Media in Korea aint even talking about this wall that led to airplane explosion but deflecting all blames on birdstrike, possible landing gear malfunction, etc. Probably because many high up dudes in government that approved this airport design and that decision to put up that wall could be found criminally liable
The exterior wall of the airport was taller then the bank that held the antenna. The plane would have been destroyed when it hit the wall. You can see in the crash footage the portion of the wall that was destroyed.
Shut up about the wall already. The wall didn’t cause the aircraft to malfunction. The plane was going to crash anyway at that speed once it got to the end
Retired airline pilot here. We used to train for dual-engine failures, as well as dead-stick (no power) landings. That's not required anymore, and here you see the results.
@@agotahorvath - Really want to know? Pilot's unions have fought to make training easier, so DEI hires and less experienced pilots can get through the training. In training situations, usually in simulators, pilots are no longer forced to be trained to handle multiple malfunctions at once. You know, too stressful and supposedly unrealistic. We are also now taught to rely almost 100% on checklists and automation. We used to have to know dozens of "memory items," things you had to be able to accomplish without a checklist. today, there are virtually none.
@@Summitspeedfly Double flame-out. We did have a checklist for it. But in training, it was always done just to lead into an air-restart checklist. Not much training in gliding a sim into the ground and watching the screen turn red.
Ten months ago, a worker from Jeju Air posted on an online community: “Do not use Jeju Air. There have been several instances of engine defects. Mechanics work over 13 hours a day without any breaks, except for about 20 minutes for meals. We can’t tell when a flight might fall.” The very next day after the disaster, a Jeju Air aircraft made a return flight due to a landing gear malfunction. This indicates a lack of maintenance. More investigation into the carelessness in maintenance is needed.
The only thing I can say for sure is that the pilot didn't have a scenario in his head where he would hit a concrete wall, explode and die. If they had known this future, they would have landed on water like the Hudson River.
there's a reason that was called a miracle. the waters near the crash are rocky and strong so it's very different. if you have a runway to land on you're for sure going to try that first
This is not how people think who comment on youtube videos. They will convince themselves that the pilots did it on purpose, because pilots obey gubment.
Retired 737 Captain here. Doesn’t matter what’s at the end of the runway. If you land on the last third of the runway you’re going to have a very tough time stopping. Any airline pilot will tell you if you’re landing looks like you’ll touch down past the first 1500 feet, you go around. If they touched down on the approach end of the runway there’s no way they’d have been traveling that fast at the roll out end. They may have made it. The video shows them covering about 4000 feet of runway in a very short period of time. The investigation will be able to figure all this out but I estimate they traveled the distance from touch down to impact at an average of 190 MPH.
@@jeffjonderkorealtor3333. Yes I think he could have hoped to lower the flaps just a tad, to use ground effect to then strike just the masts and not the wall, you need alot of downwash which the flaps would've provided
@@JetPilot1956 My point about ground effect which comment has disappeared mysteriously was that he may have wanted to deploy flap to rise over the concrete bank. A Spitfire pilot landed near to here in the war dead stick in a field that was too short by setting it down between anti landing vertical poles in a field which as they struck the wings helped to decelerate the a/c
Sure but did you even think of the whole scenario he presented, cause I wouldn’t have. Obviously the wall was the problem but why were they in that position.
Revisit the video. He posits that the pilots intentionally left them up to control the distance on the ground. With no reverse thrust and wheels down they would have been certain to hit the barrier. He suggests that the pilots over ran the runway because of ground effect but made the decision to belly land to increase the friction coefficient and slow the plane.. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I'm sure we'll know more in weeks to come. I only hope people died quickly, not burned to death.
@@chesterwilberforce9832 Well, the problem with that is there are fewer points of contact with the ground for a 737 belly landing when compared with a wheel down landing.
As a 15 year corporate pilot, my opinion on this crash is that the pilots shut down the good engine and panicked, (very easy to do if you’re not ready and somewhat prepared), and then forgetting their checklist and/or had no time to go through their checklists, and completely forgot or waited to late to put down the gear and flaps. Gliding in way too high and fast, therefore touching down halfway down the runway, and at that point the aircraft gained two more passengers in the VIP front row seats and the pilots were then along for the ride. Again, this is just my opinion as we all wait patiently for all the facts to be released. Whatever the final report says happened, this is a very sad outcome to this flight and I wish everyone affected by this tragedy the very best.
I do agree with you. I'm not a pilot, i'm just an enthusiast but after watching a lot of videos about plain crashes reports and about this one it does look like they turn off the wrong engine (that has happened before and I think you pilots train for that because of it) after the go around, got full panic mode with a glider at low altitude(checklist out the window) and end up like this. The flaps and landing gear thing might be voluntary like this man said or maybe is like you said (too late) but I also think they might have been dealing with other stuff, in most accidents I've seen reports it's multiple things going wrong at the same time that causes pilots to panic, freeze or have bad judgment. Also, this approach they took might have worked, I don't think even the best pilots plan for a concrete wall on the end of tye runway.
@ Birdstrike is to engine #2 (right side) but flight crew misidentifies damaged engine as engine #1 (left side) and mistakenly shuts down the good engine. They are now flying a glider which when this happens in an aircraft you trim for best glide and don’t touch the gear or flaps so you have more gliding distance. Upon confirming you can make the runway you then drop the gear and flaps which wasn’t done
I don’t know much about flying, but do you think the pilots might have been relatively new? I’m wondering how many flight hours it takes to be truly ready and prepared for emergencies. I guess even someone with the bare minimum flight hours could remain calm, cool, and collected and work through the checklist, though.
@ you would be shocked at just how many airports have them due to trying to squeeze airports/longer runways in between the congested areas of cities and roads.
As an aviator SME I do not understand why the hurry to land after a 7 minutes MAYDAY. The 737 has 3 back up systems. The bird strike has no reason for the pilot to bring the landing gear. The hurry to land strikes me.
So, if they have more time to think (case of both engines fail), can the turn around one more time? 1. While doing so, look around the run way - evev wait for recommendation from ATC. 2. While doing so, provide time to prepare rescue teams. 3. While doing so, jettison fuel to reduce chance of explosion. 4. Use flabs to reduce speed. Landing Gear should be in operation...see skidding by friction is not controllable maneuver. This one is the fact I can tell how bad the pilot judgment was .... with wheels and less speed they can maneuver away from that wall.
Wasn’t this guys guesstimate basically the most simple answer to your question? Likely second engine failed somehow hence the quick landing… pure speculation but it’s literally all there. Do you even watch the videos before you comment?
All other ATC videos I've seen with an engine failure showed them landing ASAP, so I doubt it's that uncommon. Basically what they're doing is a normal traffic pattern, visually seeing the runway, turning back around and land, just like in flight school. It's the safest and quickest way to land and as the reason for an engine failure and its consequences isnt known, it's very critical to land ASAP. By the way, it doesn't really matter if they landed that quickly again, they could have hit those birds 30 minutes later as well a second time.
wow downunderaustralia, I am very surprised you dont have like a billion number 1's by now, cause, lets be real here, EVERYONE wants to feel they are smarter then the next person, right? so, i wonder whats going on, oh wait, hold on, i got it, here is your problem, you SHOULD have said, "press 1 if you have become an expert in aviation accidents in the last 24 hours".............yes, there is your problem mate
The Ryanair 4102 flight was able to land safely after suffering a massive bird strike and they were able to lower the landing gear despite both engines stalling. So this jeju plane landing without landing gear after a massive bird strike is unusual because there is a back up system in place for this.
That’s what many of the Pilot vloggers are considering as well. The Pilots where in Thailand on a red eye flight, suppose they drank a little of during their stay. I really think that this is massive Pilot error.
Even if they did shut down the good engine that doesn't explain the reason for no landing gear and no flaps. Also the fact that they had the berm has nothing to do with the loss of life because without the berm they were going so fast they would have disintegrated when they hit the perimeter wall in the buildings on the other side of the road. This is pure speculation but I think they just got overloaded with tasks and forgot to put the gear down
Happens more times on a simulator than most people would think. I think the right engine was working at reduced thrust. When the plane was landing it yawed slightly to the left and the reverse thruster was deployed on the right engine and not the left. Would be good to hear from at type rated pilot that could outline the procedure for restarting an engine on the 737-800 including what flight envelop would be required.
heres what i think happened 1. bird strike occurs 2. they abort landing and declare go around 3. they start doing single engine checklist, and during the checklist they mistakenly shut off the good #1 left engine. 4. they start losing thrust, as the #2 bad right engine isn't producing much 5. they declare emergency 6. they realize their plane is a rock, they start to perform tear drop maneuver 7. they come in fast, with no flaps, no gear, because they have to 8. they slide down the runway at huge speeds, impact the wall evidence to support this: 1. the #2 (bad) engine is in reverse thrust mode after touchdown 2. the #1 (good) engine does not appear to be in reverse thrust mode 3. they rushed to land at all costs 4. no flaps or gear deployed, as they may have tried to save glide distance, and/or didnt have time to use manual deployment
All of that wouldn't have mattered had that wall not been there right? Many if not all would've survived if there was a sensible way to slow down literally runaway planes.
@@manilkasheran2934 They didn't hit the wall. There are live video feeds showing the cleanup and you can see the wall perfectly intact. They hit the berm that holds the ILS on top of it. The antenna itself can't be moved or placed elsewhere, it has to be right beyond the end of the runway to perform its one and only function. The berm beneath it will be a major discussion in the aftermath of this investigation.
@@327Erich isnt the ILS on top of a rocky embankment? Which is what the plane collided into? the guy in the video literally states this same thing, most airports do not have that embankment to give leeway for overshot landings
They simply forgot to jettison fuel....they should have deployed Landing Gear at all cost...why? because it allowed them to maneuver away from obstacles. Go by skidding is never going to do any good.....
Problem with this theory: if they have no engines, but are still clearly coming in WAY too fast (their speed AT the concrete barrier, after sliding down the runway and 800 feet of turf overrun, was STILL above normal touchdown speed), then they *should* have deployed flaps, gear, and armed spoilers as they approached the threshold. Failing that, a forward slip could have helped reduce their approach speed. They were BIG FAST. Ultimately, their failure to manage their approach speed, AND the possibility that they shut down the wrong engine, are both signs of crew competency problems.
