The phrase "90% not a pilot error, but a human error" suggests that the cause of a particular incident or accident is largely attributed to broader human factors rather than just the actions or mistakes of the pilot. In aviation, "pilot error" refers to mistakes or lapses in judgment made by the pilot that directly contribute to an accident. However, "human error" encompasses a wider range of potential factors, including: Miscommunication: Errors in communication between the pilot and crew, air traffic control, or ground personnel. