The Wall Saved more people dying as the Jet would of went straight through the buildings packed with people only a few 100 metres further! Landing to fast in the wrong direction & landing half way down the runway is what killed everyone! Captains Fault!!
@@jarnosaarinen4583 Where did you hear that nonsense...? Because there is at least one "specialist" peddling it. And that "edifice 100 mts further" is NOt THERE.
@@jarnosaarinen4583 That is false, there is no edifice 100 mts furhter. Check Joojle Earth before spreading that nonsense. There is at least half a mile of open land before any building in the way.
No flaps, no gear, heavy load, no reverse thrust or breaks, higher required landing speed, ground effect due to no flaps - everything was against them successfully landing.
Wasn't a wall. Was a dirt mound, with the localizer runway guidance antennae mounted on top of it. In the USA those antennae are mounted on a platform flush with the ground with break-away mountings so if an airplane hits it there should be minimal damage. Remember, we are dealing with a 3rd world rat hole airport and safety is not a priority. When you leave this country, all bets are off, for just about everything...
Having a concrete barrier at the end of a runway instead of a runoff area is by far the most significant factor and the primary cause of the loss of life in this incident and is quite a mistake
yes, the wall is at the start of the runway, the plane should have landed on the different direction wherein there's still a wide space on the other side of the runway if it overshoot.
@@Tactical07H3 the wall back or front or side they must be no non non wall we dont know why she or he make that decision to Land that way non wall yes there will some but not 179 dead
@@Tactical07H3 both ends of the runway are meant to be clear just to avoid this very tragedy, had they got longer poles on the approach lights the plane would have snapped them off, without in all probability the huge loss of life.
@@Tactical07H3 There should have been no barriers at all. The pilots judged that they didn't have time to land the aircraft the other way. Most runways are used in both directions anyway.
Maybe the pilot tried and was not able get them to work.. not always human error.. maybe the plane had faulty equipment... It's terrible so many people died needlessly regardless of why.. we can pray that the truth will come out, if it was tampered with, it will be exposed... no cover ups...!!
Generally from what I understand, there is a complete separation of safety systems so a failure in one system is unlikely to affect another. I know there are manual landing gear releases that basically use gravity to drop and lock the landing gear. When I fly, I'm usually in an exit row over the wing and I can tell we'll be landing soon when I see the flaps deployed. But that happens long before we touch down. They way I understand it is that flaps increase the wing size and increase lift in the wings for control when slowing down to land. On the flights I've been on the flaps are deployed very early as the aircraft approaches for landing.
@dalesmth1 On a Boeing 737, the hydraulic system that powers the flaps is typically not solely supplied by the right engine, but rather draws from a redundant system where both engines contribute to the hydraulic pressure, meaning both the left and right engine can provide hydraulics to operate the flaps depending on system configuration and needs.
I have many hours flying the B737-800. This accident is very strange. The bottom line here is the airplane was flyable on one engine and the landing gear could be extended by gravity in a hydraulic failure situation. We practiced these type of emergencies in the simulator on a regular basis and they were very manageable. I am curious to see what the voice recorder will reveal.
why no full flaps deployed? no slats(spoilers) to be seen, seems no reverse thrust applied Edit: seems like the plane was trying to take off for a go around at the last moment
As a retired airline mechanic I agree that a single engine out would not cause the failure that this aircraft seems to have had. It’s too soon to start making assumptions. Wait for the flight data and cockpit voice recordings to be analyzed before coming to any kind of conclusions. It’s not normal for pilots to land with a tailwind and at that kind of speed,and not dropping the landing gear? My sincerest condolences to the families of the deceased.🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
@@deidradahl2802Yes. If the wall was not there, most probably everyone might have survived. But that is not the issue. The issue is what was the cause of the mechanical failure in the first place? If there was no mechanical failure, that wall would be irrelevant. It had been there for ages and tens of thousands of planes have taken off and landed on that runway since.
I agree. The pilots got this plane on the ground but obviously the hydraulics were not functioning. I would have tried putting it down on the dirt for less friction and heat, and increased drag to attempt a stop without reverse thrust or brakes.. The problem with this is ground looping the plane due to excessive drag on one side or the other.
@@exeter66 the pilot landed in the wrong direction the barrier was only on one side. They were supposed to fly over the barrier, then touch down with the barrier behind them.
Lame. Denys on Pilot blog, who used to fly the 747-800 gives a really good breakdown of the situation and why its such a head scratcher as to why the landing gear wasn't lowered. The gear can be manually lowered, so its interesting that we don't see any indication of even an attempt to put the gear down, nor do we see flaps raised, air brakes, or the reverse thruster on the port engine, all things that would have slowed the plane down.
That had crossed my mind. If the pilot wanted to comit suicide, I doubt he would want to risk killing so many people beside himself. He could have been working for Alan's Snackbar.
Why is there a wall at the end of that runway?! It didn’t look like the play exploded on impact with the ground. It looked like the plane exploded when it collided with the wall!
There were landing aid antennas at the end of the runway mounted to the concrete wall, no one can explain why they used concrete instead of small towers like here in the US.
@gomez2724 It is actually an earth berm. With the antennae concrete foundation on top. The antennae has to be more or less were it was. And the more height = safer landings. It's actually rather questionable if running into a row of a dozen steel extension towers at 150 mph would have made a difference.
@andrewtaylor940: They're designed to shear off -- like how light poles by roads are mounted on bolts that shear off when a car slams into one. The concrete foundation should've been flush to the grade of the ground or lower, and the ILS antennas and lights mounted on top. Beyond that, there's a perimeter fence made of CMU blocks that separate upon impact. The problem is that the design has large solid concrete barriers above grade, which are topped with dirt, guaranteeing that a high-speed runway excursion will destroy the airplane and kill nearly everyone.
@DivineNoodlesHCR2 A bird strike does not take out 3 landing gear assemblies. The belly landed beautifully,gear up, thrust reverses engaged. A concrete wall across the overrun area destroyed them.
@michaelplunkett8059 Even if it took out the hydrolics the 737 can manually drop gear. A child could do it, but not these crap pilots apparently. No flaps, no reversing of engines. Just terrible, cheap pilots.
The plane was fine until it exploded when it hit the concrete wall that should never have been placed there .The airport is unsafe as it was placed between three bird nesting sites and bird events are common .Koreas transport minister needs to resign.
What gives me a headache is that the plane hit the wall with 150mph. The runway is 2800m long and I think no one thought that someone would hit this „wall“ with that speed when they built this shit there. What would the airplane have hit without the „wall“ and that speed? It would have needed probably another 500m to stop
@@cipher88101 It is a dirt berm covering the concrete wall holding the antennas. You can see all the destroyed concrete in pictures taken after the crash.
The plane landed without ANY landing gear. Lot of questions to answer on this one, but a bird strike had nothing to do with this incident. The 737-800 can take off and fly fine on one engine. The landing gear can be deployed without any engines or power via pull cables aft of the center console allowing the landing gear to drop unpowered. After skidding down the runway, the plane was still going faster than normal landing speed when it overran the runway. The plane also touched down far down the runway. During the crash you can hear an engine spooling down, giving cause to believe at least one engine was operating. Also the number two engine reverser was deployed giving reason to believe that there was hydraulic power. This investigation will be interesting and no conclusions can be drawn until the investigation is complete. Condolences to the victims families and loved ones. 😢
If one engine had a functioning reverser, the plane would have yawed off centerline. This plane was skidding on its engine pods and tail section but it was going over 150 miles per hour when it left the runway. It should have been going slower than that at touchdown and gradually decelerated. It did not. No flaps or slats would have increased the desired cross-the-fence speed, but it was recorded at 135 kts at 900 ft, the last data point. The CVR and black box (and transparency by the airline and overseeing agency) will tell the truth. It occurred to me after posting that if the reversers were both employed and the engines both functioning, the reversers may not have deployed completely which means they would have been thrusting the airplane instead of slowing it down. That might explain why the aircraft failed to slow down. The reversers would not come out until the landing gear detected touchdown would they not? It might have been better to go to flight idle.
Agreed that the apparent lack of braking attempt would have nothing to do with a bird strike. I can only wonder if there was some passenger onboard who was the target of an assassination attempt with everyone else being mere collateral damage.
Disinformation.the bird strike was the third event.After that there is some dispute until the concrete wall incinerated everyone but the two crew.The first event was building an airport between three bird nesting sites ,the second event was an emergency on the same plane two days before ,the third event was the bird strike .The fourth event was likely pilot error during the 3 minutes it took to land .They would have been safer to land in the water as Sullenburger did with an airbus that had both engines shut down by a bird strike,he saved all the passengers and crew.A movie made about it with Tom Hanks starring.
No flaps, no airbreaks, no landing gear... One bird may destroy an engine, but not whole hydraulic system. In the video with that bird we can see that the plane is at quite low altitude without flaps extended.
I still believe the Pilots RUSHED their landing. Didn't take enough time to use the checklists and troubleshoot the issue. My take is Pilot error, unfortunately
The control tower is charge with telling the pilots of any external issues with the plane during an emergency landing. There is no way the pilots didn't know.
I agree. Possibly they shut down the wrong engine and then decided to land asap on 19 and completely screwed it up, forgetting the u/c and flaps in their panic.
Investigations that concludes up with “pilot error” as the cause are incomplete and a waste of time and resource. This is the start of the real investigation. A real investigation must ask why they did what they did. What were they thinking? What did they hear, feel and smell? What did they believe had happened? And so on. Only by answering these questions will you determine the true cause and start taking steps to prevent reoccurrence.
Not quite. The most talked-about points are the flight crew's decisions & the wall. The wall would not have even been a problem if the flight crew followed protocols.
In the photo showing the compressor stall the flaps are extended yet on the fatal landing they had been retracted. The gear has a manual gravity release totally seperate from electrical or hydraulic systems. I’d suggest the pilot panicked, ignored the checklists and forgot to reset the flaps and lower the gear, this looks like 100% pilot error.
They were in a position to land and they should’ve landed. Why did they go around? That’s what I don’t understand. They were stabilized and descending. QRH states if you have a good operating engine with plenty of power continue to approach if you don’t go to flaps 15 ref +20 land deal with the rest of it on the ground.
They had too much power, runaway engines, that was their main problem. They almost had the perfect solution (belly landing on land or water), but they just weren't aware of the cement wall at the end of this particular runway.
All of this reporting is wrong…. I was a 737 Captain. It did not land “with the front landing gear retracted”…. It landed with NO landing gear. If it has the main landing her it would have had brakes. It did NOT hit a concrete wall… it hit the dirt mound the localizer antennae was on. They left the runway at 150mph…. Rather than the first officer with his hand on the window he should have pulled the 3 alternate fee extension handles…. Can’t wait to see the data recorders
In your opinion is it possible they thought the gear was out - and that they learned of their mistake only upon bellying on the runway? Could they have been in such a panic as to forget this? Is this a reality?
No way that was forgotten. You don't forget the flaps either. That's landing. It was intentional and every other pilot that's commented on this has said the same thing: whatever it was in the cockpit they had to land immediately. Either smoke or both engines failed. There is also speculation that one of the bird strikes deployed the right reverse thruster mid-air. I think there were bird strikes (or meddling drones) that took out hydraulic pumps in both engines and smoke filled the cabin. With no time to manually deploy landing gear they did an emergency landing on the belly going the "wrong" way on the runway - that airport normally lands aircraft the other direction but they turned around. There was a reinforced concrete + dirt filled barrier protecting the attennae at the normal start of the runway that probably was not to code. That's what killed all but two crew members who miraculously survived thanks to the heroic pilot's efforts.