I have no idea why CNN continues to bring Miles O'Brien into commercial aircraft accidents as an "expert". He's a private pilot with no ATP experience. You're better off listening to Blancolerio's UA-cam channel if you want to hear from an expert.
when you want to retain as much speed as possible then sure its reasonable to assume to have no gear down and no flaps. Thats when you are trying to stay up in the air. But when you are committed to landing, then you want that speed reduced. Some people can pass all of the pilot training and exams, but only when a critical moment occurs will you truly find out if that person is indeed pilot material.
Don't want to blame the victims, but shutting down the wrong engine seems to be the most likely cause of the accident. Even if they lost both engines, the standby system of the B737NG can still lower the landing gears, lower the flaps to 15 degrees (takes a long time to go beyond that), and activate thrust reversers. On the crash video, it is visible that thrust reversers were working normally, meaning that standby system was working normally.
Exactly, like in the Taiwanese plane. Wrong engine shut down because of panic. And maybe it's the same reason the landing gears weren't there. Or it's related to the emergency return to Seoul the plane made because of landing gears problems, 2 days before the crash.
The #2 engine TR was deployed on landing, but not #1. Another video shows the gear-up approach (2nd approach) to RW 19, and you can see there appears to be only one engine (#2) producing thrust. In a third video, the #2 engine is the one that took the bird strike. All these observations suggest this theory: the #1 engine was not producing thrust, apparently from sometime after turning crosswind after the go-around after the bird strike. I think upon that realization, the crew got in a big hurry to get the plane on the deck, probably because they didn't think they could make a full radar pattern with such degraded thrust (and therefore didn't have time to run checklists). They performed the most expedient approach possible (a 90-270 maneuver) but in their haste never initiated deploying the slats, flaps, or gear. They very well may have shut down the #1 engine by mistake -- that would explain their extreme hurry to get down, and desire to keep a clean configuration until landing was assured. The lack of any configuration for landing was a miscalculation given the extreme speeds required for an approach in the clean configuration (probably at least around 180 knots) and the inability to slow down (ground effect-induced floatation, no wheel brakes, no spoilers, and low friction by the engine pods and aft fuselage on concrete). Perhaps they thought minimizing the drag was the only way they could make the runway. They were still at about 160 knots when they departed the runway surface, just before impacting the concrete ILS antenna support. Not survivable -- and I don't think EMAS (crushable concrete overrun) would have slowed them more than 20 knots (would have been like skipping a rock across a pond). I do think that without the concrete barrier, many more would have survived.
The plane was going at very high speed, with fuel in the engines and tanks on a downward slope as it hit the wall. They were not safe, wall or no wall.
The plane landed long, over speed, w/o flaps or landing gear. They hit the localizer burm at 150mph. Even if that wasn't there, there was a perimeter barrier wall about 200 feet beyond the burm that they would have hit instead.
But the cinder block wall would have been far less destructive than a earthen berm with a 2 foot thick slab of concrete on top of it. That thing sliced through the aircraft like a knife. It was unsurvivable at those speeds. There are close up pictures of the berm and its just inexcusable to have put that there. The ILS array at all airports I've been to is flush to the ground and the poles are designed to break off on impact like sign posts on highways. Not saying hitting a cinder block wall at 100+mph would be good, and airports should have chain-linked fence around them, but more survivable on impact.
저 비행기는 반대방향으로 중간지점에서 착륙을 했습니다. 랜딩기어와 플랩은 작동안했습니다. 반대방향으로 착륙을 했기때문에 활주로가 내리막길입니다.비행기에 속도가 붙어서 벽에 충돌했습니다. 비행기기장이 북한 테러범이 아닌지 의심스럽습니다. 한국뉴스에서는 비행기 기장이 어떤 인물인지 밝히지 않습니다.
They probably shut down the wrong engine. In the video, you can see and hear the right engine (bird strike engine) operating, to what capacity who knows, but you also see the reverse thruster deployed on the right engine but not the left.
Is there a possibility that the engine in the bird strike video is actually the left engine and the phone video is just mirrored? Phones do that often - but idk if there's a way for us to know just by looking if it's mirrored or not.
@@simashakeri95 I heard someone else suggest that possibility, but if you look at the bird strike video, the one with the plane flying over head and a plume of smoke coming out of the right engine, you also see the sunlight coming predominantly from the left, which would be east and proper direction for the morning. And the landing videos also correspond properly with the airport terminal location.
0:22: "...without its landing gear fully deployed" -- "fully"? The video shows the jetliner landing on its engines and belly without the landing gear deployed at all!
The engines hang so low that the belly of the plane did not really hardly touch the ground greatly reducing friction. Not really a belly landing due to the plane design, would be even worse on a 737 MAX as the almost drag on the ground they are so low.
@@RalphEmigh Yes the Max engines are way bigger but raised on the wing so they have slightly more clearance from the ground. Not much though and would have the same issue on a non gear landing.
It may have been running, but not generating enough thrust. Its possible that the pilots may have shutdown the wrong engine in the bird strike and realized the mistake and restarted it. But the thing is, they can't be brought up to full power on a dime. This is just speculation though.
The wall is the cause of so many deaths. Before striking the wall, everyone was alive. This was survivable. Once on the ground, there is only a limited distance that the plane can travel. That much space has to be provided for the air craft.
A KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KL) Boeing 737-800 had to undergo an emergency landing on December 28, 2024, after which it veered off the runway at Oslo Torp Sandefjord Airport. The Boeing lost control during the landing roll after which it skidded off onto the the adjacent grass terrain. All 176 passengers and six crew members onboard were uninjured.
Some comments suggest, as if by non-experts, that the pilot hastily shut down the wrong engine. While the explanation may sound plausible, it fails to distinguish between Engine Failure and Engine Fire procedures. In the case of an engine failure caused by a bird strike, during a go-around, the flaps are fully retracted first, and the QRH checklist is followed. Shutting down the wrong engine hastily and losing thrust from both engines, as you mentioned, would not justify performing a quick turn and a belly landing at such a low altitude. Since the investigation is still ongoing, let’s wait for more organized and detailed information.
@@cyberfunk3793 unlikely. The plane probably required the strength of both pilots to control it. Why didn't the flight officer release the landing gear for them? Why didn't they reduce power?
I would agree that it is too soon to tell but looking at the videos shown the right engine ingests the bird and on landing the only engine with the TR deployed is the right engine. Whatever the case it appears the pilots had a very serious concern and had to act very quickly at some point the were focused on flying and would have had to rely on memory items rather than checklists.
I flew in Air Force KC-135s. We could lower gear and flaps manually. Gear required placement of handle in slot on cabin floor and turning three revolutions ccw, flaps five turns per degree down. That took quite a long time! Boeing 737-800 have manual gear extension, basically pull handle(cable) and gear fell due to gravity. Both gear and flaps slowed airspeed and made a go around difficult if not impossible without power. Most military runways and many civilian have overruns of 1500’ or more. Fire department foamed runway when possible and touched down early. All that said, pilots have little control during a belly landing and obstacles at end of runway don’t help!
I live in Korea and it is interesting how different the news are presented. Here, at least by Korean media outlets reporting in English, the focus is on the flight and possible pilot oversight. There is not much, if not any emphasis on the wall which seems to be the main reason why so many people died. When you look at Western media tho, the wall is the main reason of such high number of casualties which I believe seems to be true as a viewer. Hope they will not simply try to cover it up since so many higher ups have signatures on the approval of that damn wall!
That is indeed interesting. Sounds like your news might just be better. Not that CNN set the bar very high. Sure that wall for the localizer was probably taller than it needed to be, but I think the main problem is they went off the end of a runway very very fast. There’s a good chance it would’ve ended poorly if it was flat. They would’ve hit something else soon after. The flight crews decisions did seem rather strange, but it’s not a good idea to judge them until more info comes out. There’s a lot that could’ve gone wrong and very little evidence out right now.
@@tm7619 doubt the reporting here is better since they seem to intentionally avoid the discussion on the wall. They are also trying to shift the focus to Boeing rather than misconduct or mistake of Jeju Air since it already cost Jeju Air 168,000 ticket cancellations and might turn into backlash towards authorities for oversight. But take it all with a pinch of salt since Korean media outlets reporting in English are not the best at translation. According to the initial reports, the systems mounted on that wall are required for navigation systems or sth like that. And the issue is not the height of the wall but rather the material. They said it was supposed to be 300m away from the runway. Apparently, it is located 323m away, so its location is fine. But it should have been made up of a material that would break easily, not a concrete wall. There seems to be multiple factors leading to this tragic accident but everybody believes casualties would not be so high if the plane did not crush into the wall. You can check @PilotBlogDenys and @blancolirio for technical assessment of what might have happened. They are both experienced pilots and analyze what might have happened, be it a technical issue, mistake of the pilot or oversight of the authorities. We will wait and see how it unfolds but for the time being, it seems to be a result of all.
Even both engines being out wouldn't make them not use flaps or gears. I don't know exactly, but for an emergency landing outside an airport they may not deploy the gears. Still you want to be as slow as possible when hitting the ground, regardless of the situation. And gears and flaps would be the first thing on a pilot's mind since flight school. Especially with all the alarms. And two pilots.
The pilot was pretty experienced. Ex-Airforce and had been flying with the airline for 10 years. Likely, it the same type of plane the whole time. Not Sully level, but he wasn't green.
About the wall (which is actually a dirt backed horizontal thick concrete platform) This is NOT the US hence think more largely; this being said, apparently this airport is also shared with the army and must adhere to additional requirements for defense… food for thought for them…
@@Livinginthephils65Its the ILS system, not a lighting system. It has no need for visibility. It uses radio signals to guide aircraft into the correct guide slope and vector for a final approach for ILS landing. It has no reason to be on a concrete slab on top of a 6 foot berm other than it was cheaper to build that way than to add break away extension poles.
@marlamumgaard677 he was full time at CNN back in the early 2000's, great reporter, very factual but they fired him a bit after he got hurt on assignment in Japan...pour guy lost is arm and was stuck there all alone. Did not know he was on PBS, ill have to check that out, thanks.
