Bird strike was on both engines. As you can see in other videos, both engines have smoke puffs. When the captain announced Maydays 3 times it meant major emergencies, not just a bird strike. They had to land the plane ASAP and with power lost on both engines, they had to glide down with no landing gears. All steps were executed perfectly in these emergencies. This was not a pilot's error; this was the architect's error in building concrete barriers on the runway.
To have bird strike on both engines is rare and unfortunate. But the fact is, bird strike is commonplace and not really the issue. There are thousands of incidences of bird strike every year in the US. Planes are designed to fly and land safely on only one engine, they can at times even land safely with both engines out. You say there was power lost on both engines, that is clearly not the case because the pilot was in control of the plane, one engine was working, he did a go-around and came in at great speed (which means hydraulics were still operational). Second, there was no need to land without landing gears extended: even if both engines and hydraulics were lost, you can still extend the landing gear manually by use of a simple lever. The pilot did well to bring the plane down level but the fact is he landed too far down the runway, leaving not enough distance to stop. My guess is: one engine was fully disabled by bird strike and the other partially damaged but still providing thrust. With reduced power the captain decided to land ASAP. Wanting to maintain speed, he decided not to extend flaps or landing gear. However the rapidity of the turnaround teardrop maneouver means he did not get a proper look at the runway and misjudged the approach, landing too late. It appears the crucial mistake was to attempt to gain height and go-around, instead of simply landing the first time.
I have seen no videos of more than one "engine puff" (compressor stall) and I don't believe you that one exists. Getting the landing gear down does NOT require functional engines. Bird strikes CANNOT disable hydraulics and in fact the landing videos show that the plane was under control and therefor had hydraulics. If the pilots wanted to land on 19 (rather than just continue the landing on 01) and didn't have enough power and height to circle they anyway needed to make a larger teardrop turn to line up. As it was they floated down half the runway on ground effect and went off the end without any slow down except from a minor degree of tail strike. Massive pilot error was almost certainly involved.
The strip is 2800 feet, iirc, plenty of room to land if you don't start in the middle and put your gear down and deploy flaps. What makes you think the land along the river was suitable to land on?
The pilots were not directed to use runway 19. They requested that approach. Localizer structures are designed to break away on impact. It was the reinforced berm the localizer was mounted on, which the aircraft impacted. Mr. Thomas is incorrect, on several points. Runway 01 does not have a wall or berm, only a localizer, and beyond it, flat ground in case of a runway overrun.
One engine was clearly working as he came in for the landing. The plane was powered, the pilot was in control of it. At worst it was only partially damaged. The other engine was either accidentally switched off or fully disabled by bird strike.
He is also completely wrong about the aerials at the end of the runway. They did not comply . This is everywhere in the media from all sorts of professionals .. this guy is pumping out BS...
@@gandydancer9710 The antenna structure at the end of the runway where the recent Jeju Air 737 crash occurred at Muan International Airport is under investigation for its compliance with regulations. The antenna was mounted on a concrete foundation, which is considered an unusual design. Authorities are examining whether this structure adhered to rules concerning its materials, placement, and proximity to the runway. - so where is your information or will you now wet yourself and run for the exit.. ?... Positioning: Antennas must not interfere with aircraft during takeoff or landing and should be clear of the runway safety areas. + Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) are designated zones surrounding a runway designed to minimize damage to aircraft and injuries to passengers in case of runway excursions or overruns. They include: Dimensions: Typically extend 240-300 meters (790-1,000 feet) beyond each runway end and 75 meters (250 feet) on either side of the runway centerline. Functionality: Must be free of obstacles and constructed to support aircraft without causing structural damage during emergencies. - WHAT PART OF ALL THIS IS INCORRECT ?.... now please don't run away... WHERE IS YOUR DATA... or are you some cheap propagandist ???
Roughly two years will have passed before a thorough report on the accident will be produced which will include suggestions on how future accidents such as this one can be avoided...
8:59 This guy is not an expert. Most planes do not "blow up" if they hit the localizers. They will however if they hit a reinforced concrete bank that is not supposed to be there!
Don’t let the black box out of the country, otherwise NTSB will coverup any problems on the plane and blame it on the crew to protect any remnants of Boeing reputation. Japan, Indonesia and other countries has bitter experiences of it.
