardrop maneuver with a crippled aircraft.
And why do you think that they made a wrong diagnosis? There is no sign of that either.
_Your_ diagnosis looks wrong, dear doctor.
@@user-yt198 My diagnosis could be completely wrong. I am not sure wheather the aircraft was crippled - the investigation would unearth it. I do not know whether the "teardrop maneuver" is possible without working engines. I also do not know whether the "teardrop maneuver" was necessary.
All I am saying is that in sudden, unexpected situations people tend to execute prompt maneuvers based on their immediate judgements. I believe that pilots of that flight acted in panic. What if "teardrop maneuver" was not needed at all - it was just a reaction to a wrong interpretation of events taking place? I am sure that the investigation will tell us what really happened.
I support my doctor's feeling: crew's misjudgement causing wrongful decisions. They did not see what was there to see and acted on the spur of the moment, mostly based on the captain's verdict.
@@adamciesielski5889 Why do you think that there is a wrongful decision in the first place?
Impossible to tell without the voice recorder.
The genuine error is going around for birds at what seems like 509ft of that’s where the data recorder cuts out as the video says.
Some sympathy if the go around is to avoid the birds. But if your on profile and configured probably safer to plough through and get on the ground
Here could be a misunderstanding of training issue or an over adherence to procedure. You want all airlines to have a no blame culture for go arounds. If there’s a doubt there’s no doubt go around. However these do not necessarily apply to bird strikes or engine failures in VMC where landing is considered to be assured. Here the ops manuals and fcoms will be written that essentially the captain has the authority to decide to continue an approach.
Contrary to what the video says 4 mins is not an eternity at this altitude and with no engines and alarms blaring
From impact with birds to on the ground is 3 mins maybe 30 seconds. If they started the apu instantly they only would have had it for just over a minute.
Just because there is haze coming off the engine 2 does not mean it was producing enough thrust for flight it could of been at any of the flight approach or ground idle settings or lower and so internally damaged also not producing electricity.
It seems likely that both engines were lost or effectively lost maybe one survived so damaged that it is effectively not there
Easy to imagine a few things then. Only the captains instruments have power. And the initial startle of the engine fire warning bells etc. then diagnosing the engine problem. Which would have looked different to trained scenarios if say both engines failed in a different way.
It seems likely that there was no thrust available and that’s why the configuration was clean and gear up. You would want the aircraft clean to extend glide range and only drop gear etc when landing was assured
Also possible they tried to drop the gear normally and with all the adrenaline and stimulus didn’t realise it hadn’t dropped and that without electrical power the gear needed to be extended manually
To pull off that turn on those circumstances is great hand flying.
Couple of guesses the captain hand flying didn’t have the capacity to think about things like what systems were working with the current electrical power. And the first officer assisting him until it was too late to realise things like lack of gear extension.
Again guesses but the critical aspects here would seem to be 1) the decision to go around 2) lack of ac power 3) the wall made of concrete at the end of the runway safety area
Very easy in hindsight and with time to think (more time than they had)
But for this to have ended safely once they went around they would have had to go against taught and trained procedures.
Go around hit birds lose engines. Pilot flying pushes thrust levers full forward disengaged the auto throttle to milk whatever thrust the damaged engines have left. First officer instantly starts apu. As soon as apu power is available the first officer connects the busses to the apu (start to finish 90 seconds) now gear extension and flap extension is possible.
Captain flies while first officer monitors captain says landing is assured and gear is extended as a priority and then maybe some flaps and they land and are able to stop
To follow procedure and do either engine fire severe damage or separation checklist or engine shutdown checklist and then one engine inoperative landing checklist even if you were outrageously fast would be waay more time than was given to these guys.
In summary suspect we would find they were doomed by the go around decision, not switching on the apu and connecting to the busses immediately and the concrete wall and that they actually did a pretty great job other than that.
Very sad and 4 minutes when you’re working at that time of the morning on a seemingly normal day with the problem they had and at that altitude is not long at all.
Thank you for sharing this information and all of your work. May God wrap His arms around those grieving the loss of their loved ones.
As I said before, it is physically impossible for the plane not to have lost significant speed during the "landing". Impossible. The only explanation is the right engine was generating thrust without the reverse thruster engaged. They literally accelerated into the end of the runway at high power.
No flaps, no speed brakes, nose up . . . "ground effect" floated the plane over half way down the runway with the wings still giving lift. Cascade of pilot errors.
@ And a tailwind!
In our ground control stations we had battery back ups that were old and the charging system that kept them topped off would get hot and presented a fire risk, so the battery backup was locked out. Perhaps the crew started a generator reset after a perceived engine failure but didn’t finish when the engines stayed running, but maintenance may have locked out the battery backup.
Good Afternoon, I was a tool Expeditor ( TOOLMAN TIM ) on the 737 Flight Line for pre-flight also on Flight Test on 777...30 yrs. Have you looked into the condition of the Battery ? any records on age...was Very rare to change one out before first flight out of Renton Field, but I remember assisting on a few..we had a assist tool that was a sheet of plastic to slide battery out and not damage cargo flooring. any checks on Battery Age ? Thanks for your time and effort.