Boeinguy, please tell me if I am way off-base. One of the salient things for me is the centered alignment of the plane on the runway. It looks like a normal landing at first, until it skids on its belly. Is this a possible A/T failure with autoland? Thanks in advance for your feedback on this.
and people wonder why i keep saying if only we had AI or robot pilots it would stop 99.9% of accidents, but nooooooo, everyone still thinks having humans who make so many mistakes running the plane is still the smart idea for some reason, if rather trust an AI or robot pilot any day over the best human pilot, when things come down to the crunch a human pilot gets scared, sweats, gets nervous, gets worried, gets confused, makes more mistakes, an AI pilot would never make these mistakes because its not human, which is a major advantage
@@petejames1326 You might be right but what about Sullenberger's landing on the Hudson River in 2009? The insurers could not recreate the landing that he did? Would AI have done what Sullenberger did? I'm not a pilot - I'm just curious because it would seem that this very sad tragedy might be more than just "pilot error". May all those who lost their lives rest in peace - we mourn their losses as fellow human beings. May the truth be found as to what really caused this tragedy.
The main reason why 179 people died was the plane hitting the radar track at the end of the runway. The radar was over built and could stop a tank from breaking it if attacked. 2 metres of reinforced concrete deep was the cause of the fire as the plane skid into it. To fast, wrong way landing and rushing to land all should be accounted for those lives lost.
Imagine going to a drag race and they built a brick wall at the end of the quarter mile mark...unimaginable. Survive the flight and landing to be taken out by a wall that shouldn't be there. RIP
@@chrismcbean3141 I knew I had heard of his name but wasn't sure of the accident. I watched the videos from it. Horribly unfortunate, bad accident. The only hope is that he didn't suffer and it was over quickly although he probably had a few seconds to realize it was going to be bad. Godspeed Sir!
Prayers... to whom? The majority of South Koreans are not theists, or even Buddhists, so I'm not sure that praying to them, or to someone/something on their behalf, would be that much appreciated. Why don't people think before they post such useless and idiotic comments?
@ Why are YOU so BITTER? For a change, change your attitude and be more optimistic. Be a part of a solution NOT TO BE A PART OF A PROBLEM. You better CALM DOWN and RELAX and FREE YOURSELF WITH SO MUCH HATE and ANGER. Your anger will not solve anything ABOUT THE WAR WITHIN YOURSELF-PROBABLY WHEN YOU READ THIS SIMPLE MESSAGE, YOU MIGHT HAVE A HEART ATTACK and I DON’T WANT YOU TO EXPERIENCE THAT KIND OF FEELING. Mentally you need to be stable to handle what kind of problems you’re having. BREATHE and BE MORE INTO REALITY. YOU NEED TO RESPECT (if YOU BELIEVE IN HUMANITY) PEOPLE’S BELIEFS AND OPINIONS. BE MORE KINDER WITH YOUR WORDS and CALLING PEOPLE NAMES -WILL NOT SOLVE ANY OF YOUR ANGER AND IDIOTIC, MORONIC NONSENSICAL WORDS. STAY PUT AND DO NOT LET YOUR MIND LINGER INTO SOMETHING INSIDIOUS THINKING. STOP HATE AND ANGER AS IT WILL SET YOU FREE..
@@rosariolarion9319 - I'm perfectly relaxed. I'm just making the perfectly rational point that those who tell grieving and distraught people they are going to pray for them without considering whether such prayers are appropriate or would be appreciated, or might even be hurtful and deeply resented, are guilty of a particularly offensive kind of arrogance. And suggesting that prayers are "part of a solution" in a case like this is a mark of narrow-minded idiocy. Nobody, in the history of our species, has ever had their problems solved or their grief and distress alleviated by some foreigner appointing themselves to pray to their imaginary friend/sky-fairy on their behalf.
Hopefully the FDR will give some answers to prevent this in the future. No gear, no flaps, no speed brakes and a ground speed at touch down that was alarmingly fast. Sad.
Unless they find something indicating that the landing gear could not be deployed even manually there most likely wont be a different conclusion then a pilot error.
@ That’s right. But it is not a matter to blame them because they are dead. Aircraft accidents are investigated to know the chain of events that lead to the crash and then take measures to avoid a similar situation.
After looking at this over and over, along with examining the facts and evidence, there's nothing that suggests to me that the aircraft was at all the problem. Even had it had multiple malfunctions, there's no reason they couldn't have deployed the gear with the emergency system. Not to mention, they didn't deploy the flaps or the spoilers to try and slow to a safe landing speed. There are a number of red flags here that point to an issue with the flight crew rather then the aircraft itself.
Forget the wall, figure first why the one engine went out ! Why the landing gear were not lowered, even manually. Pilots that fly this same aircraft said ENOUGH time was there to do so. Something else went on on the cockpit checklist procedures that didn't happen.
There's no indication that any engine went out. Power was not an issue at any stage of flight. The plane was on a stabilised approach both times and hydraulics were also not an issue.
Watching the video of the landing poses questions - landing speed, landing direction. Lack of pilot experience? Perhaps. I hope it gets properly investigated to avoid it ever happening again. Very sad event at this time of year. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones.
That wall should have NEVER been built there - The runway should have had a buffer zone to allow for runway excursions - Had that wall not been built like that the accident would have been survivable. There is no excuse for such a design to be at the end of a runway like that!
@soonmipark9791. No way, there were to many variables that made no sense. Had the 737 landing going North it would of hit some chain fences and then a huge grass dirt field without any buildings or hotels in front of it even if the plane overran the runway. Landing South was the ILS antenna array mounted on that dirt covered mound pull box. It made no sense why the crew didn’t just land it the first approach. It was so sad, they all might of survived with minimal injuries.
It’s called ground effect. A phenomenon that keeps plane on a pillow of air. He was just going too fast for it to settle in on the runway. Terrible decision making on pilots part.
Pilot didn’t deploy the landing gear, which could be an error, that’s why it was going so fast because he possibly didn’t realise that it wasn’t lowered, and knowing that there was a wall of some kind at the end of the runway if there was a genuine problem you’d have thought that the tower would have been notified and the pilot would have slowed the plane down to the slowest speed possible and ditched it at one side of the runway or the other. They’re going to analyse the black box but they also need to be investigating conversations between the pilot and the tower because that plane was going just too fast for a plane that was damaged or in some kind of crisis where the pilot appears to be doing little about it.
The #2 (right) engine was indeed damaged due to the bird strike and despite a stabilized approach, the pilot elected to call an emergency and go around and attempt an emergency landing on the opposite end of the- runway 19. It is quite possible that in their attempt to shut down the #2 engine they may have mistakenly shut down the other on instead - this has happened before. With no engines producing power they had no hydraulics to lower the landing gear, flaps and slats. They could lower the gear manually but the switches are no easily reachable and the crew was focused on the landing. With no landing gear, flaps or slats the plane was approaching much too fast and the ground effect caused the plane to float halfway down the runway. The plane was still going over 100 mph when it lest the end of the runway and the berm upon which the ILS localizer antennas were built, caused the catastrophic breakup. Blame goes to the crew as well as the airport officials who allowed such a structure off the end of the runway.
The wrong engine was shut down in the Kegworth air crash in the UK in 1989. The air crash investigation report recommended that all passenger planes should have cameras fitted to enable the pilots to see the engines. It seems that this has not happened . . .
A definite tragedy. Pilot error for sure. I believe they were panicked to get the plane on the ground in a hurry, they didn't go through the proper checklists for a safe landing
@@joeschmoe21 Exactly my theory as well. No heat shimmer from the exhaust on #1 in the head on video. Explains why the reverser wasnt deployed either, while #2 was. I think #2 was still idling or had SOME power, but not much.
I can’t tell you what went wrong with the plane but I can tell you what went wrong with the landing. When a planes lands without its gear extended the drag on the belly forces the nose of the plane down. This pilot held back pressure on the yolk which created lift and reduced drag. That’s why he didn’t stop. He was barely touching the runway. There was no real grinding friction between the fuselage and the runway to stop the plane. Mechanical malfunction? Sure. But the landing was all pilot error.
Excellent observation. Not a pilot or even in the field but did notice the nose up ,like he still had power on. Maybe slamming the engines on the ground the air brakes didnt work .
He landed long and was much too fast. The question is why. Once they were committed to that landing, even Sully couldn't have saved that plane. By the way, fighter aircraft hold their nose up to slow the airplane rolling out for landing. We did that on T-38s, a supersonic trainer.
@ we practice flap up landings. Heck, we even have done gear up landings. It’s all energy management. I would bet ten bucks he secured the wrong engine.
The possible causes and chronology of events are as under: 1. pilot aborted the first landing attempt due to less skills level. 2. Bird strike is sure as seen in footage which may have resulted in one engine failure 3. This may have increased the panic level of pilot. 4. This may have resulted in brain fridgging of the pilot where he forgot to activate landing gear and spoilers. 5 . It is sure that landing gear and spoilers cannot malfunction just due to single engine failure... Atleast both of them
Three gears do not hang up at the same time, especially when there is an alternate mechanical release , which is controlled by the crew. I suspect crew panic was part of the problem.
Yes, it seems at this stage ..... hope I'm wrong. Just incompetent , panicked pilots. I still feel them knowing that they could see that death wall approaching
@@linmal2242 - Partly to be determined, from contents on the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) as well as the FDR (Flight Data recorder) - along with flight crews Financial Investigations, Debts, Gambling or other Activities that can cause external stress to a person!
I saw a similar landing about 3 years ago, and I saw a pilot land a Boeing 767 , no landing gear, done to perfection. Passengers said, it was so smooth, it felt like a normal landing, and from what I saw, it looked like one as well. Right engine caught fire on landing, but put out right away. Nobody hurt. These guys panicked and entered the runway to deep, and too fast. The concrete burm was the the final killer. If it was a mud field, all might have lived. That concrete burm should not have been there, and should be removed, and "right away." That was the final straw here, that caused this.
I'm no pilot but they put wheels and flaps on those planes for s reason!The wall didn't cause that crash it wss lack of control of breaking and steering not to mention the lack of correct use of flaps killed those people!
It appears to me as a retired military aircrew that the pilot panicked, forgot all his emergency procedures and crash landed the airplane unnecessarily
What are the chances they turned off the wrong engine? How easily could a mistake like that be made? Some are saying this might have happened. It's happened fairly recently before to an airliner and they crash landed, many deaths.
Just a Theory, there first attempt the crew did a "go around" as they were climbing out they would have put flaps up gear up. Did they hit a bird or birds during that phase causing them, (due to possible fire alarm going off in cockpit) to pull wrong tee handle and by doing that they lost the good engine? At that point they would have very little time to declare an emergency and try to land back on same runway but the opposite way of the first landing, possibly with any wind pushing them from the tail. With no power trying to maintain lift, this would be a faster decent and therefor no flaps, there is a manual extension of the gear but either the capt. or fo. might have thought that deploying the gear would add drag and they needed all available speed to try to land on the runway (cockpit voice recorder that was recovered will answer that question.) The decision was made to land AC on its belly. It does look from video that the AC touched down further down the runway not utilizing the full 9800 ft available. This could suggest that the ac had no power and was gliding at a faster speed requiring capt. to try to get the airplane into ground effect prior to touching down. If he tried to land without that ground effect happening, by descending to quick, to try to get the plane to touch down at beginning of the runway, he would have crashed. This is due to vertical speed being to fast to achieve ground effect. I believe the capt. did achieve ground effect, that created a temporary lift, causing him to pull back gently on the yoke to bleed of that ground effect lift, and land. Unfortunately the AC touched down further down the runway then he would have liked, and could not stop prior to the end of the runway, hitting the wall at significant speed.
the plane touched down so late it ran out of runway, if it touched down at normal touch down point it would have enough run way to drag to a complete stop, so obvious
This is so heartbreaking! It presents as multiple mechanical failures at once, with a flight crew that made every attempt to preserve life...please remember them for that....and yes, India, I'm NY Toms very British/Brazilian future wife MD
Such a tragedy … and a reminder to live each day to the fullest, never neglecting those we love. None of us are promised tomorrow. Thoughts and prayers are with all who are grieving 🙏
As for Engine failure due to a bird strike, not likely. These engines have frozen turkeys thrown into them at maximum power, and still operate at a reduced power level. Why the aircraft was not configured for landing is a more pressing question.
WRONG! 1. The birds are not frozen. 2. The bird test is to confirm that components shed from a damaged, unbalanced engine are contained - not that it continues to run. 3. The more pressing question is why did this aircraft return so quickly (8 minutes after the bird strike).