Piloting prop planes and small bizjets gives you better insight than the average person on the street, but unless you have a lot of experience piloting 737-800s, I wouldn't consider you an expert analyst in this situation. I was in the USAF, had a private pilot's license, and worked for Boeing back in the '80s, and I still can only speculate when it comes to what happened.
The "expert" doesn't answer the question! Fact: bird strikes are not uncommon (20,000 incidents per year in the US), they are not a primary reason for plane crash. Planes are designed to fly and land safely with one engine down. They may even glide and land safely with both gone. Bird strike should not be the main factor to focus on here.
It seems to be the first choice if you want to stay out of court. Like the iceberg that "sank" the Titanic, which was riddled with design flaws etc etc. The main point is not to find the truth but to avoid lawsuits.
@@Fancy-p7znot to blame the victims, but yeah shutting down the wrong engine seems to be the most likely cause of the accident. Even if they lost both engines, the standby system can still lower the landing gears, lower the flaps to 15 degrees (takes a long time to go beyond that), and activate thrust reversers. On the crash video, it is visible that thrust reversers were working normally, meaning that standby system was working normally.
I have a feeling the flight crew made the same mistake that the British Midland crew made back in 1989 by shutting down the wrong engine after the bird strike.
Same problem with Jeju flight the very next day when it took off from the Gimpo Airport in Seoul, experienced a landing gear malfunction soon after. But the plane returned to Gimpo where it safely landed. Good God 🙏✌️
It wasn’t a gear malfunction. It did NOT crash because of the gear. They were way too fast and landed way too deep into the runway to stop, regardless of the gear position. Stop listening to reporters that have zero knowledge of aviation, and start listening to people like me who fly jets every day for a living.
I’m curious as to why they didn’t just continue the approach they were on originally when they lost the engine. When I was studying for my instrument rating, we had a discussion about a scenario like this in class and the instructor said he would just continue the approach and land if he lost an engine on final.
@@romanroad483they're going to have major lawsuits and they're going to have to have judges in Korea get the information because you're never ever going to hear about it until it actually has to be proven and comes out in court what was actually done and what the pilots did based on these recorder boxes. All the information is stored right in those two different black boxes but I guarantee you it's going to take months if not years the way the Koreans are
It sounds like they were already in the missed approach when the bird strike happened. You can see from the footage the gear was up when the right engine coughed.
Everyone is talking about the wall. Nobody is talking about what is beyond the wall. There are other buildings including hotels. What happens when a 737 with 181 people on board overruns the runway and hit a hotel? 200-300 deaths.
Maybe there is a fundamental pragmatic solution; build much longer runways with clear runoffs free of obstructions; especially housing, hotels and industrial buildings. If you cannot build safe then you have failed morally; probably not financially though.... This was effectively an accident waiting to happen but may end up effecting a lot of clarity to elevate safety a tiny notch. It would clearly be very foolhardy to build it right from the offset; demanding as that is of real intellect.
@@phenogen8125 A KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KL) Boeing 737-800 had to undergo an emergency landing on December 28 after which it veered off the runway at Oslo Torp Sandefjord Airport. The Boeing lost control during the landing roll after which it skidded off onto the the adjacent grass terrain. All 176 passengers and six crew members onboard were uninjured.
Those buildings are almost a kilometer from the concrete ILS structure. I'm not an expert but I can imagine the skidding plane might have ground to a halt before then. But we'll probably never know for sure.
@ I haven’t looked at that runway but the runways I use on a regular basis are 9000-10000 feet long. In other words…almost two miles. 1000 meters is actually the shortest runway I could possibly use and that only at sea level.
The truth is I think they panicked. And they forgot the flaps and landing gear. The theory on gliding is based on having both engines out. But the videos seem to indicate at least one engine was running (unless they did a real stupid and shut down the good engine by mistake).
check out the google street view. the wall estructure could stop a nuke. that cinder wall would have been nothing but a dent in the fuselage. absolutely no comparasion.
My guess is they took a bird strike to one engine and accidentally shut down the functional engine. That would explain the urgency to land. It’s also possible they took birds in both engines but less likely than the former scenario IMHO.
it wouldnt have made any difference if they had wheels down. touchdown so late and with that speed, not a chance in hell to stop in time. with or without wheels
I guess they would have one thrust reverser and speed brakes, if the hydraulics are good, and then the wheel brakes, which help a lot. And the surface was not wet or icy. Sometimes an overrun happens anyway for some reason. The problem is that if you smash into a rigid object at 40-50 knts you are looking at a major accident already.
Wheels down equals lots of drag so they would have slowed down to a more normal landing speed while in the air. This would have allowed them to land closer to the normal touchdown zone. A double win just by putting the gear down once the runway was assured.
Yes, there was another video that showed a puff of smoke from the #2 engine in flight, implying a bird strike, as the 737 was on its first approach to RW 01.
Weird to say the engines not were working when in the video it sounds like they were working, even in the last seconds. The decision to land at that speed without gear down is really odd. Something weird happened in that cockpit
We can only speculate smoke in the cockpit from bird strikes and near panic in the cockpit so that checklists and good aviation procedure want out the window. The voice and data recorders will tell the final tale.
If you watch the video you can see the engine that got hit was working.This is gross pilot error after pilot error,forgetting to lower the landing gear setting the flaps and landing too far down the runway.
As a pilot for over 35 years, this is a pilot issue. I have had bird issues. The landing gear is a manual possible situation. The pilot in control killed these people
Do you think the pilots were too consumed with the immediate problems that they failed to lower the gear, deploy the flaps, etc.? (I have my multi-commercial.)
And siting! Apparently the airport is located adjacent to major wetlands and there are 5 times the number of birds around this airport compared to normal. It was not an ideal place to build an airport, but local politics prevailed.
A KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KL) Boeing 737-800 had to undergo an emergency landing on December 28, 2024, after which it veered off the runway at Oslo Torp Sandefjord Airport. The Boeing lost control during the landing roll after which it skidded off onto the the adjacent grass terrain. All 176 passengers and six crew members onboard were uninjured.
No, ground effect happens regardless of airplane configuration. It is created by the lift of the wings and the proximity to the ground (the air beneath wings compresses near the earth because ground is solid, altering the downward air's flow). However, landing gear would have potentially allowed for braking, and the flaps would have slowed the aircraft. The problem would be estimating when you can safely use either without stealing away so much kinetic energy that your glideslope ends up SHORT of the runway instead of LONG of the runway. While I cannot say I know what I would do in this situation, my intuition is that I would definitely attempt landing gear, and do so only as late as possible.
sad thing is majority of Korean aviation experts insist, according to the TV debates, the reinforced concrete wall isn't an issue and it isn't against the law...
Definitely some critical hydraulic failures, no seasoned aviator would forget to deploy flaps and landline gear when you are landing. But it does seem who ever designed the airport forgot planes don’t go through reinforced concrete walls.
You’d be surprised what professionals can forget under stress and the fatigue of a red eye flight. It’s human factors and has played a role in many an accident.
@@robbedontuesday It has been done before. The "Gimli Glider" is an example, I believe, that you can look up. So the fact that they managed to do it here is not conclusive to say that they did have hydraulics. Of course it would be very strange if they did not, since there is so much redundancy.
Yeah… well having possibly two engine failures to manage AND simultaneously having to decide to emergency land under 6minutes might just be the reason for lack of gear: T-I-M-E
I'm a flight instructor and this "Expert" is 'not.' 1. That aircraft ‘can’ do a normal approach with one engine out. 2. Both engines out will ‘not’ impede the ability to lower the landing gear. 3. “Ground Effect” is ‘not’ a cushion of air. It’s caused by the reduction of wingtip vortices when an aircraft gets within a wingspan of the surface. What’s needed is for Boing to look at the Black Box.
True, true, true and true. Also any competent pilot who decided to leave gear up to stretch the glide would have dumped the gear to use its drag to slow themselves once they knew they were going to make the runway.
1. He was speculating about what might have happened if BOTH engines were out 2. Direct quote from the video: "There's no reason to believe that an engine failure, or even two engine failure would make it impossible for the crew to bring down the landing gear." He then goes on to explain about a fail-safe mechanism to lower the landing gear manually by pulling on a cable. No idea why you thought he was saying something else 3. Ground effect as defined by the Oxford dictionary: "the effect of added aerodynamic buoyancy produced by a cushion of air below a vehicle moving close to the ground." Even though it might be caused by those vortices doesn't mean he is wrong and he's trying to define things in layman's terms since this is a news broadcast. He explicitly stated that his scenario is just a theory that could make sense based on video evidence, but that investigators need to methodically figure out what actually happened since he obviously might be wrong. Now I'm concerned about your ability to instruct people to fly with those comprehension skills on display.
I'm no expert , i cant even ride a bike , but leaving your landing gear up on purpose so not to reduce speed ,even though they were going way to fast seems idiotic to me
Lowering the landing gear increases drag hence the plane may not have even made the runway if they lowered it. In any event, the truth will come out once voice recorders and the black box are analyzed.
@@shonuDhamey, you are right. It is only speculation, something that we will find out in time if it is correct or not. However, a duel engine out senrio would explain several confusing things about this accident, for example. Why did the aircraft immediately return to the airport and not hold and run checklists, why was the reverse thruster only deployed on the bird strike right-hand engine, why did they have no flaps, no slats, no landing gear, and no spoilers? A duel engine failure is an extremely rare occurrence in a airliner like a 737-800, often when both engines fail after one has issues it is later found out that the crew accidently shut the wrong engine down. That may or may not be the case here. This is all just a theory.
@@christopher88719 저 비행기는 반대방향으로 중간지점에서 착륙을 했습니다. 랜딩기어와 플랩은 작동안했습니다. 반대방향으로 착륙을 했기때문에 활주로가 내리막길입니다.비행기에 속도가 붙어서 벽에 충돌했습니다. 비행기 조종사가 북한 테러범이 아닌지 의심스럽습니다. 한국뉴스에서는 비행기 기장이 어떤 인물인지 밝히지 않습니다.
Other aviation analysts mentioned that the pilots probably forgot to deploy the landing gears after the confusion over the bird strike and engine failure.
Here in Japan flight crews of JAL, ANA and Skymark are privately saying that this crash was caused by one of two possibilities. Massive pilot error or pilot murder-suicide. And they are saying that the latter can not be 100% ruled out.