So what is the update in this video from the previous one?
160 knots (184 mph) at time of crash. Was also same speed 400 ft off the ground which indicates no speed was lost as it skidded down the runway. Suggesting one of the engines was outputting partial thrust.
They set MCP Set altitude to 4900 at 08:57:20. That means they hit TOGA even before ATC's warning for a bird strike at 08:57:50.
I heard (on another YT channel) that the plane was an older NG model that was not equipped with the battery system.
That is Correct. HL8088 was made at 2009. And it doesn't have RIPS(battery option) in cvr
I feel sorry for all the families of those lost, because every time they see these videos, they can see the moment their loved ones died.
I dont show the moment of impact. Not on this channel, for that very reason.
@TakingOff Excellent.
Here is a short summary of data acquisition eye scanned through a few other channels like it's that does "data stream analysis when we experience software simulation within simulation within simulation that is crashing simultaneously through multi dimensional field structure players playing simulation software War game competency in software engineering competition for gain more electrical life force attention that reduces the breathing temperature in our vacuum gauge metering voltage change echo maps recording speeds
So here is a file that Sal K over at What's Up in Shipping " who performs Dara stream analysis of errors in the data stream of visual mathematical memory driven Holographic mapping future potential memories of predictive modeling scanners
Digital 10 code QI AI coded simulation crashes
U might wanna check this out
Eye monitor several channels like urs that catalog errors in flight transportation systems
His name is Juan Brown
Like U he started out in logistics though he went into the Morphogenic field structure of DNA software network communication codes in " aeronautical engineering" transportation systems logistics and he does a great job of providing all the data analysis on digital dashboard 10 code Aircraft flight simulator crashes
So after eye saw another channel of potential disasters eye wrote this post to Juan Brown on his Blancolinio channel who runs a Flight Simulator school
Check it out Sal
Btw thanks for sharing the encryption of (DNA hybrid wars )
Check this out Juan Brown
This is right up Ur alley
This channel(Gear 74) is Hosted by another Digital Airplane pilot whose channel highlights errors in air traffic control and today a US Fighter Jet running out of Fuel based on digital dashboard displays of Error in fuel coded data streams could of resulted in major loss of future potential memories of insurance investment vehicles and destruction of natural Human life force electrical resources
Check it out Juan Brown
Eye saw this first up this morning and wondered if U were aware of this in a large metropolitan city of St Louis Missouri that could of been disastrous
A military pilot really?
That's mil spec Juan which is a higher specifiction of design standards expectations placed on manufacturing like Grumman Boeing Lockheed & Black Rock Investment of Vanguard than lower standards of commercial grade graphical end user visual mathematical production zones
Ur logging a lot of data failures regarding trust issues of digital systems engineering circuits which keep breaking electrical speed transactions between one system àñd another communication system that are NOT compatible with each other
And both ur channel and this guy including What's up in shipping is highlighted all the Errors in shipping logistics of electrical services of planes trains buses,ships busses and automotive services contracts
Electrical consent form and flow contracts
his is not a mathematical coincidence when the Krystal Tribal shield genome is fully integrated and activated Sensory capacitor levels of phasing speed
They R eir operating in their digital avionic simulation within simulation within simulation system QI AI coded finite fuel reserves until they implode and go NOVA b cuz they keep compressing their nucleotides sequences writing chaotic distorted sound waves recording speeds of mutagenic terra forming Geo AI machine coded engineering.
Gear 74 channel
Fighter Pilot Runs out of Fuel
th-cam.com/video/gq72ko366T4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ihrw5HGbfk1d1tyX
TH-cam probably isn’t even allowed in Korea. If it is, it’s not popular.
@@MoneyManHolmes why wouldn't it?
@8:35 The Baikal Teal duck that you show & is likely the bird that hit the engines is NOT a "Large Bird"
Compared to a wren it is. Compared to a Canada Goose, medium.
@@heatherwhaley7623 Every bird is large compared to a wren
@@heatherwhaley7623 FAA regulations are for geese to wild turkey sized birds, generally in the 8 to 10 pound range.
The ducks do have a large quantity advantage though. I think a few naturalists or conservation experts need to be asked about the average flock sizes in the area and their normal flight altitudes.
I highly doubt it is the Baikal Teal Duck, which is "between 39 and 43 centimetres (15 and 17 in)" and "weighs an average of 1 pound" which took out the engines. There are numerous species of sea birds wintering in South Korea, inluding egrets, herons, geese, eagles, which ARE large birds and more likely to have been involved. They might have found BTD feathers in the engine, which could have been from the first bird strike. There was a second bird strike. How would they know exactly which birds were involved in each of the two bird strikes? They wouldn't know.
@istudios225 So you know better than the experts do you? Done your own DNA tests have u? ...👇
“The samples were sent to specialised organisations for DNA analysis and a domestic organisation identified them as belonging to Baikal teals,” said the report from South Korea’s Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board."