If look closer, it shows pilots weren't using either flaps or airbrakes at the beginning of the video 1:13 The small thing next to the wing is the vertical stabilizer
Should NEVER put walls at the end of the runways. If the wall wasn’t there, the plane would have just skidded on the ground and would soon stop and no lives would have been lost at all!! I say the families should sue the owner of the airport, government or KAC. What a horrible tragedy. May those perished rest in peace and deepest condolences to their loved ones.
If that plane would not have hit that wall, and the run way kept on going for a half mile, then a area of field, it would have never exploded from the impact and everyone might still be alive with a very damaged airliner.
To the south of that runway there is a large open flat area that should've allowed a runaway airplane to stop if the stupid earth berm and perimeter wall wasn't there. The wall even has a gate just offset from the runway centre line which the fuselage might have been able to pass through given the luck.
Pilot error after whatever stopped the number two engine. Landing long on the runway, flaps not deployed, gear not down - speed so high that there was no chance of surviving the landing. The pilots panicked and did not use checklists, etc. Very sad.
There is literally no point in speculating at this point in time. Wait until they have analysed the data and determined the cause. How much of a rough, sandy, boggy catch ropes/chains on the over run of a runway would be needed to safely stop such a plane? But speculating what caused the accident, and why they ran into a concrete structure 200m off thw end of the runway is doing more harm than good. Wait for the investigation, and hope thar whatever problem, error there was can be fixed or changed to prevent further similar problems.
What caused the deaths was hitting that wall, air traffic control and pilot knew the wall was there, best bet was to land on the sea with the emergency crew waiting. They had all the time in the world to coordinate a better safe landing location
Look up EMAS - engineered materials arresting system. This airport also didn't meet the international frangible standard for mounting localizer antennas. Money spent on either would have greatly reduced the number of lives lost no matter what the cause of the too high of speed, way too far down the runway, no gear, no slats touchdown.
What people seem to misunderstand is that this is not the end of the runway...it's the beginning...the plane landed in the wrong way from what I understood
So in this case, both engines were out due to birds, but the plane was close to the runway and had no engine power to go around. So the pilot was forced to land at high speed. the more fatal was who made the concrete fence at the end of the runway ?
Something else is happening here, if the landing gear couldn’t be deployed, the fuel tanks should have been emptied before landing. How would a bird strike affect the landing gear?
If you need to lower the gear on the emergency system you merely need to release the uplocks. Open panel on flight deck floor and pull 3 rings attached to cables. This can easily be done within about 10 seconds. The respective gears will go to the down and locked position due to gravity. In normal operation the hydraulics cushion the gear against lowering too fast.
@williamsaucier6962 i get that, but there was, definitely a problem with the plane prior to that. The plane aborted 1 approach. Came around and crashed on the second approach. The bird strike would do nothing to cause that. Even if you lose 1 engine you have the second, watch the video again. No landing gear extended very fast approach speed no flaps. Everything I see points to the pilots not following protocols put in place prior to counter whatever malfunctions that did occur. They panicked and didnt follow the book/manual that guides them step by step to regain contol of the aircraft. Aircraft engineer here with crash investigation experience behind me. Was there a problem with the plane?? 1,000% Most probably. But not one that would cause this if a pilot follows the redundency checklist??? 1,000,000% Most definitely not. That's just the sad truth behnd it. As the investagation moves on you will see what I am talking about. My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones I am currently investigating a single plane accident that took 5 lives 3 days before Christmas where I am now
Yes, no landing gears are seen.. The plane seems to be dragging on the belly, without the rear landing gear, at high speed..! The burst of flames is at the rear side which took the stress.
The wind was blowing from 250° for 4 KT at 0700 UTC. This is why he was able to land facing south after the first failed attempt facing north. The wind was full crosswind so to speak and the longitudinal component was negligible. I would tend to think that the pilots were perhaps not sufficiently trained. There must have been one engine left for the go-around after the first attempt, his base leg was probably much too close to the runway threshold. The pilot wasted runway, the aircraft remained maneuverable. It is not normal that he paid for the localizer antenna to start with, the brick wall just after would probably have given the same result.
Ground effect. Especially at that speed. They flared several times before the belly of the aircraft actually touched the runway and at the ~160kts they were at (likely at least VREF +20), simply ate up too much runway before they finally got her down. At that point there was no stopping the plane and the ludacris concrete berm the ILS localizer was built on was what killed everyone...
@@drgta6 it was holding the ILS antennae array. Which kind of needed to be there. It wasn't 200 meters past the runway. It was 200 meters past the runway overrun area.
@@andrewtaylor940 It had to be there but ILS antennae are usually placed on pillars that will break away if struck. These ILS antennae were strengthened apparently because of repeated typhoon damage.
@ that’s the thing that all of these news talking heads with their outrage completely ignore. The mound was in service to the antennae. And it was farther from the runway than any plane should be. The antennae array needed to be a certain height. And needed to withstand local wind weather and other conditions. If they had increased the height of the steel towers, it would mean they need to reduce or eliminate the breakaway ability as wind would rip them right out. The greater danger to those antennae is being clipped at the top by a low flying aircraft on takeoff or approach. So with the mound they can shorten the towers, making them more wind resistant, while keeping the breakaway connection. The plane was going 150 mph when it hit that array. Put it this way. Those towers use the same breakaway design as streetlights. Have you ever seen what happens when a car hits one at 150 mph? I have. It’s not survivable. No impact with a solid object at that speed is.
@@andrewtaylor940 200 meter is not enough. It's a poor design. I've never seen a a huge mound of concrete at the end of the runway like that. It's CRIMINAL!
@ have you ever actually looked at what is 200 meters out from runways? Honestly? Or are you just repeating outrage you saw on TV? Some airports have a lot of space. Others do not. And once again, this was not simply a random wall put there. This was the installation for the mission critical ILS antennae. They need to be at a certain height. And before you type the word “fungible”, ask yourself why did they do it this way? In fact why did they go from the flush mounted tall steel towers with breakaway joints, to the berm with shorter breakaway towers atop it? Surely the reason must be something evil, right? Or some great governmental incompetence? Well no. They changed it to the berm, because the taller freestanding ILS towers repeatedly could not, and did not, survive typhoon season. The high winds mixed with the leverage of the taller towers snapped the breakaway joints. And here’s the big lie that all the talking heads are mouthing (please note tv “Aviation Experts” are NOT civil or structural engineers). Those fungible breakaway connectors? They are mainly there to deal with the primary threat. An aircraft on a too low takeoff or approach clipping the top of one or two masts. A fully loaded 737, at ground level on its belly, hitting the full wall of antennae at the base, at 150 mph is not a survivable event. These aren’t breakaway Hollywood obstacles. If the mound was not there, it would just be over a dozen steel radio towers lined up. There would still be an immovable unsurvivable obstacle at that spot. The 200 meters distance being spouted is meaningless sensationalist bullshit. The real concern is the length of the overrun area. And is it appropriate for the weight and speed of the aircraft being operated? The overrun area is not the runway. The problem here is not the berm. It’s that the pilot overshot the runway and put it down anyway. At that point for most airports he would be putting it down on top of a busy interstate Highway.
179 people died because the plane hit armoured concrete. How did the plane end up landing in the wrong direction and how did a block of concrete end up being in such a dangerous position?
@@Jean-iv2mi Hey dum@$$ the 737 landing gear can be lowered manually, just pull the manual cords !!! Too bad you have not seen that explained but instead coose to run your ignorant mouth !!!!
@@Jean-iv2mi Three hydraulic systems and a manual backup going out at the same time as a birdstrike? The odds of that happening would make even the most reckless gambler cringe. (Also, hydraulic power is needed for the thrust reversers to work so we know at least one hydraulic system was working when it landed.)
The most essential quality for a pilot is exceptional intelligence and mental resilience to handle emergencies and critical situations effectively. In this case, the pilot seemed to fall short of this requirement. A single correct decision might have saved numerous lives. While airborne,, the pilot had alternatives: selecting a safer landing spot, such as the surrounding water, to reduce the impact or avoiding the barrier entirely. One thing is clear-if the barrier had not been there, the disaster could have been significantly less severe. In addition to the pilot, the airport management is also accountable for this tragedy.
Even bigger airliner Lot airways landed without landing gear and slid along a prepared runway... Yes it was sprayed with foam by the airports fire rescue team go and view that video, this jeju in South Korea is a tragedy that shouldn't have cost lives 😢
Here we go, blaming Boeing again. No one seems to ever blame shoddy maintenance or issues that happen in flight. The Boeing 737 has 3 separate sources of power for electronics and hydraulics. An engine out would not stop an aircraft from continuing to climb and troubleshoot issues. Once a plane leaves the factory, it is the job of the airline maintenance department to keep that aircraft airworthy, and if they discover either defects in manufacturing or a pattern of issues caused by poor engineering they are supposed to notify the airline to voice their concern. There were issues involving this crash-landing that had quite a bit today with poor decision-making by the pilot and the designers of the airport runway layout. Condolences to the families of all those who lost their loved ones. Hopes for a speedy recovery to those 2 survivors.
@@ezwansafri8006 I have over 10K hours flying Boeing Aircraft mostly as a Captain for Major carriers and have 100% trust in all Boeing products. Stop listening to the MSM "Aviation Experts"!
@@ezwansafri8006 Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Remember, Boeing has produced the most popular airliner ever built, so there will be issues occasionally. The Boeing 737 max had issues with computer systems. Sad that fatalities were involved. But, remember the DC-10 had disastrous crashes as well because of design flaws.
Do you or your fam work for b0eing or something? Where were you when the max plane tragedies happened, turns out it was b0eing all along with their sh/tty cost-cutting measures! It freakingly takes 2 plane tragedies to happen before all max planes are grounded! (ethiopia and indonesia) You do know 2 b0eing wh/stle bl0w3r5 were found un4live earlier this year right? Or did you conveniently forgot about that? If this tragedy, alongside the earlier case of the same model plane had to turn back (because of landing gear issues) and the WBs found un4live are related somehow then it would all makes sense! It could be b0eing all along with the same old cr4ppy and extr3me cost-saving measures!
I’m so sorry about this tragedy. I have never seen anything like that. God bless all the families and victims. I hope and pray that the survivors can continue on their journey.
Clearly, as self-proclaimed aviation “experts,” it seems you’ve overlooked one of the most critical considerations in such scenarios: the risk of shutting down the wrong engine,leaving the aircraft with no hydraulics and electrical power
@ yes if you have time to carry out the manual gear extension There is no automatic manual gear extension A complete loss of hydraulics due loss of both engines or shitting down the wrong engine ,required some time for the manual gear procedure to be completed
@@mrsmith8224 that'sean the pilot has shut wrong engine and don't have much time to manually pull down the landing gear...is it right sir..so are you pilot of commercial plane sir??
@@mrsmith8224 Who says any engine needed to be shut down? The 737 will fly without hydraulics. The APU, batteries and hydraulic accumulators will supply sufficient power to deploy sufficient service to land. The “critical” thing in this event is why the rush to land after the bird strike?
That's been mentioned. But even without gear and flaps, if there is no issue such as a fire on board or something we don't know about, the airplane could have been landed and stopped. No-flap landings are practiced in every simulator session. No problem. You just have to stay on speed. But let's wait for the investigation to conclude.
Did anyone hear the engine or did the plane glide in? It seems that in the panic that ensued the pilots shut off the wrong engine by mistake, which explains why the flaps were not extended and the landing gear not deployed. The pilots would not know what position these were in. Also, the first set of antennas were either blown over or knocked over during a storm, likely the latter which explains why they were re-erected on top of a concrete wall that was clearly visible instead of on a foundation at ground level.
The pilots shut off the wrong engine in the Kegworth air disaster in the UK in 1989 leaving the plane without power. The air crash investigation report recommended that planes should be fitted with cameras to enable pilots to see the engines. It appears that this has not happened . . .
@@mvwoon The flaps weren't set for landing either. Do some research. Even with no power they can drop the landing gear. Hell, the landing gear doors weren't even open and all that takes is gravity. It's like they forgot how to land. I suggest you put in a bit of research before calling anyone stupid.