My POV is this: Pilots did a good job to make a collapsed aircraft land with the best possible option. But that concrete wall was the cause of all this devastation. It's so sad. My condolences to all Korean people.
What I didn't understand here is if the pilots wanted the gear up as long as possible and then forgot to get it out just before landing or it was their intention to land like this (I guess not...)
Thats what i dont understand either, holding speed while gliding without engine power understandable. But this guy here is defending the fact the landing gear wasnt deployed as they approached landing
The time between the pilot's stress message to crash is only within 5 minutes. The pilot seemed mindlessly rushing down at high speed without preparing any standard protocol. It's like suicide
I've become an aviation in the past few days from watching all the experts' opinions. Please send me some kind of aviation degree or certification. Thank you!
Congratulations! Fortunately we just had 2 pilot job openings open up here at JeJu airlines! Please send us a valid email address and we'll send you your pilots license and your start date!
A few years ago at Manchester Ringway a TUI B757 driver lost his right engine to a bird strike, he calmly lifted off still dirty flaps slats undercarriage extended, sorted the problem with the tower whilst flying a circuit over the airport , crash rescue alerted. 757 driver sat her down sweet as a nut with no further incident, the fire engines followed the TUI Jet as she taxied back to the gate. It is a wake up call for South Korea to get its affairs in order regarding air safety, that concrete earth embankment mounting the localizer ariels should never been built, the lack of ECAS ,a recipe for disaster.
@@anthonytran7566 In an Ideal world, yes but when it comes to cold corporate business safety takes a back, seat B-747 DC-10 luggage cargo door incidents a classic example. A corporate suit is like a donkey on the beach at Weston Super Mare, all .ways following the juiciest carrot.
@@basiltaylor8910 "In an Ideal world, yes but when it comes to cold corporate business safety takes a back, seat B-747 DC-10 luggage cargo door incidents a classic example. A corporate suit is like a donkey on the beach at Weston Super Mare, all .ways following the juiciest carrot." This comment is incomprehensible.
A pilot of this type aircraft or similar would have been more appropriate. I don’t think the Pilots intended to land without gear of flaps, a super high risk configuration.
The issue was to high, too much speed, how would having the one engine on help, speed brakes? They needed speed loss and altitude loss to have made that landing work. Just asking.
The airport is located adjacent to major wetlands and I read that there are 5x the number of birds around this airport compared to normal. It was not an ideal place to build an airport but local politics prevailed.
Pilots shutdown the wrong engine. There is no hot air coming from the port engine. There is heat coming from the starboard engine that sustained the bird strike.
@@evelynmurphy9102Boeing 737 is an antique pile of shit loaded with outdated equipments. There’s no emergency beeping sound to alarm the pilots when something is wrong, only emergency lights which is very difficult to notice in such situations.
Bird-strikes don't disable the landing gear. Bird strikes don't cause a plane to land with such massive speed. A number of things, not just one thing, don't add up.
I think in the heat of the moment with the talk about birds in the area, they totally forgot about the landing gear … which is why the plane touched down on its belly further up the runway than it should have
Why are they calling a former CNN journalist an ‘expert’ he has no experience with flying commercial airliners or investigating these crashes. He is a private pilot of a Cirrus SR22 which is 1/4th the size of a Boeing 737 and uses a propeller 😭 What the f-k is an ‘aviation analyst’ ?! He is a JOURNALIST. Not an expert.
Media in Korea aint even talking about this wall that led to airplane explosion but deflecting all blames on birdstrike, possible landing gear malfunction, etc. Probably because many high up dudes in government that approved this airport design and that decision to put up that wall could be found criminally liable
This is a shame on them and so sad & furious for the lost families.
The exterior wall of the airport was taller then the bank that held the antenna. The plane would have been destroyed when it hit the wall. You can see in the crash footage the portion of the wall that was destroyed.
@@pilons604:36 might not have been so much fatalities as opposed to hitting that concrete berm
Media in South Korea are talking about the wall & mound! Since yesterday, and people were talking about it from day 1.
Shut up about the wall already. The wall didn’t cause the aircraft to malfunction. The plane was going to crash anyway at that speed once it got to the end
Tail Section seats are about to be first class
Too close to the bathrooms. People fart while standing in line for the toilet.
It's not just the location but they are also strapped in and facing the opposite direction.
Same thing I was thinking
@@Bob-en1ge Money changes everything. They will have bathroom right next to a cockpit.
@@Bob-en1ge LMAO
Condolences to all who have lost.
So sad
Celebration for all who have got insurance money!
Sum Ting Wong
Wi Tu Low
Ding Dang Ow
My Dad was a pilot and told us "always sit in the most rear seats. Those are the people who survive in a crash."
It all depends on many factors and only luck can play apart.. Also don't forget 2 flights crew survived not the passengers
Yes .and those flight crew were at the very back of the plane...what do you expect?
Is that in the very back?
My pilot says, I can sit anywhere I want, he is in control.
Not, enlightening. Actually, juvenile.
Retired airline pilot here. We used to train for dual-engine failures, as well as dead-stick (no power) landings. That's not required anymore, and here you see the results.
Why on earth aren't they trained for this anymore ? This sounds like criminal negligence .
They do in the U.K.!
@@agotahorvath - Really want to know? Pilot's unions have fought to make training easier, so DEI hires and less experienced pilots can get through the training. In training situations, usually in simulators, pilots are no longer forced to be trained to handle multiple malfunctions at once. You know, too stressful and supposedly unrealistic. We are also now taught to rely almost 100% on checklists and automation. We used to have to know dozens of "memory items," things you had to be able to accomplish without a checklist. today, there are virtually none.
@@Summitspeedfly Double flame-out. We did have a checklist for it. But in training, it was always done just to lead into an air-restart checklist. Not much training in gliding a sim into the ground and watching the screen turn red.
they are trained for it surely.
Ten months ago, a worker from Jeju Air posted on an online community: “Do not use Jeju Air. There have been several instances of engine defects. Mechanics work over 13 hours a day without any breaks, except for about 20 minutes for meals. We can’t tell when a flight might fall.”
The very next day after the disaster, a Jeju Air aircraft made a return flight due to a landing gear malfunction. This indicates a lack of maintenance. More investigation into the carelessness in maintenance is needed.
Source?
@@viictxriia Search on google ‘Jeju Air employees raise alarms over safety concerns after Muan incident’
@@viictxriia ua-cam.com/video/yKOgg7HCnwU/v-deo.html
That's pretty accurate
Why didn't the pilots even TRY a manual gear release though?
The only thing I can say for sure is that the pilot didn't have a scenario in his head where he would hit a concrete wall, explode and die.
If they had known this future, they would have landed on water like the Hudson River.
Many water landings are not survivable either. Google it.
there's a reason that was called a miracle. the waters near the crash are rocky and strong so it's very different. if you have a runway to land on you're for sure going to try that first
Or they would have canceled the flight. This comment was pointless.
landing on water 99% of the time will result in instant crash and everyone dies.
This is not how people think who comment on youtube videos. They will convince themselves that the pilots did it on purpose, because pilots obey gubment.
That concrete wall and not having ground made out of sand and collapsible material is such a bad design.
Ya think?
Sum Ting Wong
Wi Tu Low
Ding Dang Ow
@@cnnothingburgerletsgobrand6381you’re sooooo funny lil bro.
Retired 737 Captain here. Doesn’t matter what’s at the end of the runway. If you land on the last third of the runway you’re going to have a very tough time stopping. Any airline pilot will tell you if you’re landing looks like you’ll touch down past the first 1500 feet, you go around. If they touched down on the approach end of the runway there’s no way they’d have been traveling that fast at the roll out end. They may have made it. The video shows them covering about 4000 feet of runway in a very short period of time. The investigation will be able to figure all this out but I estimate they traveled the distance from touch down to impact at an average of 190 MPH.
And lots of ground effect... with no gear and all that speed. That wing would be pushing a lot of air down on the runway.
@@jeffjonderkorealtor3333. Yes I think he could have hoped to lower the flaps just a tad, to use ground effect to then strike just the masts and not the wall, you need alot of downwash which the flaps would've provided
How could they go around if they lost both engines?
Exactly what I thought. That plane was going to come to a pretty bad ending whatever it hit, it was going so fast.
@@JetPilot1956 My point about ground effect which comment has disappeared mysteriously was that he may have wanted to deploy flap to rise over the concrete bank. A Spitfire pilot landed near to here in the war dead stick in a field that was too short by setting it down between anti landing vertical poles in a field which as they struck the wings helped to decelerate the a/c
You don't need an expert to say the crash into the concrete wall at the end killed them.
amazing
I read that they had to land in a reverse pattern on the runway. That's actually the wall to cover the exhaust during take off
Sure but did you even think of the whole scenario he presented, cause I wouldn’t have. Obviously the wall was the problem but why were they in that position.
@hemmygrant Those type of walls aren't supposed to be reinforced concrete.
You have no idea what you’re talking about lmao
The landing gear should not have been affected by a bird strike.
Everyone is talking nonsense, and I guess we will never get to know what actually happened.
Revisit the video. He posits that the pilots intentionally left them up to control the distance on the ground. With no reverse thrust and wheels down they would have been certain to hit the barrier. He suggests that the pilots over ran the runway because of ground effect but made the decision to belly land to increase the friction coefficient and slow the plane.. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I'm sure we'll know more in weeks to come. I only hope people died quickly, not burned to death.
@@chesterwilberforce9832 Well, the problem with that is there are fewer points of contact with the ground for a 737 belly landing when compared with a wheel down landing.
Did you even watch the video?
@@chesterwilberforce9832If one engine was still running, these pilots got everyone killed.
As a 15 year corporate pilot, my opinion on this crash is that the pilots shut down the good engine and panicked, (very easy to do if you’re not ready and somewhat prepared), and then forgetting their checklist and/or had no time to go through their checklists, and completely forgot or waited to late to put down the gear and flaps. Gliding in way too high and fast, therefore touching down halfway down the runway, and at that point the aircraft gained two more passengers in the VIP front row seats and the pilots were then along for the ride. Again, this is just my opinion as we all wait patiently for all the facts to be released. Whatever the final report says happened, this is a very sad outcome to this flight and I wish everyone affected by this tragedy the very best.