From what I’ve heard, the black boxes weren’t designed to get battery power on „older“ planes, which would explain the knock out
Does this plane have the reverse thrust mechanism where the sides of the engine fold back to redirect thrust? If those "wings" were prevented from folding back by the ground, the engine would be trying to give full reverse thrust?
Great point.... If upon landing they thought the gear was down then they probably figured they could use the reverse thrusters but instead they were trapped by the ground and only provided MORE forward thrust...sad
@@jimihendrix225 My opinion yes, they thought the gear was down, that's why reverse thrust. Either forgot to lower or something else imo.
I'm thinking that if engines are grinding into the runway, reversers may *_appear_* to be deployed, but might not actually reverse thrust. That may explain why the airplane was going 165MPH when it slammed into the concrete barricade.
The NG's (like this -800) use blocker door/cascade vane style reversers which redirect fan air forward. Basically, the engine nacelle slides aft to redirect the air, as opposed to older 737's with JT8D engines which had "Target" style clam shell reversers at the back of the engine. The video clearly shows the #2 engine reverser deployed. Whether this was due to it being intentionally deployed by the crew or due to damage from ground contact is one of the big mysteries.
@@MrAntz71 I really can't imagine the crew thought the gear was down. They intentionally raised it for the go around, but even if they were so task saturated and mentally degraded to have forgotten that, the EGPWS in a 737NG screams (VERY loudly) "Too low gear!" "Too low flaps!" at you if you get below a certain radar altitude. It's intentionally designed to be so loud as to drown out any other aural alerts or warnings that may be going off like a fire warning or configuration warning horn.
The only way to cancel the GPWS warnings is to intentionally raise a guard over the inhibit switch and select the gear and flap inhibit, which takes 4 individual movements. IOW, you KNOW you're inhibiting them.
Dear Taking Off, I will add some considerations below, drawn from my experience and the knowledge I have developed over time about wildlife strikes.
I believe that the focus on whether the go around occurred before or after the ingestion of birds is excessive. The go around should not be performed after having had an ingestion, but also IF YOU ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN OF AVOIDING THE IMPACT. In both cases, ingesting birds at the same time with GA thrust, would cause significant damage to the engines (as is known, the impact energy is proportional to the square of the speed; the fan of those engines rotates at about 5000 rpm, and the tips of the fan blades travel at a speed greater than the speed of sound).
While waiting for the final report, the most important question therefore remains the following:
why did the pilots go around?
If we look at the history of the wildlife strike, the answer could be that they were not trained to manage this risk, just like no airline pilot in the world.
After the Ryanair crash in Rome Ciampino, the miracle of the Hudson and that of the corn field in Russia, are we still surprised that pilots continue to behave randomly when it comes to managing wildlife? If this accident turns out to be caused by a double ingestion, we will be faced with deaths largely predicted by the trend of statistics that represent this problem.
Now let's see how long it will take the industry to wake up, train pilots, air traffic controllers and improve engine certification standards.
As for the professional history of the two pilots on board, which would indicate little experience prior to working on the line and would not be comparable to that of American pilots, I remember a well-known incident that occurred in Rome Fiumicino on 7th July 2007.
That day a Delta B767, taxiing towards runway 16R, decided to take off despite having noticed a large flock of seagulls on the edge of the runway. After the rotation they ingested numerous birds and, after a partial fuel dump, the aircraft
returned for an overweight landing in Fiumicino, with both engines damaged
beyond repair. Three years later, another Delta airplane, taking off from
Tampa (Florida), was alerted by ATC and a pilot who had just taken off about
the presence of large birds along the takeoff path; the crew took off anyway,
and subsequent multiple collisions damaged the aircraft.
Apparently, tens of thousands of flight hours overall did not prevent proper management of the wildlife strike risk.
Maybe these pilots weren't properly trained either?
Is it aviation a proactive organization?
With flaps up as people saying I will not forget the ba flight going into Heathrow that lost both engines. The pilots put the flaps back in a bit to reduce drag and that choice got them into the airport grounds and saved many lives.
Well, that kinda made sense.... so they could've been fully configured for landing but avoided a large flock on final so veered left and they were only left with a TOGA / go around until either at the same instant or a little in to the left swing they still ingested some birds - which gave them even less time to run check lists depending on what might cataclysmically have suddenly happened to the plane .... That doesn't answer anything but it takes the initial final approach in to a new realm which hadn't occurred to me. They definitely had thrust on landing.
I lived in Seoul for 16 months in the mid 1970's. South Korean culture, while technically advanced, has ancient traditions that permeate every aspect of their lives. One of the first things new acquaintances establish is their birth date. If one is even a few months older, they are considered "senior" to the other, and it is taken very seriously. I suspect that was the atmosphere in the cockpit, which, in an emergency, might not be the best dynamic for a younger copilot to exert anything into the procedures.