@@Life_Is_A... The 737-800 is one of the most reliable jets in aviation history. This is the original model before Boeing's issues that started with the 737-MAX. Nothing wrong with the 737-800
This is the first time I recall listening to this guy. He was, in fact, at odds with EVERY OTHER ANALYST I HAVE HEARD discussing this accident. To say that frangible ILS INSTRUMENTATION located near the end of the runways would cause the same destruction of an airliner is LUDICROUS in my mind. He’s not logical…
@@richardvervoorn6626exactly! He said many other incorrect things too. For example, you don’t “crank” the gear down. You pull a release and gravity brings it down.
sad ....RIP....with the country lead by clowns ruling and opposition fighting for power...dnt expect any good airport design....dnt blame the wall on the runway...those clowns in the parliment fighting each other is the main problem
7:10 The 737 was NOT directed to approach runway 19. That was solely the choice of the pilots. 8:50 ~"These are very robust structures." Nonsense. There is no reason for localizer arrays to be non-frangible. Some damage to a plane crashing into them is to be expected, but the design here was unconscionably sturdy. Lets not whitewash the pilots. Even if they had just one compromised engine they had enough airspeed to make a wider turn to that they could have had more time to do what was necessary. There are multiple ways to get the get the landing gear down and deploy flaps and wasting half the runway length was avoidable. I stopped watching at this point. There are far better sources of information.
No this is NOT a 787 plane, which I worked on as an engineer in 2011 AD to get it launched. I had a test plane 787 which was eventually sold to ANA, who took delivery of the first one in 2011 AD. This is a 737-800.
The guy who said the outcome would be the same if it just hit the localiser is nuts,totally coo coo. He adds nothing to the conversation. He has zero idea what he is talking about.
This is an error. Air Traffic Controller. They took the plane to the wrong airport. Also, both airports had problems. The bird hit the engine because the airspace near the airport was not prepared.
I believe one of your ‘analysts’ is incorrect when he says that the instrumentation at the end of the runway would have caused the jet to explode even without the concrete structure. ALL OF THE OTHER analysts have stated firmly that NORMALLY these antennae are designed and built to be FRANGIBLE, that is to say that they break away easily if these conditions occur. There was NO REASON to have the ILS APPROACH INSTRUMENTATION mounted on a reinforced concrete structure. This detail is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL when causing the ultimate full stop from approximately 150 MPH.
maybe the screens were indicating the gear out, but they could hear and feel whether it come out or not. if they knew the gear doesn't come out, they didn't deploy it manually either, and the gear must be deployed 10 min before landing, not when they are already on the runaway. even if that was not possible, they could reduce the speed, adjust flats and land at the start of the runaway to make most of it or even consider after discussions with the tower to potentially land on water to minimise impact and avoid loss of life the landing was rushed, when they could just fly longer, get rid of the fuel and ask for foam which would have helped immensely. also, the landing was not fully on the belly, but on the tale which would potentially have helped reduce the speed because of the high speed and short landing it ended in the wall. the wall was never an issue before because they regularly take off and land the other way around , until this very awkward executed landing. cannot wait for experts advice..
I doubt very much that landings are "regularly" (I guess you mean "usually") only in one direction. Usually you land upwind, but this was a calm day so either way was OK. The wall hasn't been an issue because planes usually (maybe invariably, until this event) stay on the runway, not float off its end at 150mph..
People who commented this is a suicide mission by the pilot you guys needs to shut up and keep that opinion to yourself. Clearly the pilots tried their best to get the plane landed and they did, I feel like the plane have multiple issues that we don't even know about. And blaming the bird stricked is just crazy, bird stricked won't killed all those passengers. Hitting those walls did. The pilots did their best but as we all can see the breaking gear wasn't even working? Is just too tragic. RIP BEAUTIFUL SOULS.
why do we need see this memorial footage.. in all black, wearing masks....aliens...hahah..these two muppets are clueless..yes indeed a huge reinforced wall is normal standard.
the black box is located in the same place as the two survivors were....i call BS on the the damage...how can two people survive but not the blackbox?...pray tell?..
Bird strike was on both engines. As you can see in other videos, both engines have smoke puffs. When the captain announced Maydays 3 times it meant major emergencies, not just a bird strike. They had to land the plane ASAP and with power lost on both engines, they had to glide down with no landing gears. All steps were executed perfectly in these emergencies. This was not a pilot's error; this was the architect's error in building concrete barriers on the runway.
To have bird strike on both engines is rare and unfortunate. But the fact is, bird strike is commonplace and not really the issue. There are thousands of incidences of bird strike every year in the US. Planes are designed to fly and land safely on only one engine, they can at times even land safely with both engines out. You say there was power lost on both engines, that is clearly not the case because the pilot was in control of the plane, one engine was working, he did a go-around and came in at great speed (which means hydraulics were still operational). Second, there was no need to land without landing gears extended: even if both engines and hydraulics were lost, you can still extend the landing gear manually by use of a simple lever. The pilot did well to bring the plane down level but the fact is he landed too far down the runway, leaving not enough distance to stop. My guess is: one engine was fully disabled by bird strike and the other partially damaged but still providing thrust. With reduced power the captain decided to land ASAP. Wanting to maintain speed, he decided not to extend flaps or landing gear. However the rapidity of the turnaround teardrop maneouver means he did not get a proper look at the runway and misjudged the approach, landing too late. It appears the crucial mistake was to attempt to gain height and go-around, instead of simply landing the first time.