@@my2cents945"it's like they forgot how to land" and yet they placed the bird (plane) nicely on its belly in an emergency maneuver with multiple system failures and no hydraulics. See the obvious. It's not pilot error.
@@mvwoon Like I said, you need to do a bit of research. You don't need the hydraulics to drop the landing gear, all you need is gravity. Was their gravity broken also? ;-)
Whatever happened to the plane before landing, it’s clear that continued excessive speed meant it smashed into the airport boundary wall. Certainly no aviation expert but it seems like there’s 3 options here: 1. The pilot lost his head, made massive errors and didn’t slow the plane. 2. The pilot was unable to reduce speed/throttle down on the one good engine - presumably system failure of some sort 3. The pilot deliberately maintained speed - as unpalatable as that seems, it wouldn’t be the first time in aviation history that a pilot deliberately crashed a plane😬
@@TheSiriusEnigmaLet's see what the investigation reveals after going through the data recordings .By most accounts and expert opinions it sounds as though crew error is to blame but time will tell .I'm amazed anyone survived this tragedy .😢
@@TheSiriusEnigma does that explain the speed this aircraft was travelling at? Regardless of what the software is doing to the aircraft trim, if the pilot knows he’s got no front undercarriage and will be landing on the aircraft’s belly, doesn’t he slow to almost a stall to land? I guess there’s a lot to come out from the recorders, it would be interesting to know why the first landing was aborted too. I imagine there’s going to be a few at Boeing sweating over this!
1. Engines don’t power landings gears in B737. 2. The back landing gear wasn’t extended, either (look carefully). Please do some homework before reporting.
That was the first thing I noticed when watching this tragic landing for the first time .I definitely concur we need to wait for the investigation conclusions before assigning blame for anything .
It is becoming more apparent that the high speed flapless belly landing was a deliberate decision made by the pilots. The aircraft made a direct track to land in the opposite direction without delay or holding in order to run checklists. Something far more urgent than loss of thrust on one engine occurred that made them decide to land immediately. A dual engine out (bird strikes on both) like Sully is a strong possibility and would require a clean configuration (gear up and no flaps) to ensure a sufficient glide to the runway. Apart from poor decision making (ie turning off the good engine) or coincidence of major system failure, there are few other likely options as to why the aircraft landed clean and too fast.
BS! They chose to go around, needing engine power to do so. Therefore they could easily have just continued the first landing attempt on runway 09, since they were already on a fully stabilized approach, with flaps deployed. I think they may have forgotten to lower the gear, altho some video shows the nose gear at least partially deployed. Maybe that prompted the go around, but sadly a gear up landing at normal speed would have been far more survivable than the 200kt landing attempt on runway 01. Upon going around, they almost certainly shut down the #1 (wrong) engine. Pure panic.
@charlestoast4051 Theres got to be more to it. I cant help but think they shut down the wrong engine. A single engine bird strike is no big deal if their airline gives them simulator time. A dual engine failure would definitely induced the panic you are talking about. My own thoughts are that the second (left) engine stopped (or was inadvertently turned off) somewhere near the base turn or just before it, perhaps abeam the threshold of the fatal approach. So yes, they would have certainly flown there under power, then, suddenly the left engine died (turned off, bird struck whatever), sudden decision to land immediately. Decided to turn a tight base/final while dead stick, keeping flaps and gear retracted to ensure sufficient glide. There would have been no time to manually reconfigure the aircraft for a normal stabilized approach, once on a belly landing final. (Particularly as the main hydraulic systems were likely no longer available.) My conclusion, they rushed a dead stick landing once they realised they had lost all thrust which occurred somewhere in the region of the opposite end to their original approach.
Wrong. They actually lost one of the engines. Did you see the video or not? The other engine was shut off due to pilot panicking. So he lost all hydraulics. Without that they could not deploy the landing gears or the flaps. Nothing was working. They also did not do a proper go around. Because the engines were not working anymore. Had he not shut off the wrong engine, they could have done better. But even then the damn wall messed up things.
@@btsarmyforever3816 All the current evidence suggests they actually didn't lose the #2 engine at all. You can hear it running on the belly landing video.
South Korea perhaps does not know well, the security measures that an airport should have? at the end of the runway they built a Wall, perhaps they thought that on the other side there was North Korea, while instead there should have been piles of sand to contain and also stop the flight of a plane, furthermore the two landing gears did not work, also assuming that the engine caught fire, the gears had to be unlocked manually or electrically since there are on board systems of electrical energy storage. The excuse is always the same "Flocks of Birds" if the birds would cause these accidents, then no plane in the world should fly anymore.
only if it is big enough.... engines are tested for this very real scenario... obviously not a mechanic because you didn't answer why all the systems shut down.
The barrier at the end of the runway is the reason for this catastrophe. If an energy reducing section was installed at the end of the runway, rather than a concrete wall, there would have been many more survivors in the aftermath. Poor planning of runway construction is the culprit here.
The real cause of the incident was the wall at the end of the runway. I’m shocked anyone would build that type of structure at the end of active runways . Without that there would not have been so many casualties
there are manual levers in the cockpit to deploy the landing gear. State in this video that the front landing gear failed to deploy.... ALL landing gear is missing when it landed. if it had the other landing gear, then the nose part of the plane would be the part that was scraping down the runway. We need to wait and see if the hydraulics were out, and what actually happened. I have no idea WHY there was a bird farm close to this airport - but that is not something that is rational. Different countries have different rules, but I assumed airports had a way of keeping birds at a distance.
They tried to land but hit birds, then had to go around, they closed down wrong engine & too late to restart it & came in for a hard landing with no undercarriage,flaps/slats as no power to adjust with hydraulic’s because BOTH engines shut down. Bird strike didn’t cause the crash but did attribute to it…mainly pilot error.
They chose to go around, when the best option was clearly to continue the landing on runway 09. They were in a fully stabilized approach, no problems landing with one engine.
This aircraft was certainly not suffering from a lack of thrust, given the rate of speed it went flying down the runway. No flaps, no landing gear. It is a real mystery as to what brought this plane to a firey end.
It looks to me like another case of shutting down the wrong engine in a panic. There was no heat signature coming from the left engine on touch-down, only the right side, and it appears the thrust reverser on the #1 engine isn't deployed. No wonder, if the engine is shut down.
One theory I'm thinking of is did they keep the thrust up thinking the reverse thrusters would be effective when maybe they were not because they were actually supporting the weight of the aircraft rendering them ineffective???
The bird strike didn't kill the people, the wall at the end of the runway did !
The Wall Saved more people dying as the Jet would of went straight through the buildings packed with people only a few 100 metres further! Landing to fast in the wrong direction & landing half way down the runway is what killed everyone! Captains Fault!!
@@jarnosaarinen4583 Where did you hear that nonsense...? Because there is at least one "specialist" peddling it. And that "edifice 100 mts further" is NOt THERE.
@@jarnosaarinen4583 That is false, there is no edifice 100 mts furhter. Check Joojle Earth before spreading that nonsense. There is at least half a mile of open land before any building in the way.
No flaps, no gear, heavy load, no reverse thrust or breaks, higher required landing speed, ground effect due to no flaps - everything was against them successfully landing.
Wasn't a wall. Was a dirt mound, with the localizer runway guidance antennae mounted on top of it. In the USA those antennae are mounted on a platform flush with the ground with break-away mountings so if an airplane hits it there should be minimal damage. Remember, we are dealing with a 3rd world rat hole airport and safety is not a priority. When you leave this country, all bets are off, for just about everything...
Having a concrete barrier at the end of a runway instead of a runoff area is by far the most significant factor and the primary cause of the loss of life in this incident and is quite a mistake
yes, the wall is at the start of the runway, the plane should have landed on the different direction wherein there's still a wide space on the other side of the runway if it overshoot.
@@Tactical07H3 the wall back or front or side they must be no non non wall we dont know why she or he make that decision to Land that way non wall yes there will some but not 179 dead
No net
@@Tactical07H3 both ends of the runway are meant to be clear just to avoid this very tragedy, had they got longer poles on the approach lights the plane would have snapped them off, without in all probability the huge loss of life.
@@Tactical07H3
There should have been no barriers at all.
The pilots judged that they didn't have time to land the aircraft the other way.
Most runways are used in both directions anyway.
You can see in the footage the flaps were not even deployed. It appears no attempt was made to slow the aircraft.
And yet, it went from 200mph to 70mph by the time it hit the wall.
Maybe the pilot tried and was not able get them to work.. not always human error.. maybe the plane had faulty equipment...
It's terrible so many people died needlessly regardless of why.. we can pray that the truth will come out, if it was tampered with, it will be exposed... no cover ups...!!
Generally from what I understand, there is a complete separation of safety systems so a failure in one system is unlikely to affect another. I know there are manual landing gear releases that basically use gravity to drop and lock the landing gear. When I fly, I'm usually in an exit row over the wing and I can tell we'll be landing soon when I see the flaps deployed. But that happens long before we touch down. They way I understand it is that flaps increase the wing size and increase lift in the wings for control when slowing down to land. On the flights I've been on the flaps are deployed very early as the aircraft approaches for landing.
Right engine supplies hydraulics for the flaps.
They were down on decent.
@dalesmth1 On a Boeing 737, the hydraulic system that powers the flaps is typically not solely supplied by the right engine, but rather draws from a redundant system where both engines contribute to the hydraulic pressure, meaning both the left and right engine can provide hydraulics to operate the flaps depending on system configuration and needs.
I have many hours flying the B737-800. This accident is very strange. The bottom line here is the airplane was flyable on one engine and the landing gear could be extended by gravity in a hydraulic failure situation. We practiced these type of emergencies in the simulator on a regular basis and they were very manageable. I am curious to see what the voice recorder will reveal.
bird strike, landing gear, reverse thrust , concrete wall, 4 things happening together is strange
why no full flaps deployed? no slats(spoilers) to be seen, seems no reverse thrust applied
Edit: seems like the plane was trying to take off for a go around at the last moment
@ That is a big question that I hope will be answered by the investigation. Until that is finished,everything is speculation.
Nice analysis. 👏😊
Pilots were either on a suicide mission or just didn't see the short runway gap leading to a wall...🤔🙏
As a retired airline mechanic I agree that a single engine out would not cause the failure that this aircraft seems to have had. It’s too soon to start making assumptions. Wait for the flight data and cockpit voice recordings to be analyzed before coming to any kind of conclusions. It’s not normal for pilots to land with a tailwind and at that kind of speed,and not dropping the landing gear? My sincerest condolences to the families of the deceased.🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Regardless, wouldn't you say since the plane landed safely, then the wall caused the problem?
@@deidradahl2802Yes. If the wall was not there, most probably everyone might have survived. But that is not the issue. The issue is what was the cause of the mechanical failure in the first place? If there was no mechanical failure, that wall would be irrelevant. It had been there for ages and tens of thousands of planes have taken off and landed on that runway since.
Pilot error in more ways than one
wasn't really a tailwind.
@ I’m afraid it will most likely be blamed on the pilots. It’s too soon to tell at this point.
To think that this plane touched down safely,but could not taxi to a stop safely is the very definition of “sad”
Pretty hard to taxi with the gear in the wells.
I agree. The pilots got this plane on the ground but obviously the hydraulics were not functioning. I would have tried putting it down on the dirt for less friction and heat, and increased drag to attempt a stop without reverse thrust or brakes.. The problem with this is ground looping the plane due to excessive drag on one side or the other.
why was there a brick wall on the runway??
@@exeter66 Because they got residential buildings in extreme proximity! (not so legal, i think)
@@exeter66 the pilot landed in the wrong direction the barrier was only on one side. They were supposed to fly over the barrier, then touch down with the barrier behind them.
NO NEW INFORMATION, CLICK BAIT.
You fell for it!
Lame. Denys on Pilot blog, who used to fly the 747-800 gives a really good breakdown of the situation and why its such a head scratcher as to why the landing gear wasn't lowered. The gear can be manually lowered, so its interesting that we don't see any indication of even an attempt to put the gear down, nor do we see flaps raised, air brakes, or the reverse thruster on the port engine, all things that would have slowed the plane down.
*new information for me since i've been under a rock for past week*
Thanks.