And this is why Korean and some other Asian cultures are often mentioned in initial Crew Resource Management training and aviation systems safety Programs.
Decision to go around b4 bird strike makes sense. Therefore more damage to engines at higher rotational speed. All aside I can't imagine why gear was not down or speed remained so high when there's no breaks without l/gear. There's also no mention of Control Tower data in the preliminary report.
I am wondering why the CVR and FDR are not powered by separate sources, so that in an accident BOTH will not be lost. It can't be that difficult to have a backup power supply. When the power goes out in my area because the utility has a high wind warning, my battery backup will kick in to power my laptop for the time it takes to finish the tasks I am working on before shutting down. Juan mentioned that it appeared they were on a stabilized approach BUT, (after looking at the video of the horde of birds), did the pilots look down and see an ocean of birds and panic, and did the birds look up and see a giant pterodactyl and also panic with the old "deer in the headlights?" look with the headlights being the engines? If that were the case, to the passengers it must have sounded like firing up a Nutrabullet.
This particular airplane was built the year before the mandate for a separate back up battery for the CVR (called a RIPS pack) went into effect. The RIPS pack provides 10 minutes of power for the CVR and its associated area microphones.
At many airlines, older 737s have been retrofitted with the RIPS pack if they were built without it, but it appears that JeJu elected to not install the retrofit on their aircraft.
@@CanyonBlue737Capt Would that have been on Ryanir instead of JeJu since they were only leasing the aircraft?
@@TheGospelQuartetParadise The way I understand it, if the country of an operator requires a certain equipment standard, that operator must comply with that standard, even if it would require modifications. It wouldn't matter where they got the airplane, so if the Korean authorities required a refit then JeJu would have to modify the former Ryanair plane, but the RIPS pack retrofit is not mandated on older aircraft in most countries. In other words, the JeJu/Ryanair airplane was "grandfathered in" and it didn't matter where it originated. My airline has chosen to retrofit our older NG's that were built without RIPS, but that's an option we chose, it wasn't mandated.
@@CanyonBlue737Capt I understand what you are saying but my point is if a carrier is LEASING, rather than owning a plane it would seem that the Lessor would, as owner of the aircraft, handle any retrofits required by the government where the aircraft is to be used, and the costs for that retrofit be passed to the lessee. The fact that this particular aircraft was "grandfathered in" is probably going to result in that particular policy being changed.
@@TheGospelQuartetParadise Lease deals for airline airplanes vary wildly from deal to deal. I know my airline leases about 1/8 of our fleet at any given time, but those AC are almost all leased from the big leasing companies and tend to be for new builds. Although we just sold 20 of our -800s and then turned around and leased them back from the leasing company we sold them to. When they're used airplane leases that we didn't originally spec from Boeing, sometimes the lease company will pay for modifications to our specifications, but typically we do it in house just because as the worlds largest 737 operator, we're just better able to bring our engineering and maintenance infrastructure to bear on things like fleet commonality. In the case of much smaller operators like JeJu I would assume a much larger operator like RyanAir could easily perform the RIPS retrofit for a reasonable cost and then negotiate that into the lease, but clearly, neither party was interested in spending the money. Were there to be a regulatory requirement for the refit, that would be a negotiated item just like reconfiguring the galley or lavatory or repainting the livery. Everything is negotiated. When my airline bought another airline that operated B717's, we negotiated a sale of the entire fleet to a 3rd airline, which included us paying for the repainting of 80 or so airplanes. Bean counters doing bean counter things.
I completely agree with you in that this crash will likely drive a mandate for not only RIPS pack retrofits for the older NG's on the CVR, but I'd bet we'll see a RIPS pack required for the FDR as well. Currently the RIPS mandate covers only the CVR. Dumbest thing ever, but that's how the policy is currently written.
Intresting.....
For a 310 guy, you sure know lot of stuff.👏👏👏
On another channel, I saw a video of Baikal Teals flying in huge, dense flocks. It looked like a wall of birds. Would an aircraft's radars be able to pick something like that up? Could TCAS be programmed to detect and provide avoidance solutions on large bird flocks?
Neither radar or a TACAS-like system would work for birds, in a practical sense. Yes, both might (very unlikely but not impossible) be able to pick up a very large flock of birds, if the birds stayed together in a dense enough formation and long enough for the systems to do so. But birds don't stay in that density for long, so by the time the system picked the flock up, if they are even able to, and then notified the pilots, set off an alarm or whatever, the flock is likely to have dispersed, or their location moved, likely higher. So how are the pilots meant to react? Their best chance of avoiding birds, if they see them too late is to stay the course and hope the birds move, otherwise you have planes erratically manoeuvring all over the place and still potentially hitting the birds anyway, or losing control etc. And just one bird can down a plane, and no system is going to be able to pick that up.
Birds don't have transponders, so TCAS wouldn't help.