I have seen no videos of more than one "engine puff" (compressor stall) and I don't believe you that one exists. Getting the landing gear down does NOT require functional engines. Bird strikes CANNOT disable hydraulics and in fact the landing videos show that the plane was under control and therefor had hydraulics. If the pilots wanted to land on 19 (rather than just continue the landing on 01) and didn't have enough power and height to circle they anyway needed to make a larger teardrop turn to line up. As it was they floated down half the runway on ground effect and went off the end without any slow down except from a minor degree of tail strike. Massive pilot error was almost certainly involved.
Why not emergency land along the river? That airport and landing strip looked tiny.
The strip is 2800 feet, iirc, plenty of room to land if you don't start in the middle and put your gear down and deploy flaps. What makes you think the land along the river was suitable to land on?
The pilots were not directed to use runway 19. They requested that approach.
Localizer structures are designed to break away on impact. It was the reinforced
berm the localizer was mounted on, which the aircraft impacted. Mr. Thomas
is incorrect, on several points. Runway 01 does not have a wall or berm, only a localizer,
and beyond it, flat ground in case of a runway overrun.
The plane touched down at about 42%, almost half way, down the runway.
Awesome episode.
This "expert" is absolutely incorrect. We have no evidence that there were two inop engines.
We don't have evidence both were working as well
One engine was clearly working as he came in for the landing. The plane was powered, the pilot was in control of it. At worst it was only partially damaged. The other engine was either accidentally switched off or fully disabled by bird strike.
He is also completely wrong about the aerials at the end of the runway. They did not comply . This is everywhere in the media from all sorts of professionals .. this guy is pumping out BS...
@@milesinnz Then the media is wrong. (Imagine that!) They did comply.
Which is not to say that putting them on a reinforced berm was a good idea.
@@gandydancer9710 The antenna structure at the end of the runway where the recent Jeju Air 737 crash occurred at Muan International Airport is under investigation for its compliance with regulations. The antenna was mounted on a concrete foundation, which is considered an unusual design. Authorities are examining whether this structure adhered to rules concerning its materials, placement, and proximity to the runway. - so where is your information or will you now wet yourself and run for the exit.. ?... Positioning: Antennas must not interfere with aircraft during takeoff or landing and should be clear of the runway safety areas. + Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) are designated zones surrounding a runway designed to minimize damage to aircraft and injuries to passengers in case of runway excursions or overruns. They include:
Dimensions: Typically extend 240-300 meters (790-1,000 feet) beyond each runway end and 75 meters (250 feet) on either side of the runway centerline.
Functionality: Must be free of obstacles and constructed to support aircraft without causing structural damage during emergencies. - WHAT PART OF ALL THIS IS INCORRECT ?.... now please don't run away... WHERE IS YOUR DATA... or are you some cheap propagandist ???
Excellent analysis between the journalist, Haslinda Amin, and Geoffrey Thomas.
Lousy analysis.
@gandydancer9710 C'mon, fair suck of the sav.
The flaps and landing gear were working, they were extended for the initial (aborted) landing ..and then retracted again before the second landing.
Am I the only one who saw a puff of smoke from the left motor as well?
Yes, you are.
Roughly two years will have passed before a thorough report on the accident will be produced which will include suggestions on how future accidents such as this one can be avoided...
A prelim report will be out in a month or two.
PILOT ERROR BROUGHT THE PLANE DOWN, BUT THE WALL KILLED THEM.
8:59 This guy is not an expert. Most planes do not "blow up" if they hit the localizers. They will however if they hit a reinforced concrete bank that is not supposed to be there!
Don’t let the black box out of the country, otherwise NTSB will coverup any problems on the plane and blame it on the crew to protect any remnants of Boeing reputation. Japan, Indonesia and other countries has bitter experiences of it.
I think Boeing should consider only making yoyos at this point.
@@Life_Is_A... The strings would probably break...
@@Life_Is_A... The 737-800 is one of the most reliable jets in aviation history. This is the original model before Boeing's issues that started with the 737-MAX. Nothing wrong with the 737-800
@@timoooo7320 Looks like the old 737-800 is retiring itself, without consulting with Boeing management.
No sign yet that this resulted from any problems with the plane. Looks like massive pilot error.
He is a journalist, how come a journalist can comment on technical matters?!
Please stop putting Geoffrey on these broadcasts. Just about everything he says is wrong.