Or, both motors sustained damage, giving pilots no time for emergency procedures.
I do agree with you. I'm not a pilot, i'm just an enthusiast but after watching a lot of videos about plain crashes reports and about this one it does look like they turn off the wrong engine (that has happened before and I think you pilots train for that because of it) after the go around, got full panic mode with a glider at low altitude(checklist out the window) and end up like this. The flaps and landing gear thing might be voluntary like this man said or maybe is like you said (too late) but I also think they might have been dealing with other stuff, in most accidents I've seen reports it's multiple things going wrong at the same time that causes pilots to panic, freeze or have bad judgment.
Also, this approach they took might have worked, I don't think even the best pilots plan for a concrete wall on the end of tye runway.
@ Birdstrike is to engine #2 (right side) but flight crew misidentifies damaged engine as engine #1 (left side) and mistakenly shuts down the good engine. They are now flying a glider which when this happens in an aircraft you trim for best glide and don’t touch the gear or flaps so you have more gliding distance. Upon confirming you can make the runway you then drop the gear and flaps which wasn’t done
I don’t know much about flying, but do you think the pilots might have been relatively new? I’m wondering how many flight hours it takes to be truly ready and prepared for emergencies. I guess even someone with the bare minimum flight hours could remain calm, cool, and collected and work through the checklist, though.
@ you would be shocked at just how many airports have them due to trying to squeeze airports/longer runways in between the congested areas of cities and roads.
As an aviator SME I do not understand why the hurry to land after a 7 minutes MAYDAY. The 737 has 3 back up systems. The bird strike has no reason for the pilot to bring the landing gear. The hurry to land strikes me.
@@abelnasser-bernal3731 possible to hurry to land. That is for Jeju airlines to answer. More trips for profit.
So, if they have more time to think (case of both engines fail), can the turn around one more time?
1. While doing so, look around the run way - evev wait for recommendation from ATC.
2. While doing so, provide time to prepare rescue teams.
3. While doing so, jettison fuel to reduce chance of explosion.
4. Use flabs to reduce speed. Landing Gear should be in operation...see skidding by friction is not controllable maneuver. This one is the fact I can tell how bad the pilot judgment was .... with wheels and less speed they can maneuver away from that wall.
Wasn’t this guys guesstimate basically the most simple answer to your question? Likely second engine failed somehow hence the quick landing… pure speculation but it’s literally all there. Do you even watch the videos before you comment?
All other ATC videos I've seen with an engine failure showed them landing ASAP, so I doubt it's that uncommon. Basically what they're doing is a normal traffic pattern, visually seeing the runway, turning back around and land, just like in flight school. It's the safest and quickest way to land and as the reason for an engine failure and its consequences isnt known, it's very critical to land ASAP. By the way, it doesn't really matter if they landed that quickly again, they could have hit those birds 30 minutes later as well a second time.
One theory to consider, the pilot shutdown the wrong engine after the bird strike on the go around.
press 1 if you've become a Jeju expert in the last 24 hrs. im a potato peeler at work.
Why not we now have millions of vaccine and covid experts in America.
wow downunderaustralia, I am very surprised you dont have like a billion number 1's by now, cause, lets be real here, EVERYONE wants to feel they are smarter then the next person, right? so, i wonder whats going on, oh wait, hold on, i got it, here is your problem, you SHOULD have said, "press 1 if you have become an expert in aviation accidents in the last 24 hours".............yes, there is your problem mate
I used to be an expert on the melting temperature of aluminium in skyscrapers now I have moved on and am an expert on aeronautical engineering.
@MetPass wait, you mean you didnt beciome an expert on bridges and cargo ships???!!!!!!!!!
😂
The Ryanair 4102 flight was able to land safely after suffering a massive bird strike and they were able to lower the landing gear despite both engines stalling. So this jeju plane landing without landing gear after a massive bird strike is unusual because there is a back up system in place for this.
Did you not watch the video? The man shared his expert view on why not using the landing gear may have been a deliberate decision by the crew.
@@vanarts7 The video’s expert opinion did not explain why the crew did not lower neither gear nor flaps when they clearly see they are about to
@@vanarts7 well he's speaking nonsense. the pilots essentially gave up wheel braking which would've slowed them down.
If they had lowered the gear and flaps the aircraft possibly wouldn't have reached the runway. Would have lost airspeed and dropped quickly.
@@boblol691he explained it extremely well.
Condolences for all those that lost.
Yes a terrible tragedy. Poor families…
I have a feeling they mistakenly shut down the good engine.
That’s what many of the Pilot vloggers are considering as well. The Pilots where in Thailand on a red eye flight, suppose they drank a little of during their stay. I really think that this is massive Pilot error.
possible
Even if they did shut down the good engine that doesn't explain the reason for no landing gear and no flaps. Also the fact that they had the berm has nothing to do with the loss of life because without the berm they were going so fast they would have disintegrated when they hit the perimeter wall in the buildings on the other side of the road. This is pure speculation but I think they just got overloaded with tasks and forgot to put the gear down
Happens more times on a simulator than most people would think. I think the right engine was working at reduced thrust. When the plane was landing it yawed slightly to the left and the reverse thruster was deployed on the right engine and not the left. Would be good to hear from at type rated pilot that could outline the procedure for restarting an engine on the 737-800 including what flight envelop would be required.
@@christophergagliano2051 They may have been trying to stretch their glide by keeping gear and flaps retracted
heres what i think happened
1. bird strike occurs
2. they abort landing and declare go around
3. they start doing single engine checklist, and during the checklist they mistakenly shut off the good #1 left engine.
4. they start losing thrust, as the #2 bad right engine isn't producing much
5. they declare emergency
6. they realize their plane is a rock, they start to perform tear drop maneuver
7. they come in fast, with no flaps, no gear, because they have to
8. they slide down the runway at huge speeds, impact the wall
evidence to support this:
1. the #2 (bad) engine is in reverse thrust mode after touchdown
2. the #1 (good) engine does not appear to be in reverse thrust mode
3. they rushed to land at all costs
4. no flaps or gear deployed, as they may have tried to save glide distance, and/or didnt have time to use manual deployment
All of that wouldn't have mattered had that wall not been there right? Many if not all would've survived if there was a sensible way to slow down literally runaway planes.
@@manilkasheran2934 They didn't hit the wall. There are live video feeds showing the cleanup and you can see the wall perfectly intact. They hit the berm that holds the ILS on top of it. The antenna itself can't be moved or placed elsewhere, it has to be right beyond the end of the runway to perform its one and only function. The berm beneath it will be a major discussion in the aftermath of this investigation.
@@327Erich isnt the ILS on top of a rocky embankment? Which is what the plane collided into? the guy in the video literally states this same thing, most airports do not have that embankment to give leeway for overshot landings
They simply forgot to jettison fuel....they should have deployed Landing Gear at all cost...why? because it allowed them to maneuver away from obstacles. Go by skidding is never going to do any good.....
Problem with this theory: if they have no engines, but are still clearly coming in WAY too fast (their speed AT the concrete barrier, after sliding down the runway and 800 feet of turf overrun, was STILL above normal touchdown speed), then they *should* have deployed flaps, gear, and armed spoilers as they approached the threshold. Failing that, a forward slip could have helped reduce their approach speed. They were BIG FAST.
Ultimately, their failure to manage their approach speed, AND the possibility that they shut down the wrong engine, are both signs of crew competency problems.
I’m an airline Captain and fly the 737, so I can confidently say CNN is getting pretty weak “experts”.
@@flyluv737 look him up, he was on startrek-!
I dispatch 73's CNN is laughable in their misinformation.
Or some airline is getting pretty weak "captain".
@ that’s a given
OK so what is your scenario as to why the wheels and flaps were up??
I have no idea why CNN continues to bring Miles O'Brien into commercial aircraft accidents as an "expert". He's a private pilot with no ATP experience. You're better off listening to Blancolerio's UA-cam channel if you want to hear from an expert.
Whenever someone is trotted out as an "expert" on anything, I go into defense mode. These people are for show, nothing else.
Yes quite the “expert”. His opinion that EMAS would help is faulty as that is designed for landing gear to sink into.
when you want to retain as much speed as possible then sure its reasonable to assume to have no gear down and no flaps. Thats when you are trying to stay up in the air. But when you are committed to landing, then you want that speed reduced. Some people can pass all of the pilot training and exams, but only when a critical moment occurs will you truly find out if that person is indeed pilot material.
Sometimes panicks can attribute to the pilots making mistakes
Girl the bird strike didn't destroy the aircraft..hitting a wall did..yes there is a cause and effect
A stupid comment
Boy have a little bit of respect for the others making comments on the video. Thanks.
@@johanstruwig3815 I'm sorry but I can't respect a stupid comment, especially when the person making thinks they're being profound or smart.
Well.. let's wait for an investigation. Then we all put into a conclusion.
and hitting a wall was caused by the pilots not going through the checklist and not putting down the gear. wow, cause and effect.
Don't want to blame the victims, but shutting down the wrong engine seems to be the most likely cause of the accident. Even if they lost both engines, the standby system of the B737NG can still lower the landing gears, lower the flaps to 15 degrees (takes a long time to go beyond that), and activate thrust reversers. On the crash video, it is visible that thrust reversers were working normally, meaning that standby system was working normally.
@@mteagleworld the vt sounds like the engines were still running. That is why it didn't slow down.
In any case they landed the plane the wall or obstacle at the end had their fate sealed :(
Exactly, like in the Taiwanese plane. Wrong engine shut down because of panic.
And maybe it's the same reason the landing gears weren't there.
Or it's related to the emergency return to Seoul the plane made because of landing gears problems, 2 days before the crash.
Doesn’t the NG have weight in wheel switches for the thrust reversers to fully deploy?
Same with the spoilers.