Most airplane weather radar needs a lot more density than a bird has in order to generate a return in the first place, but the larger issue is there are a lot of different customer options in airliners for the specific make and model of radar installed. Some have manual tilt and gain functions, some are automated. I've never seen a skin paint of a flock of birds on an aircraft weather radar, even tilted up when on the ground. My boat's radar is optimized for bird detection, but that's looking up from sea level, not down from an airplane. Being able to pick out a flock of birds at low altitude is nearly impossible due to ground clutter. IOW, the terrain reflects so much radar energy back to the antenna that it drowns out weaker returns from things like birds. Or even other airplanes.
This has been a big issue for combat aircraft until the 1970's when fighters began using what's called "Look down, shoot down" capable radars, starting with the F4J and its Westinghouse AWG-10. Civilian radars are designed to detect weather threats, specifically, weather at or above the flight path of the aircraft. The changes (different antenna, possibly even different frequencies plus crazy sophisticated algorithms) that would be needed to "look down" and see birds would be a big technical challenge and even after crashes like this one and Sully's Hudson river one, the technical challenges and cost haven't been overcome yet. If they're even working on it.
Did I miss a mention of the QAR (quick access recorder)? It has much of the same data as the FDR. Also, I have heard no mention of the engine control module data, which would be recording data whether the engines are running or not. There is more information to be had than that which has been publicly discussed so far.
Inside these "black boxes" I thought there should be built-in batteries type UPS. Question is there this UPS system? And if so when were these replaced? On ships I work with these are replaced after 5 years
In regards to the landing speed, if there was no engine thrust at all, would it still be possible for the airplane to pick up speed from the descent? I know this is possible (it's part of how you recover from a stall), but I'm not sure how quickly the plane would have to descend for it to make a difference.
So it impacted at 180mph!! Wall or no wall it would have ended in a ball of flames!!
unfortunately it would of indeed. That's almost 300kph.
Perhaps, but it is still quite likely that more than 2 would have survived had the plane had further space to dig in and slow down... once it begins to dig in and slow down, the de-accelleration would have been exponential imho. It wouldn't have shattered the fuselage like what happened. But no doubt, somebody was going to lose their life in that slide... 😞
The plane would have slowed down significantly more after travelling further past the authorised (crumble type) concrete and as it was travelling,would of highly likely not caused a total fire or catastrophic collapse of the fuselage.The second wall,which was also unnecessary wouldn't of likely resulted in catastophe.So in any other situation without the obvious,criminally negligent soil and cement embankment there would of quite likely have been far fewer deaths and possible the plane may have skidded to a safe standstill.Every life is precious.
Likely would have been more survivors, but it was doomed the second it touched the runway. The barrier may have just made their deaths quicker and less painful.
@@paulgallagher2937 ? There's so many intracacies in the possibilities.I heard someone say it would of stopped before the ocean.
Go Around might be heavily trained (that is arguable) but in reality a TO/GA might be something you have never encountered before in thousands of hours of line flying. And handling TOGA in a 737 can be quite tricky, plenty of ways it can go south.
The CVR and FDR on the B737 are only powered by AC electricity as provided by engine and APU driven generators. If all AC power was lost, the DC batteries would provide emergency power to several systems including the number 1 VHF radio. If both engine driven generators were lost, and the APU was never started, it would explain how they lost both recorders but were still able to transmit the mayday call.
I find it interesting how the plane actually accelerated while skidding down the runway grinding its engines into the concrete, and hit the embankment faster than it landed. So it seems the engines were working and providing thrust, but the spoilers and flaps and brakes and reversers were not working. That's what I find so perplexing: how a few 1LB ducks can disable so many systems without actually disabling the engines.
@ What makes you think it was accelerating? A flaps up landing must be conducted at a very high speed to avoid stalling and they were sliding on the engine nacelles and tail. They had no way to brake and with only those three small points of contact on the pavement, deceleration wouldn’t be very fast. Also, the engines may have still been running but only able to provide very little or no power. It can also be seen in the video that at least one thrust reverser appeared to be deployed, possibly in a desperate attempt to slow down.
@@RobbieHatley Ducks weigh 1 pound? How small are you. You must weight a 20 pounds? This explains how your small brain came up with your dream scenarios. You obvious fly F-35s for a living. Did you know that open your mouth makes plain your ignorance to the whole world?
This video sounds spot-on and your analysis of the prelim report makes a lot of sense except... if 4 minutes is an eternity, then how long is 60-90 seconds out of 4 minutes? Almost half an eternity? And can investigators even determine IF the APU had been commanded to start and how soon was that till the final crash? 4 minutes just doesn't seem like that much time to work the problem in my humble opinion. Oh and 1 other thing, if a jet plane is nose below the horizon and otherwise has the gear and flaps and spoilers all sucked-in for flight, would it not accellerate with the nose down even without running engines? Jet planes are very aerodynamic and with nothing hanging out to cause drag, it would seem reasonable to me for the plane to accellerate with the nose down attitude. (sorry using a tabletpc and I don't type very well on it)
Absolute best case they had about 1.5 nautical miles available down range based on known power off glide ratios for jet airliners and this flight’s available altitude.