Thank you.
My deepest condolences to all victims family 🙏
They need to look at the mental state of the captain flying this plane. 😢
That had crossed my mind. If the pilot wanted to comit suicide, I doubt he would want to risk killing so many people beside himself. He could have been working for Alan's Snackbar.
Nobody is talking about the pilots. Who were they?
Yes blame to pilot not to birds @@lc9902
Why is there a wall at the end of that runway?! It didn’t look like the play exploded on impact with the ground. It looked like the plane exploded when it collided with the wall!
There were landing aid antennas at the end of the runway mounted to the concrete wall, no one can explain why they used concrete instead of small towers like here in the US.
@gomez2724 It is actually an earth berm. With the antennae concrete foundation on top. The antennae has to be more or less were it was. And the more height = safer landings. It's actually rather questionable if running into a row of a dozen steel extension towers at 150 mph would have made a difference.
They probably built the wall to protect the hotels that someone built at the end of he runway..
@andrewtaylor940: They're designed to shear off -- like how light poles by roads are mounted on bolts that shear off when a car slams into one.
The concrete foundation should've been flush to the grade of the ground or lower, and the ILS antennas and lights mounted on top.
Beyond that, there's a perimeter fence made of CMU blocks that separate upon impact.
The problem is that the design has large solid concrete barriers above grade, which are topped with dirt, guaranteeing that a high-speed runway excursion will destroy the airplane and kill nearly everyone.
@@andrewtaylor940 there was concrete underneath the earth berm and even on top of it. Hence, concrete wall.
'Landed without its front landing gear' ? it landed with NO landing gear deployed.
exactly like if its a belly landing, common sense says no gears
@DivineNoodlesHCR2 A bird strike does not take out 3 landing gear assemblies. The belly landed beautifully,gear up, thrust reverses engaged. A concrete wall across the overrun area destroyed them.
@@michaelplunkett8059 did I ever say that the bird strike took out the gears? -_-
And no flaps.
@michaelplunkett8059 Even if it took out the hydrolics the 737 can manually drop gear. A child could do it, but not these crap pilots apparently. No flaps, no reversing of engines. Just terrible, cheap pilots.
Prayers Go Out To All Who Perished in Plane Crash . Our Deepest Condolences 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
The plane was fine until it exploded when it hit the concrete wall that should never have been placed there .The airport is unsafe as it was placed between three bird nesting sites and bird events are common .Koreas transport minister needs to resign.
Correction, the plane wasn’t fine before it hit the wall, some tech problems caused the crash,dear,the wall is only the final stage
What gives me a headache is that the plane hit the wall with 150mph. The runway is 2800m long and I think no one thought that someone would hit this „wall“ with that speed when they built this shit there. What would the airplane have hit without the „wall“ and that speed? It would have needed probably another 500m to stop
It's not a concrete wall, it's a dirt berm with landing directors on it. Might as well be a wall, but that's what it was.
@@cipher88101 It is a dirt berm covering the concrete wall holding the antennas. You can see all the destroyed concrete in pictures taken after the crash.
Sit this one out @cipher88101
An absolute tragedy for the friends and family of all those people. RIP 🙏
My deepest condolences go out to all of the family members affected by this tragedy. May God help you through this hard times. ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤
@@cvhr6977 Amen.
The plane landed without ANY landing gear. Lot of questions to answer on this one, but a bird strike had nothing to do with this incident. The 737-800 can take off and fly fine on one engine. The landing gear can be deployed without any engines or power via pull cables aft of the center console allowing the landing gear to drop unpowered. After skidding down the runway, the plane was still going faster than normal landing speed when it overran the runway. The plane also touched down far down the runway. During the crash you can hear an engine spooling down, giving cause to believe at least one engine was operating. Also the number two engine reverser was deployed giving reason to believe that there was hydraulic power. This investigation will be interesting and no conclusions can be drawn until the investigation is complete. Condolences to the victims families and loved ones. 😢
If one engine had a functioning reverser, the plane would have yawed off centerline. This plane was skidding on its engine pods and tail section but it was going over 150 miles per hour when it left the runway. It should have been going slower than that at touchdown and gradually decelerated. It did not. No flaps or slats would have increased the desired cross-the-fence speed, but it was recorded at 135 kts at 900 ft, the last data point. The CVR and black box (and transparency by the airline and overseeing agency) will tell the truth.
It occurred to me after posting that if the reversers were both employed and the engines both functioning, the reversers may not have deployed completely which means they would have been thrusting the airplane instead of slowing it down. That might explain why the aircraft failed to slow down. The reversers would not come out until the landing gear detected touchdown would they not? It might have been better to go to flight idle.
Strange but possibly pilots discovered landing gears not deployed and tried to bring plane up by increasing speed.
В Европе давно поняли, что все эти " Боинги" управляются с земли, против воли пилотов после 9.11. !! Кого там погиб из за Импичмента президента!?
Agreed that the apparent lack of braking attempt would have nothing to do with a bird strike.
I can only wonder if there was some passenger onboard who was the target of an assassination attempt with everyone else being mere collateral damage.
Disinformation.the bird strike was the third event.After that there is some dispute until the concrete wall incinerated everyone but the two crew.The first event was building an airport between three bird nesting sites ,the second event was an emergency on the same plane two days before ,the third event was the bird strike .The fourth event was likely pilot error during the 3 minutes it took to land .They would have been safer to land in the water as Sullenburger did with an airbus that had both engines shut down by a bird strike,he saved all the passengers and crew.A movie made about it with Tom Hanks starring.
No flaps, no airbreaks, no landing gear... One bird may destroy an engine, but not whole hydraulic system. In the video with that bird we can see that the plane is at quite low altitude without flaps extended.
Yeah, it was a bird strike that caused the emergency , the concrete wall at the end of the runway was the real tragedy.
I still believe the Pilots RUSHED their landing. Didn't take enough time to use the checklists and troubleshoot the issue. My take is Pilot error, unfortunately
That seems to be where this is going, especially with them quickly turning around and landing with a tailwind. Sad.
The control tower is charge with telling the pilots of any external issues with the plane during an emergency landing. There is no way the pilots didn't know.
I agree. Possibly they shut down the wrong engine and then decided to land asap on 19 and completely screwed it up, forgetting the u/c and flaps in their panic.
Investigations that concludes up with “pilot error” as the cause are incomplete and a waste of time and resource. This is the start of the real investigation. A real investigation must ask why they did what they did. What were they thinking? What did they hear, feel and smell? What did they believe had happened? And so on. Only by answering these questions will you determine the true cause and start taking steps to prevent reoccurrence.
Panic mode, mental blocked! Not blaming the concrete wall or 1 only bird strike! But let investigators do their job!
this article is trying to point out something nobody has said before.. pilot error
Not quite. The most talked-about points are the flight crew's decisions & the wall. The wall would not have even been a problem if the flight crew followed protocols.
They are pointing literally nothing.
Yes, it was pilot error. He shut down the good engine and lost all power.
@@joeschmoe21has that been confirmed or are you just assuming?
@@suprememasteroftheuniverse absolutely
This makes a lot of sense, RIP to all who died by this plane crash..
In the photo showing the compressor stall the flaps are extended yet on the fatal landing they had been retracted. The gear has a manual gravity release totally seperate from electrical or hydraulic systems. I’d suggest the pilot panicked, ignored the checklists and forgot to reset the flaps and lower the gear, this looks like 100% pilot error.
They were in a position to land and they should’ve landed. Why did they go around? That’s what I don’t understand. They were stabilized and descending. QRH states if you have a good operating engine with plenty of power continue to approach if you don’t go to flaps 15 ref +20 land deal with the rest of it on the ground.
Error !?
Looks more like pilot's cheating girlfriend / wife was on the plane.
They had too much power, runaway engines, that was their main problem. They almost had the perfect solution (belly landing on land or water), but they just weren't aware of the cement wall at the end of this particular runway.
@@peacetrain485 If that Crew have flown into or out of that airport before they should've been well aware of that structure at the Runway end.
I appreciate how clear the writing is-clear & easy to read. Most other videos don’t do this as well as this. Thank you.
All of this reporting is wrong…. I was a 737 Captain. It did not land “with the front landing gear retracted”…. It landed with NO landing gear. If it has the main landing her it would have had brakes. It did NOT hit a concrete wall… it hit the dirt mound the localizer antennae was on. They left the runway at 150mph…. Rather than the first officer with his hand on the window he should have pulled the 3 alternate fee extension handles…. Can’t wait to see the data recorders
In your opinion is it possible they thought the gear was out - and that they learned of their mistake only upon bellying on the runway? Could they have been in such a panic as to forget this? Is this a reality?
No way that was forgotten. You don't forget the flaps either. That's landing. It was intentional and every other pilot that's commented on this has said the same thing: whatever it was in the cockpit they had to land immediately. Either smoke or both engines failed. There is also speculation that one of the bird strikes deployed the right reverse thruster mid-air. I think there were bird strikes (or meddling drones) that took out hydraulic pumps in both engines and smoke filled the cabin. With no time to manually deploy landing gear they did an emergency landing on the belly going the "wrong" way on the runway - that airport normally lands aircraft the other direction but they turned around. There was a reinforced concrete + dirt filled barrier protecting the attennae at the normal start of the runway that probably was not to code. That's what killed all but two crew members who miraculously survived thanks to the heroic pilot's efforts.
Just a question. Can a pilot adjust the fuel mixture or flow to cause an engine to flame out?
Boeinguy, please tell me if I am way off-base. One of the salient things for me is the centered alignment of the plane on the runway. It looks like a normal landing at first, until it skids on its belly. Is this a possible A/T failure with autoland? Thanks in advance for your feedback on this.
Also we are not being told who the pilots were. Is it to cover for DEI? Women or some sub-par pilots? Show their faces.
Even with the loss of both engines, the landing gear can be lowered manually in seconds. Gravity does the work. This was pilot error pure and simple.
and people wonder why i keep saying if only we had AI or robot pilots it would stop 99.9% of accidents, but nooooooo, everyone still thinks having humans who make so many mistakes running the plane is still the smart idea for some reason, if rather trust an AI or robot pilot any day over the best human pilot, when things come down to the crunch a human pilot gets scared, sweats, gets nervous, gets worried, gets confused, makes more mistakes, an AI pilot would never make these mistakes because its not human, which is a major advantage
@@petejames1326 You might be right but what about Sullenberger's landing on the Hudson River in 2009? The insurers could not recreate the landing that he did? Would AI have done what Sullenberger did? I'm not a pilot - I'm just curious because it would seem that this very sad tragedy might be more than just "pilot error". May all those who lost their lives rest in peace - we mourn their losses as fellow human beings. May the truth be found as to what really caused this tragedy.
@@petejames1326 and you have never seen a computer fail !!!!
The main reason why 179 people died was the plane hitting the radar track at the end of the runway. The radar was over built and could stop a tank from breaking it if attacked. 2 metres of reinforced concrete deep was the cause of the fire as the plane skid into it. To fast, wrong way landing and rushing to land all should be accounted for those lives lost.
It wasn't a radar at the end of the runway, it was the Localizer (LLZ) component of an Instrument Landing System (LLZ).
@@blackbandit1290 Exactly, but on a non-standard platform.
Imagine going to a drag race and they built a brick wall at the end of the quarter mile mark...unimaginable. Survive the flight and landing to be taken out by a wall that shouldn't be there. RIP
That’s exactly what happened to Scott Kalita 😢
@@chrismcbean3141 I knew I had heard of his name but wasn't sure of the accident. I watched the videos from it. Horribly unfortunate, bad accident. The only hope is that he didn't suffer and it was over quickly although he probably had a few seconds to realize it was going to be bad. Godspeed Sir!
Also to Todd Wilkes at Eastern Creek Australia.
He hit a brick wall at over 200 km. 😮
Maybe testing remote controlled machine
Panic in the cockpit, not following procedures and making an absolute cluster.
You said with absolutely NO data. Clown.
My guess also, shut down the wrong engine.
@@tibetdemirtas7451 that has happened before and could cause a panic.