The #2 engine TR was deployed on landing, but not #1. Another video shows the gear-up approach (2nd approach) to RW 19, and you can see there appears to be only one engine (#2) producing thrust. In a third video, the #2 engine is the one that took the bird strike. All these observations suggest this theory: the #1 engine was not producing thrust, apparently from sometime after turning crosswind after the go-around after the bird strike. I think upon that realization, the crew got in a big hurry to get the plane on the deck, probably because they didn't think they could make a full radar pattern with such degraded thrust (and therefore didn't have time to run checklists). They performed the most expedient approach possible (a 90-270 maneuver) but in their haste never initiated deploying the slats, flaps, or gear. They very well may have shut down the #1 engine by mistake -- that would explain their extreme hurry to get down, and desire to keep a clean configuration until landing was assured. The lack of any configuration for landing was a miscalculation given the extreme speeds required for an approach in the clean configuration (probably at least around 180 knots) and the inability to slow down (ground effect-induced floatation, no wheel brakes, no spoilers, and low friction by the engine pods and aft fuselage on concrete). Perhaps they thought minimizing the drag was the only way they could make the runway. They were still at about 160 knots when they departed the runway surface, just before impacting the concrete ILS antenna support. Not survivable -- and I don't think EMAS (crushable concrete overrun) would have slowed them more than 20 knots (would have been like skipping a rock across a pond). I do think that without the concrete barrier, many more would have survived.
South Korea: redesign all airports and remove barriers at the end of runways!
Nothing wrong with barriers for ILS antenna and VASI lights, they obvioiusly just need to be frangible. What they had there is just beyond belief.
@@pk4459 In a word, it was SNAKE-BIT.
Where is the reverse flaps ?reverse thrusters? Or why try to land at the end of run way ? Or dump fuel?
Passengers thought theyre already safe when plane landed until it hit the wall
The plane was going at very high speed, with fuel in the engines and tanks on a downward slope as it hit the wall. They were not safe, wall or no wall.
The plane landed long, over speed, w/o flaps or landing gear. They hit the localizer burm at 150mph. Even if that wasn't there, there was a perimeter barrier wall about 200 feet beyond the burm that they would have hit instead.
That wall would easily have given way, most likely. But it shouldn't have been there either. At most, there should have been a fringable fence.
The perimeter barrier looked more frangible than the reinforced concrete
Rather hit a brick wall than concrete supported by soil.
But the cinder block wall would have been far less destructive than a earthen berm with a 2 foot thick slab of concrete on top of it. That thing sliced through the aircraft like a knife. It was unsurvivable at those speeds. There are close up pictures of the berm and its just inexcusable to have put that there. The ILS array at all airports I've been to is flush to the ground and the poles are designed to break off on impact like sign posts on highways. Not saying hitting a cinder block wall at 100+mph would be good, and airports should have chain-linked fence around them, but more survivable on impact.
You are obviously completely ignorant. The plane would have broken through the perimeter wall like nothing.
Sounds like pilot and crew error.
저 비행기는 반대방향으로 중간지점에서 착륙을 했습니다. 랜딩기어와 플랩은 작동안했습니다.
반대방향으로 착륙을 했기때문에 활주로가 내리막길입니다.비행기에 속도가 붙어서 벽에 충돌했습니다.
비행기기장이 북한 테러범이 아닌지 의심스럽습니다. 한국뉴스에서는 비행기 기장이 어떤 인물인지 밝히지 않습니다.
@@user-Griezmanok so the bird was in on it
Passenger error.
@MikaelSvensson-z1r It was not a real bird. A Russian drone or a UAP.
chatgpt pilot
They probably shut down the wrong engine. In the video, you can see and hear the right engine (bird strike engine) operating, to what capacity who knows, but you also see the reverse thruster deployed on the right engine but not the left.
비행기 조종사가 어떤 인물인지 한국뉴스에서 취재를 안합니다.
비행기 조종사가 북한테러요원인지 의심스럽습니다.
@@user-Griezman don't do this man. don't spew around these conspiracy theories.
@@user-Griezman Unlikely, looks like unintentional pilot error. Sometimes shit happens and its not some nefarious conspiracy.
Is there a possibility that the engine in the bird strike video is actually the left engine and the phone video is just mirrored? Phones do that often - but idk if there's a way for us to know just by looking if it's mirrored or not.
@@simashakeri95 I heard someone else suggest that possibility, but if you look at the bird strike video, the one with the plane flying over head and a plume of smoke coming out of the right engine, you also see the sunlight coming predominantly from the left, which would be east and proper direction for the morning. And the landing videos also correspond properly with the airport terminal location.
Fatigue I believe was the biggest factor
0:22: "...without its landing gear fully deployed" -- "fully"? The video shows the jetliner landing on its engines and belly without the landing gear deployed at all!
The engines hang so low that the belly of the plane did not really hardly touch the ground greatly reducing friction. Not really a belly landing due to the plane design, would be even worse on a 737 MAX as the almost drag on the ground they are so low.
سلام
@@jaycahow4667, the Max engines are higher on the wing.
@@RalphEmigh Yes the Max engines are way bigger but raised on the wing so they have slightly more clearance from the ground. Not much though and would have the same issue on a non gear landing.
This theory makes no sense. You could hear the engine screaming in the video.
Could be the APU
It may have been running, but not generating enough thrust. Its possible that the pilots may have shutdown the wrong engine in the bird strike and realized the mistake and restarted it. But the thing is, they can't be brought up to full power on a dime. This is just speculation though.
Reduction in power is also considered lost engine
@@dmac7128 I agree.
Sound does not equal thrust (producing power)
The wall is the cause of so many deaths. Before striking the wall, everyone was alive. This was survivable. Once on the ground, there is only a limited distance that the plane can travel. That much space has to be provided for the air craft.
This is a fact. There is no plausible counter-argument.
A KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KL) Boeing 737-800 had to undergo an emergency landing on December 28, 2024, after which it veered off the runway at Oslo Torp Sandefjord Airport. The Boeing lost control during the landing roll after which it skidded off onto the the adjacent grass terrain. All 176 passengers and six crew members onboard were uninjured.
May they rest in peace.
Some comments suggest, as if by non-experts, that the pilot hastily shut down the wrong engine. While the explanation may sound plausible, it fails to distinguish between Engine Failure and Engine Fire procedures. In the case of an engine failure caused by a bird strike, during a go-around, the flaps are fully retracted first, and the QRH checklist is followed. Shutting down the wrong engine hastily and losing thrust from both engines, as you mentioned, would not justify performing a quick turn and a belly landing at such a low altitude. Since the investigation is still ongoing, let’s wait for more organized and detailed information.
If they didn't accidentally self shut down the wrong engine, could be something like smoke in the cabin where they thought there was a fire.
@@cyberfunk3793 unlikely.
The plane probably required the strength of both pilots to control it.
Why didn't the flight officer release the landing gear for them?
Why didn't they reduce power?
@@SciHeartJourney If there was smoke in the cabin, in the confusion they could simply forget to drop the gear. Without flaps they need to land faster.
Your argument makes no sense. If you lost both engines what would you do except try and land ASAP?
I would agree that it is too soon to tell but looking at the videos shown the right engine ingests the bird and on landing the only engine with the TR deployed is the right engine. Whatever the case it appears the pilots had a very serious concern and had to act very quickly at some point the were focused on flying and would have had to rely on memory items rather than checklists.
Without doubt the best synopsis of possibly what could have happened
You WOULD put the gear and flaps down once landing was assured. This is puzzling.
Probably because the pilot wanted to s side on the wall.
They would have landed no matter what. Landing was always assured.
Not to do so is a mistake, unless it was impossible for some technical malfunction. But it happens lots of times and it is not deadly.
I flew in Air Force KC-135s. We could lower gear and flaps manually. Gear required placement of handle in slot on cabin floor and turning three revolutions ccw, flaps five turns per degree down. That took quite a long time! Boeing 737-800 have manual gear extension, basically pull handle(cable) and gear fell due to gravity. Both gear and flaps slowed airspeed and made a go around difficult if not impossible without power. Most military runways and many civilian have overruns of 1500’ or more. Fire department foamed runway when possible and touched down early. All that said, pilots have little control during a belly landing and obstacles at end of runway don’t help!
for sure! you wouldn't not
I live in Korea and it is interesting how different the news are presented. Here, at least by Korean media outlets reporting in English, the focus is on the flight and possible pilot oversight. There is not much, if not any emphasis on the wall which seems to be the main reason why so many people died. When you look at Western media tho, the wall is the main reason of such high number of casualties which I believe seems to be true as a viewer. Hope they will not simply try to cover it up since so many higher ups have signatures on the approval of that damn wall!
That is indeed interesting. Sounds like your news might just be better. Not that CNN set the bar very high. Sure that wall for the localizer was probably taller than it needed to be, but I think the main problem is they went off the end of a runway very very fast. There’s a good chance it would’ve ended poorly if it was flat. They would’ve hit something else soon after.
The flight crews decisions did seem rather strange, but it’s not a good idea to judge them until more info comes out. There’s a lot that could’ve gone wrong and very little evidence out right now.
@@tm7619 doubt the reporting here is better since they seem to intentionally avoid the discussion on the wall. They are also trying to shift the focus to Boeing rather than misconduct or mistake of Jeju Air since it already cost Jeju Air 168,000 ticket cancellations and might turn into backlash towards authorities for oversight. But take it all with a pinch of salt since Korean media outlets reporting in English are not the best at translation.
According to the initial reports, the systems mounted on that wall are required for navigation systems or sth like that. And the issue is not the height of the wall but rather the material. They said it was supposed to be 300m away from the runway. Apparently, it is located 323m away, so its location is fine. But it should have been made up of a material that would break easily, not a concrete wall.
There seems to be multiple factors leading to this tragic accident but everybody believes casualties would not be so high if the plane did not crush into the wall. You can check @PilotBlogDenys and @blancolirio for technical assessment of what might have happened. They are both experienced pilots and analyze what might have happened, be it a technical issue, mistake of the pilot or oversight of the authorities. We will wait and see how it unfolds but for the time being, it seems to be a result of all.
either both engines were out or the crew got overwhelmed. perhaps both
Still doesn't explain why landing gear and flaps weren't deployed.
Even both engines being out wouldn't make them not use flaps or gears. I don't know exactly, but for an emergency landing outside an airport they may not deploy the gears. Still you want to be as slow as possible when hitting the ground, regardless of the situation. And gears and flaps would be the first thing on a pilot's mind since flight school. Especially with all the alarms. And two pilots.
The pilot was pretty experienced. Ex-Airforce and had been flying with the airline for 10 years. Likely, it the same type of plane the whole time.
Not Sully level, but he wasn't green.
@@Andreas-gh6isyes indeed, something must have been in the scenario which we do not know (including task saturation)
You could literally hear the engine/engines as it was landing though!
I've never seen a wall deliberately placed at the end of a runway. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Really that is the beginning of the runway
Yup, they came from the other end and yes, tha antennas in the concrete wall are in front of the runway for visibility reasons for landing at night.
About the wall (which is actually a dirt backed horizontal thick concrete platform) This is NOT the US hence think more largely; this being said, apparently this airport is also shared with the army and must adhere to additional requirements for defense… food for thought for them…
@@beckys2977or the end. It is a bidirectional runway
@@Livinginthephils65Its the ILS system, not a lighting system. It has no need for visibility. It uses radio signals to guide aircraft into the correct guide slope and vector for a final approach for ILS landing. It has no reason to be on a concrete slab on top of a 6 foot berm other than it was cheaper to build that way than to add break away extension poles.
Pilots disaster decison. No question about it.
Miles is the best expert you guys have on this subject, about time you guys bring him in.
Too many planes, ppl are not stupid, experiments, that whats going on here, WAKE UP PPL
He has the best theory at this time
He's been a regular aviation expert on PBS News Hour for years and always sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
@marlamumgaard677 he was full time at CNN back in the early 2000's, great reporter, very factual but they fired him a bit after he got hurt on assignment in Japan...pour guy lost is arm and was stuck there all alone. Did not know he was on PBS, ill have to check that out, thanks.
Piloting prop planes and small bizjets gives you better insight than the average person on the street, but unless you have a lot of experience piloting 737-800s, I wouldn't consider you an expert analyst in this situation. I was in the USAF, had a private pilot's license, and worked for Boeing back in the '80s, and I still can only speculate when it comes to what happened.
I feel bad for the relatives
They should be more patient as they are piecing body parts together. It’s not like they don’t know they survived.
I feel bad for the people who died!
@@dwaynejones1555huh? Tf are you even saying. No one is being impatient, what a weird, antisocial comment
for sure. i'm praying for them. fr
The "expert" doesn't answer the question! Fact: bird strikes are not uncommon (20,000 incidents per year in the US), they are not a primary reason for plane crash. Planes are designed to fly and land safely with one engine down. They may even glide and land safely with both gone. Bird strike should not be the main factor to focus on here.
It seems to be the first choice if you want to stay out of court. Like the iceberg that "sank" the Titanic, which was riddled with design flaws etc etc. The main point is not to find the truth but to avoid lawsuits.
Pilot error. They shut down the wrong engine. Huge panic. Immediately land. Forgot to lower flaps and landing gear.
Proof? Are you just blaming the victims?
What, if also the left engine was damaged?
It is the Fucking wall at the end who kill everybody! The genius who have this idea....
@@1q2w3e4r5t6zism what if it was?
@@Fancy-p7znot to blame the victims, but yeah shutting down the wrong engine seems to be the most likely cause of the accident. Even if they lost both engines, the standby system can still lower the landing gears, lower the flaps to 15 degrees (takes a long time to go beyond that), and activate thrust reversers. On the crash video, it is visible that thrust reversers were working normally, meaning that standby system was working normally.
I have a feeling the flight crew made the same mistake that the British Midland crew made back in 1989 by shutting down the wrong engine after the bird strike.
I personally believe this is a pilot error situation brought upon by bird strike.
I agree w u
Same problem with Jeju flight the very next day when it took off from the Gimpo Airport in Seoul, experienced a landing gear malfunction soon after. But the plane returned to Gimpo where it safely landed. Good God 🙏✌️
737-800 again
It wasn’t a gear malfunction. It did NOT crash because of the gear. They were way too fast and landed way too deep into the runway to stop, regardless of the gear position. Stop listening to reporters that have zero knowledge of aviation, and start listening to people like me who fly jets every day for a living.
@@jmd12127 who are you talking to?! Are you talking to me ⁉️✌️
@@jmd12127jet master😂
And bird strikes happen thirteen thousand times a year in the u, s, so it's not uncommon.
Too bad they had a concrete wall at the end of the runway. Doesn't seem logical.
Maybe in rush to land he skipped checklists and forgot to lower the landing gear.
Yh due to panick
I’m curious as to why they didn’t just continue the approach they were on originally when they lost the engine. When I was studying for my instrument rating, we had a discussion about a scenario like this in class and the instructor said he would just continue the approach and land if he lost an engine on final.
Agreed. They were all lined up in landing configuration. No one else seems to be asking this question.
@@romanroad483 I have been asking myself this question. They took a set up and controlled landing situation and made it worse by aborting the landing.
@@romanroad483they're going to have major lawsuits and they're going to have to have judges in Korea get the information because you're never ever going to hear about it until it actually has to be proven and comes out in court what was actually done and what the pilots did based on these recorder boxes. All the information is stored right in those two different black boxes but I guarantee you it's going to take months if not years the way the Koreans are
@@romanroad483they were on a stabilized approach until the strike, but they were not configured for landing (flaps, gear)
It sounds like they were already in the missed approach when the bird strike happened. You can see from the footage the gear was up when the right engine coughed.
Everyone is talking about the wall. Nobody is talking about what is beyond the wall. There are other buildings including hotels. What happens when a 737 with 181 people on board overruns the runway and hit a hotel? 200-300 deaths.
Maybe there is a fundamental pragmatic solution; build much longer runways with clear runoffs free of obstructions; especially housing, hotels and industrial buildings. If you cannot build safe then you have failed morally; probably not financially though.... This was effectively an accident waiting to happen but may end up effecting a lot of clarity to elevate safety a tiny notch. It would clearly be very foolhardy to build it right from the offset; demanding as that is of real intellect.
@@phenogen8125 A KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KL) Boeing 737-800 had to undergo an emergency landing on December 28 after which it veered off the runway at Oslo Torp Sandefjord Airport. The Boeing lost control during the landing roll after which it skidded off onto the the adjacent grass terrain. All 176 passengers and six crew members onboard were uninjured.
Those buildings are almost a kilometer from the concrete ILS structure. I'm not an expert but I can imagine the skidding plane might have ground to a halt before then. But we'll probably never know for sure.
@ I haven’t looked at that runway but the runways I use on a regular basis are 9000-10000 feet long. In other words…almost two miles. 1000 meters is actually the shortest runway I could possibly use and that only at sea level.
The truth is I think they panicked. And they forgot the flaps and landing gear. The theory on gliding is based on having both engines out. But the videos seem to indicate at least one engine was running (unless they did a real stupid and shut down the good engine by mistake).
Miles provided the best possible explanation that makes sense.
The plane was going so fast that had it not hit the wall, it would have hit a cinder block wall that goes around the airport 200m later.
It sounds like at the speed they were going they would have circled around the earth and landed back at the runway
Yes, agree.
They would have slowed down more in that 200m though. More lives would have been saved.
check out the google street view. the wall estructure could stop a nuke. that cinder wall would have been nothing but a dent in the fuselage. absolutely no comparasion.
@geoffshaw8053 actually, there's water beyond that wall, so they would've drowned had it not hit a wall
My guess is they took a bird strike to one engine and accidentally shut down the functional engine. That would explain the urgency to land. It’s also possible they took birds in both engines but less likely than the former scenario IMHO.
it wouldnt have made any difference if they had wheels down. touchdown so late and with that speed, not a chance in hell to stop in time. with or without wheels
Wrong, landing gear has brakes. It would have made an exceptional difference.
Captain shall we lower the landing gear "' nah were going to fast anyway"'
I guess they would have one thrust reverser and speed brakes, if the hydraulics are good, and then the wheel brakes, which help a lot. And the surface was not wet or icy. Sometimes an overrun happens anyway for some reason. The problem is that if you smash into a rigid object at 40-50 knts you are looking at a major accident already.
Wheels down equals lots of drag so they would have slowed down to a more normal landing speed while in the air. This would have allowed them to land closer to the normal touchdown zone. A double win just by putting the gear down once the runway was assured.
@@loudidier3891 What you say makes alot sense!
Did anyone see the bird enter the engine? Or did something happen that was interpreted as a bird strike and that damaged more of the plane?
Yes, there was another video that showed a puff of smoke from the #2 engine in flight, implying a bird strike, as the 737 was on its first approach to RW 01.
Weird to say the engines not were working when in the video it sounds like they were working, even in the last seconds. The decision to land at that speed without gear down is really odd. Something weird happened in that cockpit
We can only speculate smoke in the cockpit from bird strikes and near panic in the cockpit so that checklists and good aviation procedure want out the window. The voice and data recorders will tell the final tale.
If you watch the video you can see the engine that got hit was working.This is gross pilot error after pilot error,forgetting to lower the landing gear setting the flaps and landing too far down the runway.
exactly why i dont trust planes. pilots
The gear can be lowered manually by gravity alone. This was pilot error.
Best name for an engineer ever
Only second to Montgomery Scott
Why not emergency land along the river? That airport looked tiny.
Its not a river, its the sea. And its the middle of a freezing winter in korea right now, so the water temperature is below minus.
As a pilot for over 35 years, this is a pilot issue. I have had bird issues. The landing gear is a manual possible situation. The pilot in control killed these people
well, that pilot paid for mistakes with his life
Do you think the pilots were too consumed with the immediate problems that they failed to lower the gear, deploy the flaps, etc.? (I have my multi-commercial.)
what about the Scenario of Smoke in the Cabin?
yea sure but that unnecessary wall killed them
The wall killed the people.
Poor airport design doomed those people.
Spot on
And siting! Apparently the airport is located adjacent to major wetlands and there are 5 times the number of birds around this airport compared to normal. It was not an ideal place to build an airport, but local politics prevailed.
They actually powered up as they sped along the runway,picking up speed looking like they were trying to get in the air again.
Instead of some barriers, there should be sand for at least 500 meters to stop incase of engine failure.
A KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KL) Boeing 737-800 had to undergo an emergency landing on December 28, 2024, after which it veered off the runway at Oslo Torp Sandefjord Airport. The Boeing lost control during the landing roll after which it skidded off onto the the adjacent grass terrain. All 176 passengers and six crew members onboard were uninjured.
They pulled landing gear up on first attempt, brought it back up, then forgot to redeploy
How do you know that?
"Expert" ?? why not ask a experienced B737-800 pilot
You sound jealous they did ask you
I imagine the people flying the plane were exactly that. Now look where they are.
3:30 Wouldn't having the landing gear and flaps have stopped that effect?
No, ground effect happens regardless of airplane configuration. It is created by the lift of the wings and the proximity to the ground (the air beneath wings compresses near the earth because ground is solid, altering the downward air's flow). However, landing gear would have potentially allowed for braking, and the flaps would have slowed the aircraft. The problem would be estimating when you can safely use either without stealing away so much kinetic energy that your glideslope ends up SHORT of the runway instead of LONG of the runway. While I cannot say I know what I would do in this situation, my intuition is that I would definitely attempt landing gear, and do so only as late as possible.
The landing would have worked if there had been no obstacles
ok, if you say so
sad thing is majority of Korean aviation experts insist, according to the TV debates, the reinforced concrete wall isn't an issue and it isn't against the law...
@@skyfoxnz This will come down to pilot error maybe, time will tell. The ILS antennas were 250m 820ft from the end of the runway threshold.
Definitely some critical hydraulic failures, no seasoned aviator would forget to deploy flaps and landline gear when you are landing.
But it does seem who ever designed the airport forgot planes don’t go through reinforced concrete walls.
You’d be surprised what professionals can forget under stress and the fatigue of a red eye flight. It’s human factors and has played a role in many an accident.
Tell me how do you align your plane with a runway with no hydraulics?????
Could be a military design. Korean airports are military installations, due to the US occupancy.
@@robbedontuesday It has been done before. The "Gimli Glider" is an example, I believe, that you can look up. So the fact that they managed to do it here is not conclusive to say that they did have hydraulics. Of course it would be very strange if they did not, since there is so much redundancy.
You are wrong. I've watched dozens of aircrash investigations. Experienced pilots are still humans. They make mistakes. Forget steps.
Yeah… well having possibly two engine failures to manage AND simultaneously having to decide to emergency land under 6minutes might just be the reason for lack of gear: T-I-M-E
I'm a flight instructor and this "Expert" is 'not.'
1. That aircraft ‘can’ do a normal approach with one engine out.
2. Both engines out will ‘not’ impede the ability to lower the landing gear.
3. “Ground Effect” is ‘not’ a cushion of air. It’s caused by the reduction of wingtip vortices when an aircraft gets within a wingspan of the surface.
What’s needed is for Boing to look at the Black Box.
I agree but she called him an aviation analyst.
True, true, true and true. Also any competent pilot who decided to leave gear up to stretch the glide would have dumped the gear to use its drag to slow themselves once they knew they were going to make the runway.
One of the black box recovered was said to be damaged so let's expect atleast a month or more wait before its contents are out.
@@JetTech1992 Yes. For clarification, I was referring to the video title. Sorry.
1. He was speculating about what might have happened if BOTH engines were out
2. Direct quote from the video: "There's no reason to believe that an engine failure, or even two engine failure would make it impossible for the crew to bring down the landing gear." He then goes on to explain about a fail-safe mechanism to lower the landing gear manually by pulling on a cable. No idea why you thought he was saying something else
3. Ground effect as defined by the Oxford dictionary: "the effect of added aerodynamic buoyancy produced by a cushion of air below a vehicle moving close to the ground." Even though it might be caused by those vortices doesn't mean he is wrong and he's trying to define things in layman's terms since this is a news broadcast.
He explicitly stated that his scenario is just a theory that could make sense based on video evidence, but that investigators need to methodically figure out what actually happened since he obviously might be wrong.
Now I'm concerned about your ability to instruct people to fly with those comprehension skills on display.
I'm no expert , i cant even ride a bike , but leaving your landing gear up on purpose so not to reduce speed ,even though they were going way to fast seems idiotic to me
You seem idiotic to me
Lowering the landing gear increases drag hence the plane may not have even made the runway if they lowered it. In any event, the truth will come out once voice recorders and the black box are analyzed.
No truth will come out @@touringband
@ that’s not how the airline industry works. There is nothing to hide.
They might have accidentally shut down the wrong engine after the bird strike causing this issue.
Pure speculation. Should I assume that you work for BOEING?
@@shonuDhamey I assume you are a Boeing hater because you got all your info from CNN and Netflix?
Pilots are usually switched on
@@shonuDhamey, you are right. It is only speculation, something that we will find out in time if it is correct or not. However, a duel engine out senrio would explain several confusing things about this accident, for example. Why did the aircraft immediately return to the airport and not hold and run checklists, why was the reverse thruster only deployed on the bird strike right-hand engine, why did they have no flaps, no slats, no landing gear, and no spoilers? A duel engine failure is an extremely rare occurrence in a airliner like a 737-800, often when both engines fail after one has issues it is later found out that the crew accidently shut the wrong engine down. That may or may not be the case here. This is all just a theory.
@@christopher88719 저 비행기는 반대방향으로 중간지점에서 착륙을 했습니다. 랜딩기어와 플랩은 작동안했습니다.
반대방향으로 착륙을 했기때문에 활주로가 내리막길입니다.비행기에 속도가 붙어서 벽에 충돌했습니다.
비행기 조종사가 북한 테러범이 아닌지 의심스럽습니다. 한국뉴스에서는 비행기 기장이 어떤 인물인지 밝히지 않습니다.
Bird strike? My boy Sully is our guy
Other aviation analysts mentioned that the pilots probably forgot to deploy the landing gears after the confusion over the bird strike and engine failure.
Here in Japan flight crews of JAL, ANA and Skymark are privately saying that this crash was caused by one of two possibilities. Massive pilot error or pilot murder-suicide. And they are saying that the latter can not be 100% ruled out.
My POV is this: Pilots did a good job to make a collapsed aircraft land with the best possible option. But that concrete wall was the cause of all this devastation. It's so sad. My condolences to all Korean people.
What I didn't understand here is if the pilots wanted the gear up as long as possible and then forgot to get it out just before landing or it was their intention to land like this (I guess not...)
Thats what i dont understand either, holding speed while gliding without engine power understandable. But this guy here is defending the fact the landing gear wasnt deployed as they approached landing
Praying for the families of them all and I’m thankful that 2 people survived 🙏🏾
The time between the pilot's stress message to crash is only within 5 minutes. The pilot seemed mindlessly rushing down at high speed without preparing any standard protocol. It's like suicide
Excellent analysis.
I've become an aviation in the past few days from watching all the experts' opinions. Please send me some kind of aviation degree or certification. Thank you!
You graduation rate is phenomenal.
So whats your expert opinion?
Congratulations! Fortunately we just had 2 pilot job openings open up here at JeJu airlines! Please send us a valid email address and we'll send you your pilots license and your start date!
You're obviously a DEI hire. Welcome to United.
pilot-style hat is $8 on ebay
A few years ago at Manchester Ringway a TUI B757 driver lost his right engine to a bird strike, he calmly lifted off still dirty flaps slats undercarriage extended, sorted the problem with the tower whilst flying a circuit over the airport , crash rescue alerted. 757 driver sat her down sweet as a nut with no further incident, the fire engines followed the TUI Jet as she taxied back to the gate. It is a wake up call for South Korea to get its affairs in order regarding air safety, that concrete earth embankment mounting the localizer ariels should never been built, the lack of ECAS ,a recipe for disaster.
Should not disregard safety...
@@anthonytran7566 In an Ideal world, yes but when it comes to cold corporate business safety takes a back, seat B-747 DC-10 luggage cargo door incidents a classic example. A corporate suit is like a donkey on the beach at Weston Super Mare, all .ways following the juiciest carrot.
@@basiltaylor8910 "In an Ideal world, yes but when it comes to cold corporate business safety takes a back, seat B-747 DC-10 luggage cargo door incidents a classic example. A corporate suit is like a donkey on the beach at Weston Super Mare, all .ways following the juiciest carrot."
This comment is incomprehensible.
Really good reporting
Miles O’Brien is a great person to have on. Of course for aviation-related, but also all of the science-related reporting he does for the PBS NewsHour
I watched the documentary he was in on the Columbia disaster. He was great on that if you haven't seen it.
A pilot of this type aircraft or similar would have been more appropriate. I don’t think the Pilots intended to land without gear of flaps, a super high risk configuration.
Turned off the wrong engine
Wow really? That would be crazy 😂
I heard that might have been what happened also
The issue was to high, too much speed, how would having the one engine on help, speed brakes? They needed speed loss and altitude loss to have made that landing work. Just asking.
If every runway was on water instead this would never happen
Miles knows his stuff!
The airport is located adjacent to major wetlands and I read that there are 5x the number of birds around this airport compared to normal. It was not an ideal place to build an airport but local politics prevailed.
Same could be said for New Orleans in the US
2:22 If the landing gear is up, you'll have less wind resistance and go faster.
Plane landed at 200mph towards a wall
Pilots shutdown the wrong engine. There is no hot air coming from the port engine. There is heat coming from the starboard engine that sustained the bird strike.
I Think the Crew Forgot to Lower the Landing Gear [][]--[]--[][]
😬
Hard to imagine that could happen. It’s all part of the landing process. Be almost like forgetting to hit breaks when needing to stop. 🤷♀️
if the landing gear doesnt go out can they go up to the air again after touching the runway?
NO! Landing gear and wings/flaps all failed.
@@evelynmurphy9102Boeing 737 is an antique pile of shit loaded with outdated equipments. There’s no emergency beeping sound to alarm the pilots when something is wrong, only emergency lights which is very difficult to notice in such situations.
Seems to me pilot errors as many commented.. Wrong engine turned off, too fast too far landing and also forgetting to turn on landing gear
Bird-strikes don't disable the landing gear. Bird strikes don't cause a plane to land with such massive speed. A number of things, not just one thing, don't add up.
I think in the heat of the moment with the talk about birds in the area, they totally forgot about the landing gear … which is why the plane touched down on its belly further up the runway than it should have
Why are they calling a former CNN journalist an ‘expert’ he has no experience with flying commercial airliners or investigating these crashes. He is a private pilot of a Cirrus SR22 which is 1/4th the size of a Boeing 737 and uses a propeller 😭
What the f-k is an ‘aviation analyst’ ?!
He is a JOURNALIST.
Not an expert.