That best case doesn’t include any significant maneuvering. A 180 definitely counts as a significant maneuver.
Based on the performed maneuvers and known glide properties of the plane that aircraft definitely had some engine power, probably a good portion of one engine’s worth in total.
The recorder should be powered from the 24/28volt busses. The implication is that they either had no working batteries, or they deliberately switched the breakers off. This has been documented before in US pilots, who want to lose a record of their last actions, or actions that they took during the flight. Do the recorders have a full data stream to when they started? Should give some indications of pilots intents during flight.
Great point... If possible that's crazy to think that they could just pull the breakers and just completely freeze the CVR and Data Recorders...😮
9:20 Of course it's possible to "land" [sic -- the plane DIDN'T land when it suffered the first tail strike] at a higher speed than the plane was traveling when the data stream cut out. Height is energy and translates readily into speed.
9:35 Thrust does not guarantee AC power. The AC generator can cut out even if the engine is turning because the frequency at which the engine is turning goes out of range.
Check out our investigation video on the Ozzie Osbourne guitarist Randy Rhoads crash in 1982: th-cam.com/video/gIWpxEPqgyQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=U4qGtjA9I4I_dtXD
Here is a short summary of data acquisition eye scanned through a few other channels like it's that does "data stream analysis when we experience software simulation within simulation within simulation that is crashing simultaneously through multi dimensional field structure players playing simulation software War game competency in software engineering competition for gain more electrical life force attention that reduces the breathing temperature in our vacuum gauge metering voltage change echo maps recording speeds
So here is a file that Sal K over at What's Up in Shipping " who performs Dara stream analysis of errors in the data stream of visual mathematical memory driven Holographic mapping future potential memories of predictive modeling scanners
Digital 10 code QI AI coded simulation crashes
U might wanna check this out
Eye monitor several channels like urs that catalog errors in flight transportation systems
His name is Juan Brown
Like U he started out in logistics though he went into the Morphogenic field structure of DNA software network communication codes in " aeronautical engineering" transportation systems logistics and he does a great job of providing all the data analysis on digital dashboard 10 code Aircraft flight simulator crashes
So after eye saw another channel of potential disasters eye wrote this post to Juan Brown on his Blancolinio channel who runs a Flight Simulator school
Check it out Sal
Btw thanks for sharing the encryption of (DNA hybrid wars )
Check this out Juan Brown
This is right up Ur alley
This channel(Gear 74) is Hosted by another Digital Airplane pilot whose channel highlights errors in air traffic control and today a US Fighter Jet running out of Fuel based on digital dashboard displays of Error in fuel coded data streams could of resulted in major loss of future potential memories of insurance investment vehicles and destruction of natural Human life force electrical resources
Check it out Juan Brown
Eye saw this first up this morning and wondered if U were aware of this in a large metropolitan city of St Louis Missouri that could of been disastrous
A military pilot really?
That's mil spec Juan which is a higher specifiction of design standards expectations placed on manufacturing like Grumman Boeing Lockheed & Black Rock Investment of Vanguard than lower standards of commercial grade graphical end user visual mathematical production zones
Ur logging a lot of data failures regarding trust issues of digital systems engineering circuits which keep breaking electrical speed transactions between one system àñd another communication system that are NOT compatible with each other
And both ur channel and this guy including What's up in shipping is highlighted all the Errors in shipping logistics of electrical services of planes trains buses,ships busses and automotive services contracts
Electrical consent form and flow contracts
his is not a mathematical coincidence when the Krystal Tribal shield genome is fully integrated and activated Sensory capacitor levels of phasing speed
They R eir operating in their digital avionic simulation within simulation within simulation system QI AI coded finite fuel reserves until they implode and go NOVA b cuz they keep compressing their nucleotides sequences writing chaotic distorted sound waves recording speeds of mutagenic terra forming Geo AI machine coded engineering.
Gear 74 channel
Fighter Pilot Runs out of Fuel
th-cam.com/video/gq72ko366T4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ihrw5HGbfk1d1tyX
So what's going on with the China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735? The investigation has been silent for quite some time for the worst crash of 2022.
I thought from the beginning that the Kor gov would be highly motivated to destroy CVR evidence if it turned out to be pilot incompetence. Would that be possible?
@@ce7857 Of course it's possible to destroy the CVR. But then you'd have a destroyed CVR to answer for.
@@Edax_RoyeauxI heard it was suicide
A preliminary report is just that: preliminary. The big questions of flaps, landing gear, thrust reversers, etc., still remain. That's to say nothing of the big decision to do the go-around which, apparently, flew them straight into harm's way, if unwittingly so.
Hi Taking Off, just like the earlier episode you do a brilliant job of going through what little evidence is available and sensibly refuting a number of the various speculations that abound. What I am left with is another fascinating mystery story!, a great raft of unanswered questions, I do hope that you can get abreast of developments and continue to provide such good information and do so without recourse to futile speculation, this will set you apart from many other channel creators who are so desperate to score early points they keep shooting into their own goals!.