Need to know Pilots profile and flying hours
@willo996 Oh? And you know that…how exactly? Were you in the cockpit and survived? How about we wait until the recorders are analyzed ?
😢My prayers to the 179 passengers who perished😢
Prayers... to whom? The majority of South Koreans are not theists, or even Buddhists, so I'm not sure that praying to them, or to someone/something on their behalf, would be that much appreciated. Why don't people think before they post such useless and idiotic comments?
@ Why are YOU so BITTER? For a change, change your attitude and be more optimistic. Be a part of a solution NOT TO BE A PART OF A PROBLEM. You better CALM DOWN and RELAX and FREE YOURSELF WITH SO MUCH HATE and ANGER. Your anger will not solve anything ABOUT THE WAR WITHIN YOURSELF-PROBABLY WHEN YOU READ THIS SIMPLE MESSAGE, YOU MIGHT HAVE A HEART ATTACK and I DON’T WANT YOU TO EXPERIENCE THAT KIND OF FEELING. Mentally you need to be stable to handle what kind of problems you’re having. BREATHE and BE MORE INTO REALITY. YOU NEED TO RESPECT (if YOU BELIEVE IN HUMANITY) PEOPLE’S BELIEFS AND OPINIONS. BE MORE KINDER WITH YOUR WORDS and CALLING PEOPLE NAMES -WILL NOT SOLVE ANY OF YOUR ANGER AND IDIOTIC, MORONIC NONSENSICAL WORDS. STAY PUT AND DO NOT LET YOUR MIND LINGER INTO SOMETHING INSIDIOUS THINKING. STOP HATE AND ANGER AS IT WILL SET YOU FREE..
@@rosariolarion9319 -
I'm perfectly relaxed. I'm just making the perfectly rational point that those who tell grieving and distraught people they are going to pray for them without considering whether such prayers are appropriate or would be appreciated, or might even be hurtful and deeply resented, are guilty of a particularly offensive kind of arrogance. And suggesting that prayers are "part of a solution" in a case like this is a mark of narrow-minded idiocy. Nobody, in the history of our species, has ever had their problems solved or their grief and distress alleviated by some foreigner appointing themselves to pray to their imaginary friend/sky-fairy on their behalf.
@@exiled_londoner useless comment i have seen today on youtube!
Hopefully the FDR will give some answers to prevent this in the future. No gear, no flaps, no speed brakes and a ground speed at touch down that was alarmingly fast. Sad.
with all that said .. did they drop fuel to avoid explosion.
@@sylviarodriguez-w4p NOPE !!
Seems to me that at the end the investigation will conclude as pilot error.
The dead cannot SPEAK and defend themselves. SAD!
pilot error with 2 other boeings of the same plane recently crashing?
@@FloridaIndependent That's what the flight data and blackbox voice recorder will do speak in behalf of the dead pilots.
Unless they find something indicating that the landing gear could not be deployed even manually there most likely wont be a different conclusion then a pilot error.
@
That’s right. But it is not a matter to blame them because they are dead. Aircraft accidents are investigated to know the chain of events that lead to the crash and then take measures to avoid a similar situation.
After looking at this over and over, along with examining the facts and evidence, there's nothing that suggests to me that the aircraft was at all the problem. Even had it had multiple malfunctions, there's no reason they couldn't have deployed the gear with the emergency system. Not to mention, they didn't deploy the flaps or the spoilers to try and slow to a safe landing speed. There are a number of red flags here that point to an issue with the flight crew rather then the aircraft itself.
Forget the wall, figure first why the one engine went out ! Why the landing gear were not lowered, even manually. Pilots that fly this same aircraft said ENOUGH time was there to do so. Something else went on on the cockpit checklist procedures that didn't happen.
There's no indication that any engine went out. Power was not an issue at any stage of flight. The plane was on a stabilised approach both times and hydraulics were also not an issue.
Shit pilot,
if it was russians then why dont they claim responsibility
@@rubenoteiza9261the Elephant is the configuration of the A\C !
yabut without that STUPID wall being there most of them probably survive !!! (unless there was a 2nd STUPID wall ????)
Watching the video of the landing poses questions - landing speed, landing direction. Lack of pilot experience? Perhaps. I hope it gets properly investigated to avoid it ever happening again.
Very sad event at this time of year. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones.
It landed. The fence caused it to crash. Why was there a concrete fence?
That wall should have NEVER been built there - The runway should have had a buffer zone to allow for runway excursions - Had that wall not been built like that the accident would have been survivable. There is no excuse for such a design to be at the end of a runway like that!
I work at an airport in a third world country and we have nearly a 1/4 mile runoff.
Normally planes land in the opposite direction so the wall is not at the end of the runway but the beginning
The runaway is reported to be shorter than other airports. I have to confirm it though.
@@soonmipark9791 Doesn't matter how long it is if/when your going too fast and land too far down the runway...
@soonmipark9791. No way, there were to many variables that made no sense. Had the 737 landing going North it would of hit some chain fences and then a huge grass dirt field without any buildings or hotels in front of it even if the plane overran the runway.
Landing South was the ILS antenna array mounted on that dirt covered mound pull box. It made no sense why the crew didn’t just land it the first approach. It was so sad, they all might of survived with minimal injuries.
The pilot didn’t even use the whole runway. He landed at about 1/4 remaining of the runway.
I am wondering if this is suicide?
@@wraynephew6838 it probably is with assistance from the huge unnecessary concrete wall
@@wraynephew6838 interesting perspective:0
It’s called ground effect. A phenomenon that keeps plane on a pillow of air. He was just going too fast for it to settle in on the runway. Terrible decision making on pilots part.
@@wraynephew6838 looks like it
Pilot didn’t deploy the landing gear, which could be an error, that’s why it was going so fast because he possibly didn’t realise that it wasn’t lowered, and knowing that there was a wall of some kind at the end of the runway if there was a genuine problem you’d have thought that the tower would have been notified and the pilot would have slowed the plane down to the slowest speed possible and ditched it at one side of the runway or the other. They’re going to analyse the black box but they also need to be investigating conversations between the pilot and the tower because that plane was going just too fast for a plane that was damaged or in some kind of crisis where the pilot appears to be doing little about it.
The #2 (right) engine was indeed damaged due to the bird strike and despite a stabilized approach, the pilot elected to call an emergency and go around and attempt an emergency landing on the opposite end of the- runway 19. It is quite possible that in their attempt to shut down the #2 engine they may have mistakenly shut down the other on instead - this has happened before. With no engines producing power they had no hydraulics to lower the landing gear, flaps and slats. They could lower the gear manually but the switches are no easily reachable and the crew was focused on the landing. With no landing gear, flaps or slats the plane was approaching much too fast and the ground effect caused the plane to float halfway down the runway. The plane was still going over 100 mph when it lest the end of the runway and the berm upon which the ILS localizer antennas were built, caused the catastrophic breakup. Blame goes to the crew as well as the airport officials who allowed such a structure off the end of the runway.
The wrong engine was shut down in the Kegworth air crash in the UK in 1989. The air crash investigation report recommended that all passenger planes should have cameras fitted to enable the pilots to see the engines. It seems that this has not happened . . .
@@BrjanBuckmaster let’s wait for investigation report.
The engine was working despite the bird shock as the reverse was running during the landing.
@ The reverser was deployed on the #2 engine. We know nothing yet as to the status of the #1 engine.
Professional pilots verify before shutting down an engine. Looks like a rushed landing. “ Too low gear, Too low flaps “ will be all over the cvr.
The pilot thought it was just dirt. Was not aware of the danger of a solid concrete wall hidden inside.
A definite tragedy. Pilot error for sure. I believe they were panicked to get the plane on the ground in a hurry, they didn't go through the proper checklists for a safe landing
Pilot shut down the good engine and lost all power.
@@joeschmoe21 Exactly my theory as well. No heat shimmer from the exhaust on #1 in the head on video. Explains why the reverser wasnt deployed either, while #2 was. I think #2 was still idling or had SOME power, but not much.
I can’t tell you what went wrong with the plane but I can tell you what went wrong with the landing. When a planes lands without its gear extended the drag on the belly forces the nose of the plane down. This pilot held back pressure on the yolk which created lift and reduced drag. That’s why he didn’t stop. He was barely touching the runway. There was no real grinding friction between the fuselage and the runway to stop the plane. Mechanical malfunction? Sure. But the landing was all pilot error.
Excellent observation.
Not a pilot or even in the field but did notice the nose up ,like he still had power on.
Maybe slamming the engines on the ground the air brakes didnt work .
Makes sense 🤔
He landed long and was much too fast. The question is why. Once they were committed to that landing, even Sully couldn't have saved that plane. By the way, fighter aircraft hold their nose up to slow the airplane rolling out for landing. We did that on T-38s, a supersonic trainer.
@ we practice flap up landings. Heck, we even have done gear up landings. It’s all energy management. I would bet ten bucks he secured the wrong engine.
You are absolutely correct sir. I extend my condolences to all the families of the victims of this deadly crash caused by human error.
The possible causes and chronology of events are as under:
1. pilot aborted the first landing attempt due to less skills level.
2. Bird strike is sure as seen in footage which may have resulted in one engine failure
3. This may have increased the panic level of pilot.
4. This may have resulted in brain fridgging of the pilot where he forgot to activate landing gear and spoilers.
5 . It is sure that landing gear and spoilers cannot malfunction just due to single engine failure... Atleast both of them
Three gears do not hang up at the same time, especially when there is an alternate mechanical release , which is controlled by the crew. I suspect crew panic was part of the problem.
Or the Pilot intentionally crashed it but made it look like an accident!
Yes, it seems at this stage ..... hope I'm wrong. Just incompetent , panicked pilots. I still feel them knowing that they could see that death wall approaching
@@linmal2242 - Partly to be determined, from contents on the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) as well as the FDR (Flight Data recorder) - along with flight crews Financial Investigations, Debts, Gambling or other Activities that can cause external stress to a person!
I saw a similar landing about 3 years ago, and I saw a pilot land
a Boeing 767 , no landing gear, done to perfection. Passengers
said, it was so smooth, it felt like a normal landing, and from what
I saw, it looked like one as well. Right engine caught fire on
landing, but put out right away. Nobody hurt. These guys panicked
and entered the runway to deep, and too fast. The concrete
burm was the the final killer. If it was a mud field, all might have lived.
That concrete burm should not have been there, and should be removed,
and "right away." That was the final straw here, that caused this.
I'm no pilot but they put wheels and flaps on those planes for s reason!The wall didn't cause that crash it wss lack of control of breaking and steering not to mention the lack of correct use of flaps killed those people!
It appears to me as a retired military aircrew that the pilot panicked, forgot all his emergency procedures and crash landed the airplane unnecessarily
It is boeing 737; a death trap. Boeing is a criminal organization.
What are the chances they turned off the wrong engine? How easily could a mistake like that be made? Some are saying this might have happened. It's happened fairly recently before to an airliner and they crash landed, many deaths.
@@wheelmanstan What about the other pilot? There are two of them.
@@TheSiriusEnigma That could actually be part of the problem. There were two of them.
Seems that way the pressure just got to them IMO what a loss tho ❤
Just a Theory, there first attempt the crew did a "go around" as they were climbing out they would have put flaps up gear up. Did they hit a bird or birds during that phase causing them, (due to possible fire alarm going off in cockpit) to pull wrong tee handle and by doing that they lost the good engine? At that point they would have very little time to declare an emergency and try to land back on same runway but the opposite way of the first landing, possibly with any wind pushing them from the tail. With no power trying to maintain lift, this would be a faster decent and therefor no flaps, there is a manual extension of the gear but either the capt. or fo. might have thought that deploying the gear would add drag and they needed all available speed to try to land on the runway (cockpit voice recorder that was recovered will answer that question.) The decision was made to land AC on its belly. It does look from video that the AC touched down further down the runway not utilizing the full 9800 ft available. This could suggest that the ac had no power and was gliding at a faster speed requiring capt. to try to get the airplane into ground effect prior to touching down. If he tried to land without that ground effect happening, by descending to quick, to try to get the plane to touch down at beginning of the runway, he would have crashed. This is due to vertical speed being to fast to achieve ground effect. I believe the capt. did achieve ground effect, that created a temporary lift, causing him to pull back gently on the yoke to bleed of that ground effect lift, and land. Unfortunately the AC touched down further down the runway then he would have liked, and could not stop prior to the end of the runway, hitting the wall at significant speed.