This is the first time I recall listening to this guy. He was, in fact, at odds with EVERY OTHER ANALYST I HAVE HEARD discussing this accident. To say that frangible ILS INSTRUMENTATION located near the end of the runways would cause the same destruction of an airliner is LUDICROUS in my mind. He’s not logical…
@@richardvervoorn6626exactly! He said many other incorrect things too. For example, you don’t “crank” the gear down. You pull a release and gravity brings it down.
sad ....RIP....with the country lead by clowns ruling and opposition fighting for power...dnt expect any good airport design....dnt blame the wall on the runway...those clowns in the parliment fighting each other is the main problem
7:10 The 737 was NOT directed to approach runway 19. That was solely the choice of the pilots.
8:50 ~"These are very robust structures." Nonsense. There is no reason for localizer arrays to be non-frangible.
Some damage to a plane crashing into them is to be expected, but the design here was unconscionably sturdy.
Lets not whitewash the pilots. Even if they had just one compromised engine they had enough airspeed to make a wider turn to that they could have had more time to do what was necessary. There are multiple ways to get the get the landing gear down and deploy flaps and wasting half the runway length was avoidable.
I stopped watching at this point. There are far better sources of information.
No this is NOT a 787 plane, which I worked on as an engineer in 2011 AD to get it launched. I had a test plane 787 which was eventually sold to ANA, who took delivery of the first one in 2011 AD. This is a 737-800.
The guy who said the outcome would be the same if it just hit the localiser is nuts,totally coo coo.
He adds nothing to the conversation.
He has zero idea what he is talking about.
The subtitles are atrocious !! Has Bloomberg noticed. Is it done by Korea or China !!??
This is an error. Air Traffic Controller. They took the plane to the wrong airport. Also, both airports had problems. The bird hit the engine because the airspace near the airport was not prepared.
Jeez. There is no "wrong airport".
The airport is in a marsh. An estuary. Birds gonna be there.
8:09 That fake accent is outrageous.
This reporter Amin sounds a little too excited. Have a little more solemn tone out of respect for the people of South Korea.
I believe one of your ‘analysts’ is incorrect when he says that the instrumentation at the end of the runway would have caused the jet to explode even without the concrete structure. ALL OF THE OTHER analysts have stated firmly that NORMALLY these antennae are designed and built to be FRANGIBLE, that is to say that they break away easily if these conditions occur. There was NO REASON to have the ILS APPROACH INSTRUMENTATION mounted on a reinforced concrete structure. This detail is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL when causing the ultimate full stop from approximately 150 MPH.
Happy new year
We should stop using Airplanes and start to walk instead.
maybe the screens were indicating the gear out, but they could hear and feel whether it come out or not.
if they knew the gear doesn't come out, they didn't deploy it manually either, and the gear must be deployed 10 min before landing, not when they are already on the runaway.
even if that was not possible, they could reduce the speed, adjust flats and land at the start of the runaway to make most of it
or even consider after discussions with the tower to potentially land on water to minimise impact and avoid loss of life
the landing was rushed, when they could just fly longer, get rid of the fuel and ask for foam which would have helped immensely.
also, the landing was not fully on the belly, but on the tale which would potentially have helped reduce the speed
because of the high speed and short landing it ended in the wall. the wall was never an issue before because they regularly take off and land the other way around , until this very awkward executed landing.
cannot wait for experts advice..
I doubt very much that landings are "regularly" (I guess you mean "usually") only in one direction.
Usually you land upwind, but this was a calm day so either way was OK. The wall hasn't been an issue because planes usually (maybe invariably, until this event) stay on the runway, not float off its end at 150mph..
First commentator offered NOTHING useful...
This Thomas guy is a lackey. Is he being paid by someone? Sure sounds like it. What a bum.
Their "expert" sounds unusually ignorant about safety issues in aviation.
Carter’s biggest humanitarian legacy, for which he deserved a 2nd Nobel prize, was the ouster of the shah in favor of Khomeni.
pair of clots
People who commented this is a suicide mission by the pilot you guys needs to shut up and keep that opinion to yourself. Clearly the pilots tried their best to get the plane landed and they did, I feel like the plane have multiple issues that we don't even know about. And blaming the bird stricked is just crazy, bird stricked won't killed all those passengers. Hitting those walls did. The pilots did their best but as we all can see the breaking gear wasn't even working? Is just too tragic.
RIP BEAUTIFUL SOULS.
why do we need see this memorial footage.. in all black, wearing masks....aliens...hahah..these two muppets are clueless..yes indeed a huge reinforced wall is normal standard.
the black box is located in the same place as the two survivors were....i call BS on the the damage...how can two people survive but not the blackbox?...pray tell?..
Perfect armchair expert comment, well done 👍
@@embracedmadness common sense to intellegent people..black boxes have been pulled from the bottom of the ocean after being submerged for months..
Pilots panic
Looked delibrate
Considering Korea is in a political crisis right now. I think they did it to try divert attention
Looks like you are fantasizing.
i dont believe it. pilot error, pilot error.
Looking at this horrific crash as a lay- man .
Surely it was avoidable, the plane landed obviously going to fast.
Pilot error ❓