I wonder why when the reality is so obscure and interesting they are so keen to get answers so quickly.
Cheers, Richard.
Were the pilots talking with the tower all the way through the crash landing? Even if cvr was not recording, what did they tell the control tower?
Learning from this and the Sully accident, it should be made a rule to turn on the APU during take off and approach when thw aircraft is at an altitude where bird strikes may occur. Sully was able to fully control the Aircraft becausr the first thing he did was to start the APU. He had full hydraulics and all important systems available all the time. And batteries should be added to the recorders
Everyone is thinking if the engine is completely down during the landing but why is there no one talking about how did they activate the thrust reversers? If the engine was down and there's no electrical power, would they activate the reversers?
is anything known about the 2 Survivors today? How are they doing and most importantly: have they been questioned and provided answers of what happend live inside the plane??
This accident has alot to be explained. The immediate go around doesnt even seem neccesary if they were that close to landing. Pilot inexperience seems to be the core issue with this disaster along with a solid concrete barrier which impeded enough area in case of an over run of the run away.
So it has wheels down before turnaround
Words, words, words! All the words in the world will not cover up pilot error!
some people claim that there was no time to get the APU up and running.
You can enter RHS of a 737 after 150TT with a MPL.... and its not uncommon in the UK.
It seems like "positive rate of climb" is a really dumb metric because you can trade speed for altitude and be in big trouble. Increasing speed with positive rate of climb would mean something.
you don't increase the speed to climb you change the angle of attack on the wings maintaining the same speed.. that means you need more thrust not speed.. thus, the term "positive rate of climb".. when you learn to fly, we'll talk more....lol
I have a question does the tower control have a Record Devices? when he is chatting to any planes?
Private pilot here, who encountered birds on downwind one time many decades ago: Why go around when on final, configured for landing? If the bird strike was inevitable that low to the ground, what better configuration than on final ready to land versus getting back altitude and getting setup for another landing? I'd rather hit the birds on final than in the midst of a go around. I never hit the birds that day, but it was close. My focus was on my turn to final and keeping my head. This is just my own speculation. I wasn't in their shoes. It may be a common practice for commercial pilots to go around if they think they might hit birds - not familiar with their procedures. God bless them all.
In the voice recorded in CVR at 8:58:11 They said "There are fluck of birds below."
The birds in the report is Gachang duck. They fly together in a huge group. Not just some birds.
th-cam.com/video/HrFjMXGxH-g/w-d-xo.htmlsi=69MAEC-2ngTWvOdi
th-cam.com/video/0HUuQnNVn-Q/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5eAwaop9UrVg91Xm
(Same amount of it were seen in that morning by witness statement)
If you see those below, when you were in the cockpit. What would you do?
@@SoulFLT Wow - that puts allot of perspective on this. Thanks for sharing. Looks like they wound up hitting them regardless. Not sure what I'd do. It looks like they were gonna hit birds no matter what they did - based on the vids you shared. If it's inevitable, just a pure guess on my part, but stay on final and get on the ground, with tires, brakes and flaps and lower airspeed. Again - pure guess on my part. Not claiming to be right or to sit in judgement of them. Just thinking it thru in my mind.
Obviously they tried to _avoid_ bird strike by going around.
@@user-yt198 No doubt - for sure.
@@SoulFLTyou raise the critical point and I expect to see a change in training from this.
A huge flock of birds below going around is not necessarily a bad decision.
However now I would expect this to change to if your configured and stable and aircraft is manageable continue the approach and land maybe go back to flap 15 to extend glide range if necessary.
The real error in the video here is saying 4 mins is an eternity. 4 mins was realistically 3 mins here and if you follow sops you had no chance.
Can only see this being saved by the following and I had a lot more time to think about it and zero pressure or startle factor.
Once they hit birds captain pushes for full thrust disconnects auto throttle to milk any thrust they had remaining for as long as possible.
First officer immediately turns on apu and connects it to the busses once it was available.
Captain hand flies for the turn and calls for gear down once landing is assured with the glide range. Maybe some flap for extra drag to slow down.
All of this would have been initiative rather than trained non normal procedures. Kinda like silly starting the apu out of synch with the checklist
Unfortunately they seem to have been doomed by the go around decision, lack of ac power, and the concrete wall. I’d hazard they actually did a pretty good job in the circumstances that turn is not an easy manoeuvre under the circumstances
The older NGs only came with Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) powered off the 115vac XFR BUS 2 aircraft electrical power. The newer NGs and all MAX aircraft CVRs are powered off a Recorder Independant Power Supply (RIPS) which receives its power from the 28VDC BUS 2 power supply. When the RIPS senses less than nominal power from 28VDC BUS 2, the RIPS battery pack supplies the necessary backup power to the CVR. The RIPS supplies 28VDC to the CVR for ten (10) minutes ± 1 minute. Additionally, all NGs and MAX aircraft Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) systems receive their power from the 115VAC XFR BUS 1 aircraft electrical power. This information comes directly from the NG and MAX System Description Section (SDS) and the System Schematic Manual (SSM). Aircraft electrical power is developed by the two engine integrated drive generators (IDG) which each produce 115/200VAC, 400 Hz power and each supply up to 75KVA. Thus, one can see how the older Jeju 737-800 could have lost ALL power to the CVR and DFDR if there was a complete electrical power failure.
For me, there is only one explanation that makes sense. The pilot did a go around to avoid birds. During the go around, birds hit both engines. Pilot had a total panic attack and put it on the ground with with zero thought or preparation. They may even have pressed wrong buttons during their panic and turned off the radio and communication.
And forgot to put the landing gear back down...
Another internet genius. Are you drunk or high? Not everyone is skittish or incompetent as you.
.....and despite the pilot's total panic attack and him allegedly pressing the wrong buttons, he made a PERFECT belly landing right down the centerline of the runway. Your explanation does NOT make sense.
@@istudios225 if that is your idea of a perfect landing I hope you never learn to fly
can the data recorders be tampered with? They were sent to ntsb after the data was noted missing
This.. like some of the other crashes.. would partially never be decrypted as we would never know what the pilots spoke or did in the last minutes of their lives.
Please comment on ‘why a concrete wall’ would be designed and for what purpose?
How the landing gears go up? no engine power no EDP and no ACP mean engine driven pump or electrical pump? It take more than 5 sec get gear up?
Go around initiated before bird strike. Gear is up normally
Thank you for the video. The plane was able to go around (under control), glide down (under control), belly landed (under control), elevator not up to put nose on the ground and rudder not applied to steer plane away from ILS raised ground - unless it was assumed all earth to help slow the plane upon impact. Did anyone apply all this in a SIM?
Makes me wonder if they realized at the last moment that the gear wouldn't go down or they had forgotten to try and lower it so they increased thrust as much as possible and left the flaps so they could try to take off again but they couldn't get the speed up once hitting the ground, or alternatively they lost control of the flaps, gear and engines after lining up, I don't know how that would be possible but it might make sense if both of those recorders went down. Could the planes main battery have failed just as they were lined up, lack of maintenance perhaps ?
Is there any insight as to why they would fly over half the length of the runway before setting down? Would ground effect be that bad in a 737 without flaps deployed?
yes it is. We practice no flap landings in the sim regularly. 737s may look old and clunky, but the NG's wing is extremely clean aerodynamically. If you're even a few knots above your Zero flaps VTarget, you float like crazy. It's literally the reason we practice no flap landings so frequently. And the briefing for the maneuver is always "Remember ground effect, Watch VTarget"
A couple notes. The number 2 generator could have dropped of line durring the compressor surges.. and your pilot friends are not telling you about best glide. As you retract the flaps (best glide is predicated on a clean config) which is about 200-210 kts. Also. The proceedure for compressor stalls/surging. You pull the throttle back and the surges cease you slowly increase power on the affected engine and leave it at the highest setting free of compressor surges And an EGT in limits. Which if number 2 was producing thrust but not adequate thrust to climb or maintain level flight you may hit best glide with a shalldow descent rate (for arguments sake you can maintain 210 kts but only with a 100 fpm sink rate. Plus you dont know how long that good engine is going to last. That fills in the blanks on the speeds. And recorders cut out at 161 kts but likely the aircraft was accellerating at the time of the strike and they could have piched forward to achieve best glide. I agree there was probobly some thrust available... just not enough to hold an altitude. And enough to hold best glide but only with a shallow descent.
How did you talk to multiple 737 pilots yet misrepresent the N2 spool so badly? The N2 spool is just like the N1 spool but smaller AND is connected to a constant speed drive and other geared items. It is not geared in of itself.
Correct the CFM56-7b is not a geared fan, but IDG not CSD
frankly i doubt most commercial pilots have "in depth" knowledge of engine systems.( not at all meant as a negative comment)
He doesn't say he asked pilots about N2. He says pilots said 4 minutes is long enough for APU to start.
The importance of N2 is, generator is connected to the engine from high pressure turbine side (N2). Generator cannot generate electricity below 50% N2, but engine can still generate thrust.
So it is quite possible that left engine was working 50% for one minute reducing to zero and right engine 50% all along. They would not have AC power, but some thrust to make the teardrop maneuver.
It also explains why pilots were in a rush to try to land runway 19 instead of 01.
@@user-yt198 Can the plane fly on a quarter of its effective engine power? 50% of only one engine on a two engine plane is 25% of the total nominal power rating?
My understanding is you need at least 80% of one engine to function because of excess drag.
@Knirin If aircraft loses one engine, it can fly minimum 3 hours at full load, right? Considering that they spent most of their fuel until they arrive to their destination, they were not at full load. It seems that that much thrust was adequate for their load.
But obviously they were in a critical energy state and it explains why they didn't deploy landing gear and flaps which would increase drag, even if they could.
Cat 3 landing on Battery/Standby Power? How? What about Rad Altimeter data?