Sounds like a well reasoned scenario.
Seems the Boeing whistle-blower was onto something...
the plane touched down so late it ran out of runway, if it touched down at normal touch down point it would have enough run way to drag to a complete stop, so obvious
Duh.. That much EVERYONE understands, thanks Mr. Obvious.
This is so heartbreaking! It presents as multiple mechanical failures at once, with a flight crew that made every attempt to preserve life...please remember them for that....and yes, India, I'm NY Toms very British/Brazilian future wife MD
Such a tragedy … and a reminder to live each day to the fullest, never neglecting those we love. None of us are promised tomorrow. Thoughts and prayers are with all who are grieving 🙏
As for Engine failure due to a bird strike, not likely.
These engines have frozen turkeys thrown into them at maximum power, and still operate at a reduced power level.
Why the aircraft was not configured for landing is a more pressing question.
WRONG! 1. The birds are not frozen. 2. The bird test is to confirm that components shed from a damaged, unbalanced engine are contained - not that it continues to run. 3. The more pressing question is why did this aircraft return so quickly (8 minutes after the bird strike).
@@Trevor_Austin Yes and doing a 180 turn from that height woul'd be a risky thing in any situation.
If look closer, it shows pilots weren't using either flaps or airbrakes at the beginning of the video 1:13
The small thing next to the wing is the vertical stabilizer
Should NEVER put walls at the end of the runways. If the wall wasn’t there, the plane would have just skidded on the ground and would soon stop and no lives would have been lost at all!! I say the families should sue the owner of the airport, government or KAC. What a horrible tragedy. May those perished rest in peace and deepest condolences to their loved ones.
A failed engine is not a cause of this crash. Plenty of redundancies built in to safely land. Happens more often than you think.
If that plane would not have hit that wall, and the run way kept on going for a half mile, then a area of field, it would have never exploded from the impact and everyone might still be alive with a very damaged airliner.
@@dave3313 it's Pilot's fault stop defending
Many airports have overshoot zones with special materials that gently stop a runaway aircraft
To the south of that runway there is a large open flat area that should've allowed a runaway airplane to stop if the stupid earth berm and perimeter wall wasn't there. The wall even has a gate just offset from the runway centre line which the fuselage might have been able to pass through given the luck.
Pilot error after whatever stopped the number two engine. Landing long on the runway, flaps not deployed, gear not down - speed so high that there was no chance of surviving the landing. The pilots panicked and did not use checklists, etc. Very sad.
There is literally no point in speculating at this point in time.
Wait until they have analysed the data and determined the cause.
How much of a rough, sandy, boggy catch ropes/chains on the over run of a runway would be needed to safely stop such a plane?
But speculating what caused the accident, and why they ran into a concrete structure 200m off thw end of the runway is doing more harm than good.
Wait for the investigation, and hope thar whatever problem, error there was can be fixed or changed to prevent further similar problems.
What caused the deaths was hitting that wall, air traffic control and pilot knew the wall was there, best bet was to land on the sea with the emergency crew waiting. They had all the time in the world to coordinate a better safe landing location
Look up EMAS - engineered materials arresting system. This airport also didn't meet the international frangible standard for mounting localizer antennas. Money spent on either would have greatly reduced the number of lives lost no matter what the cause of the too high of speed, way too far down the runway, no gear, no slats touchdown.
@@tkralva.6668
Wait for the investigation?
What fun is that?
What people seem to misunderstand is that this is not the end of the runway...it's the beginning...the plane landed in the wrong way from what I understood
@
You can land either direction.
You are obviously not a pilot.
So in this case, both engines were out due to birds, but the plane was close to the runway and had no engine power to go around. So the pilot was forced to land at high speed. the more fatal was who made the concrete fence at the end of the runway ?
Construction workers.
@@kitoteshika-gh5bk It sounds plausible
@@kitoteshika-gh5bk the right engine was making thrust at touchdown, it can be seen in the video taken from the front left side.
@@kitoteshika-gh5bk
Wall was to protect hotel complex.
It worked.
Only one engine was struck. The wall is in place just for this reason because homes and businesses are on the other side of the concrete fence
The speed is mysterious. I hope we get to know more soon. Deep condolences for all victims of this tragedy.
Something else is happening here, if the landing gear couldn’t be deployed, the fuel tanks should have been emptied before landing. How would a bird strike affect the landing gear?
This model of airplane doesn't have that feature.
If you need to lower the gear on the emergency system you merely need to release the uplocks. Open panel on flight deck floor and pull 3 rings attached to cables. This can easily be done within about 10 seconds. The respective gears will go to the down and locked position due to gravity.
In normal operation the hydraulics cushion the gear against lowering too fast.
No fuel dump on the 737NG. If they had one working engine then they should have entered a hold and ran through checklists.
This is definitely 100% pilot error. A bird strike would not cause this
And Richard Jewel didn't cause the explosion during the 1996 Atlantic Olympics. Just wait until the investigators come up with a cause.
@@BatasKitchen-gm9ne it was the concrete wall that caused the plane to explode.
@williamsaucier6962 i get that, but there was, definitely a problem with the plane prior to that. The plane aborted 1 approach. Came around and crashed on the second approach. The bird strike would do nothing to cause that.
Even if you lose 1 engine you have the second, watch the video again. No landing gear extended very fast approach speed no flaps. Everything I see points to the pilots not following protocols put in place prior to counter whatever malfunctions that did occur.
They panicked and didnt follow the book/manual that guides them step by step to regain contol of the aircraft.
Aircraft engineer here with crash investigation experience behind me.
Was there a problem with the plane?? 1,000% Most probably. But not one that would cause this if a pilot follows the redundency checklist??? 1,000,000% Most definitely not.
That's just the sad truth behnd it. As the investagation moves on you will see what I am talking about. My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones
I am currently investigating a single plane accident that took 5 lives 3 days before Christmas where I am now
Yes, no landing gears are seen.. The plane seems to be dragging on the belly, without the rear landing gear, at high speed..! The burst of flames is at the rear side which took the stress.
It looks like he landed way too fast and too far down the runway. Why?
That is the question that has many professional pilots scratching their heads.
Daniel you are the only person that has come sense i agree with you and your perspective
The wind was blowing from 250° for 4 KT at 0700 UTC. This is why he was able to land facing south after the first failed attempt facing north. The wind was full crosswind so to speak and the longitudinal component was negligible. I would tend to think that the pilots were perhaps not sufficiently trained. There must have been one engine left for the go-around after the first attempt, his base leg was probably much too close to the runway threshold. The pilot wasted runway, the aircraft remained maneuverable. It is not normal that he paid for the localizer antenna to start with, the brick wall just after would probably have given the same result.
Ground effect. Especially at that speed. They flared several times before the belly of the aircraft actually touched the runway and at the ~160kts they were at (likely at least VREF +20), simply ate up too much runway before they finally got her down. At that point there was no stopping the plane and the ludacris concrete berm the ILS localizer was built on was what killed everyone...
They should blame themselves for that awful runway design. Who would put a huge concrete mound 200 meters from the end of the runway? What for?
@@drgta6 it was holding the ILS antennae array. Which kind of needed to be there. It wasn't 200 meters past the runway. It was 200 meters past the runway overrun area.
@@andrewtaylor940 It had to be there but ILS antennae are usually placed on pillars that will break away if struck. These ILS antennae were strengthened apparently because of repeated typhoon damage.
@ that’s the thing that all of these news talking heads with their outrage completely ignore. The mound was in service to the antennae. And it was farther from the runway than any plane should be. The antennae array needed to be a certain height. And needed to withstand local wind weather and other conditions. If they had increased the height of the steel towers, it would mean they need to reduce or eliminate the breakaway ability as wind would rip them right out. The greater danger to those antennae is being clipped at the top by a low flying aircraft on takeoff or approach. So with the mound they can shorten the towers, making them more wind resistant, while keeping the breakaway connection. The plane was going 150 mph when it hit that array. Put it this way. Those towers use the same breakaway design as streetlights. Have you ever seen what happens when a car hits one at 150 mph? I have. It’s not survivable. No impact with a solid object at that speed is.
@@andrewtaylor940 200 meter is not enough. It's a poor design. I've never seen a a huge mound of concrete at the end of the runway like that. It's CRIMINAL!
@ have you ever actually looked at what is 200 meters out from runways? Honestly? Or are you just repeating outrage you saw on TV? Some airports have a lot of space. Others do not. And once again, this was not simply a random wall put there. This was the installation for the mission critical ILS antennae. They need to be at a certain height. And before you type the word “fungible”, ask yourself why did they do it this way? In fact why did they go from the flush mounted tall steel towers with breakaway joints, to the berm with shorter breakaway towers atop it? Surely the reason must be something evil, right? Or some great governmental incompetence? Well no. They changed it to the berm, because the taller freestanding ILS towers repeatedly could not, and did not, survive typhoon season. The high winds mixed with the leverage of the taller towers snapped the breakaway joints. And here’s the big lie that all the talking heads are mouthing (please note tv “Aviation Experts” are NOT civil or structural engineers). Those fungible breakaway connectors? They are mainly there to deal with the primary threat. An aircraft on a too low takeoff or approach clipping the top of one or two masts. A fully loaded 737, at ground level on its belly, hitting the full wall of antennae at the base, at 150 mph is not a survivable event. These aren’t breakaway Hollywood obstacles. If the mound was not there, it would just be over a dozen steel radio towers lined up. There would still be an immovable unsurvivable obstacle at that spot. The 200 meters distance being spouted is meaningless sensationalist bullshit. The real concern is the length of the overrun area. And is it appropriate for the weight and speed of the aircraft being operated? The overrun area is not the runway. The problem here is not the berm. It’s that the pilot overshot the runway and put it down anyway. At that point for most airports he would be putting it down on top of a busy interstate Highway.
179 people died because the plane hit armoured concrete. How did the plane end up landing in the wrong direction and how did a block of concrete end up being in such a dangerous position?
What happened was the pilots panicked and never put the landing gear down.
Maybe the landing gear was faulty. Its a Boeing after all.
@@Jean-iv2mi Hey dum@$$ the 737 landing gear can be lowered manually, just pull the manual cords !!! Too bad you have not seen that explained but instead coose to run your ignorant mouth !!!!
@@Jean-iv2mi Three hydraulic systems and a manual backup going out at the same time as a birdstrike? The odds of that happening would make even the most reckless gambler cringe. (Also, hydraulic power is needed for the thrust reversers to work so we know at least one hydraulic system was working when it landed.)
Boeing is synonymous to bad omen nowadays considering their 'track record' these past few years. 😢
The most essential quality for a pilot is exceptional intelligence and mental resilience to handle emergencies and critical situations effectively. In this case, the pilot seemed to fall short of this requirement. A single correct decision might have saved numerous lives. While airborne,, the pilot had alternatives: selecting a safer landing spot, such as the surrounding water, to reduce the impact or avoiding the barrier entirely. One thing is clear-if the barrier had not been there, the disaster could have been significantly less severe. In addition to the pilot, the airport management is also accountable for this tragedy.
@@se7enx69 that's two things
Even bigger airliner Lot airways landed without landing gear and slid along a prepared runway... Yes it was sprayed with foam by the airports fire rescue team go and view that video, this jeju in South Korea is a tragedy that shouldn't have cost lives 😢
Some one filed the law suit this is CG.
Here we go, blaming Boeing again. No one seems to ever blame shoddy maintenance or issues that happen in flight. The Boeing 737 has 3 separate sources of power for electronics and hydraulics. An engine out would not stop an aircraft from continuing to climb and troubleshoot issues. Once a plane leaves the factory, it is the job of the airline maintenance department to keep that aircraft airworthy, and if they discover either defects in manufacturing or a pattern of issues caused by poor engineering they are supposed to notify the airline to voice their concern. There were issues involving this crash-landing that had quite a bit today with poor decision-making by the pilot and the designers of the airport runway layout. Condolences to the families of all those who lost their loved ones. Hopes for a speedy recovery to those 2 survivors.
To be honest, i always felt uncomfortable flying Boeing. It just does.
@@ezwansafri8006 I have over 10K hours flying Boeing Aircraft mostly as a Captain for Major carriers and have 100% trust in all Boeing products. Stop listening to the MSM "Aviation Experts"!
@@ezwansafri8006 Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Remember, Boeing has produced the most popular airliner ever built, so there will be issues occasionally. The Boeing 737 max had issues with computer systems. Sad that fatalities were involved. But, remember the DC-10 had disastrous crashes as well because of design flaws.
Do you or your fam work for b0eing or something? Where were you when the max plane tragedies happened, turns out it was b0eing all along with their sh/tty cost-cutting measures!
It freakingly takes 2 plane tragedies to happen before all max planes are grounded! (ethiopia and indonesia)
You do know 2 b0eing wh/stle bl0w3r5 were found un4live earlier this year right? Or did you conveniently forgot about that?
If this tragedy, alongside the earlier case of the same model plane had to turn back (because of landing gear issues) and the WBs found un4live are related somehow then it would all makes sense!
It could be b0eing all along with the same old cr4ppy and extr3me cost-saving measures!
@@PhazeyBlur There are things you don't mention specifically on TH-cam (when you are a channel owner) I said Boeing had issues.
I’m so sorry about this tragedy. I have never seen anything like that. God bless all the families and victims. I hope and pray that the survivors can continue on their journey.
Clearly, as self-proclaimed aviation “experts,” it seems you’ve overlooked one of the most critical considerations in such scenarios: the risk of shutting down the wrong engine,leaving the aircraft with no hydraulics and electrical power
@@mrsmith8224 yes sir I agree but the thing is although hidraulic system problem,landing gear will deploy automatically by manually
@ yes if you have time to carry out the manual gear extension
There is no automatic manual gear extension
A complete loss of hydraulics due loss of both engines or shitting down the wrong engine ,required some time for the manual gear procedure to be completed
@@mrsmith8224 that'sean the pilot has shut wrong engine and don't have much time to manually pull down the landing gear...is it right sir..so are you pilot of commercial plane sir??
@@mrsmith8224 Who says any engine needed to be shut down? The 737 will fly without hydraulics. The APU, batteries and hydraulic accumulators will supply sufficient power to deploy sufficient service to land. The “critical” thing in this event is why the rush to land after the bird strike?
That's been mentioned. But even without gear and flaps, if there is no issue such as a fire on board or something we don't know about, the airplane could have been landed and stopped. No-flap landings are practiced in every simulator session. No problem. You just have to stay on speed. But let's wait for the investigation to conclude.
Did anyone hear the engine or did the plane glide in? It seems that in the panic that ensued the pilots shut off the wrong engine by mistake, which explains why the flaps were not extended and the landing gear not deployed. The pilots would not know what position these were in. Also, the first set of antennas were either blown over or knocked over during a storm, likely the latter which explains why they were re-erected on top of a concrete wall that was clearly visible instead of on a foundation at ground level.
WRONG.
Flap and gear extension do not rely on running engines nor do the gauges that indicate their position.
The pilots shut off the wrong engine in the Kegworth air disaster in the UK in 1989 leaving the plane without power. The air crash investigation report recommended that planes should be fitted with cameras to enable pilots to see the engines. It appears that this has not happened . . .
Why didn't they land in the opposite direction? There was no obstruction in the opposite direction to not allow the plane to skid unimpeded?
Cockpit error. No landing gear, No reverse on the engines. What was this crew doing?
Do you realize how stupid it is for you to even suggest pilot error? Just look at the things you noted. None of those are pilot "errors"
@@mvwoon Was the bird supposed to lower the landing gear? Since apparently the pilots aren't responsible.
@@mvwoon The flaps weren't set for landing either. Do some research. Even with no power they can drop the landing gear. Hell, the landing gear doors weren't even open and all that takes is gravity. It's like they forgot how to land. I suggest you put in a bit of research before calling anyone stupid.
@@my2cents945"it's like they forgot how to land" and yet they placed the bird (plane) nicely on its belly in an emergency maneuver with multiple system failures and no hydraulics. See the obvious. It's not pilot error.
@@mvwoon Like I said, you need to do a bit of research. You don't need the hydraulics to drop the landing gear, all you need is gravity. Was their gravity broken also? ;-)
Whatever happened to the plane before landing, it’s clear that continued excessive speed meant it smashed into the airport boundary wall. Certainly no aviation expert but it seems like there’s 3 options here:
1. The pilot lost his head, made massive errors and didn’t slow the plane.
2. The pilot was unable to reduce speed/throttle down on the one good engine - presumably system failure of some sort
3. The pilot deliberately maintained speed - as unpalatable as that seems, it wouldn’t be the first time in aviation history that a pilot deliberately crashed a plane😬
4. The MCAS was overriding the pilots' control over the plane.
@@TheSiriusEnigmaLet's see what the investigation reveals after going through the data recordings .By most accounts and expert opinions it sounds as though crew error is to blame but time will tell .I'm amazed anyone survived this tragedy .😢
@@TheSiriusEnigma does that explain the speed this aircraft was travelling at?
Regardless of what the software is doing to the aircraft trim, if the pilot knows he’s got no front undercarriage and will be landing on the aircraft’s belly, doesn’t he slow to almost a stall to land?
I guess there’s a lot to come out from the recorders, it would be interesting to know why the first landing was aborted too. I imagine there’s going to be a few at Boeing sweating over this!
How many planes have crashed from bird strikes ? Very tragic accident and so many lives lost.
1. Engines don’t power landings gears in B737.
2. The back landing gear wasn’t extended, either (look carefully).
Please do some homework before reporting.
Exactly. There is a lot of totally stupid comments here
That was the first thing I noticed when watching this tragic landing for the first time .I definitely concur we need to wait for the investigation conclusions before assigning blame for anything .
It is becoming more apparent that the high speed flapless belly landing was a deliberate decision made by the pilots. The aircraft made a direct track to land in the opposite direction without delay or holding in order to run checklists. Something far more urgent than loss of thrust on one engine occurred that made them decide to land immediately. A dual engine out (bird strikes on both) like Sully is a strong possibility and would require a clean configuration (gear up and no flaps) to ensure a sufficient glide to the runway. Apart from poor decision making (ie turning off the good engine) or coincidence of major system failure, there are few other likely options as to why the aircraft landed clean and too fast.
BS! They chose to go around, needing engine power to do so. Therefore they could easily have just continued the first landing attempt on runway 09, since they were already on a fully stabilized approach, with flaps deployed. I think they may have forgotten to lower the gear, altho some video shows the nose gear at least partially deployed. Maybe that prompted the go around, but sadly a gear up landing at normal speed would have been far more survivable than the 200kt landing attempt on runway 01. Upon going around, they almost certainly shut down the #1 (wrong) engine. Pure panic.
@charlestoast4051 Theres got to be more to it. I cant help but think they shut down the wrong engine. A single engine bird strike is no big deal if their airline gives them simulator time. A dual engine failure would definitely induced the panic you are talking about. My own thoughts are that the second (left) engine stopped (or was inadvertently turned off) somewhere near the base turn or just before it, perhaps abeam the threshold of the fatal approach. So yes, they would have certainly flown there under power, then, suddenly the left engine died (turned off, bird struck whatever), sudden decision to land immediately. Decided to turn a tight base/final while dead stick, keeping flaps and gear retracted to ensure sufficient glide. There would have been no time to manually reconfigure the aircraft for a normal stabilized approach, once on a belly landing final. (Particularly as the main hydraulic systems were likely no longer available.) My conclusion, they rushed a dead stick landing once they realised they had lost all thrust which occurred somewhere in the region of the opposite end to their original approach.
Pardon my ignorance, but why didn’t the pilot move to the right of the runway rather than heading straight to the wall?
Possibly the pilot didn't know about the concrete wall. There was a comment saying pilots are unaware of such an obstruction.
The pilots just shit themselves over nothing, no fire, no engines out, no hydraulic failure..nothing.
Pilot shut down the good engine and lost all power. He lost all hydraulics.
Wrong. They actually lost one of the engines. Did you see the video or not? The other engine was shut off due to pilot panicking. So he lost all hydraulics. Without that they could not deploy the landing gears or the flaps. Nothing was working. They also did not do a proper go around. Because the engines were not working anymore. Had he not shut off the wrong engine, they could have done better. But even then the damn wall messed up things.
@@btsarmyforever3816 All the current evidence suggests they actually didn't lose the #2 engine at all. You can hear it running on the belly landing video.
Maybe there was a commotion inside ..
High jack money
If the wall was not there, the plane could have continued and slide into the water. Saving many lives.
South Korea perhaps does not know well, the security measures that an airport should have? at the end of the runway they built a Wall, perhaps they thought that on the other side there was North Korea, while instead there should have been piles of sand to contain and also stop the flight of a plane, furthermore the two landing gears did not work, also assuming that the engine caught fire, the gears had to be unlocked manually or electrically since there are on board systems of electrical energy storage. The excuse is always the same "Flocks of Birds" if the birds would cause these accidents, then no plane in the world should fly anymore.
@@OrazioGiordanoEdilblucase yeb. True.
20 years as a jet engine mechanic TOTAL BULLSHIT a single bird strike WILL cause engine failure.
But a single engine failure is not an emergency, other factors must come into play to make it anything but routine.
No, a single bird strike MAY cause an engine failure. It is not certain.
only if it is big enough.... engines are tested for this very real scenario... obviously not a mechanic because you didn't answer why all the systems shut down.
@@brianlamb7937 *CAN cause engine failure.
Someone said they could have shut off the wrong engine and that it happend before
The barrier at the end of the runway is the reason for this catastrophe.
If an energy reducing section was installed at the end of the runway, rather than a concrete wall, there would have been many more survivors in the aftermath.
Poor planning of runway construction is the culprit here.
Plane was ordered to land in wrong direction.
The real cause of the incident was the wall at the end of the runway. I’m shocked anyone would build that type of structure at the end of active runways . Without that there would not have been so many casualties
there are manual levers in the cockpit to deploy the landing gear. State in this video that the front landing gear failed to deploy.... ALL landing gear is missing when it landed. if it had the other landing gear, then the nose part of the plane would be the part that was scraping down the runway. We need to wait and see if the hydraulics were out, and what actually happened. I have no idea WHY there was a bird farm close to this airport - but that is not something that is rational. Different countries have different rules, but I assumed airports had a way of keeping birds at a distance.
They tried to land but hit birds, then had to go around, they closed down wrong engine & too late to restart it & came in for a hard landing with no undercarriage,flaps/slats as no power to adjust with hydraulic’s because BOTH engines shut down. Bird strike didn’t cause the crash but did attribute to it…mainly pilot error.
They chose to go around, when the best option was clearly to continue the landing on runway 09. They were in a fully stabilized approach, no problems landing with one engine.
My deepest condolences to all victims 😢😢😢😢may thy soul rest in peace
My condolences to the families. The pilot was doing a great job. The engineering of the structures beyond the runway was the fatal flaw.
This aircraft was certainly not suffering from a lack of thrust, given the rate of speed it went flying down the runway. No flaps, no landing gear. It is a real mystery as to what brought this plane to a firey end.
It will come down to pilot error. DEI likely.
Deepest sympathy to all the families mourning this tragic loss of life.
I hope they eventually figure it out as it’s important to find the actual cause.
No landing gear down equals no breaks and no chance to stop
@@DOC187able you will stop, but the bigger problem is to land even without flaps
@Cars-k8e yeah they came in hot
It looks to me like another case of shutting down the wrong engine in a panic. There was no heat signature coming from the left engine on touch-down, only the right side, and it appears the thrust reverser on the #1 engine isn't deployed. No wonder, if the engine is shut down.
very possible. The pilots screwed up.
One theory I'm thinking of is did they keep the thrust up thinking the reverse thrusters would be effective when maybe they were not because they were actually supporting the weight of the aircraft rendering them ineffective???
The flight recorder will provide detail of what really happened.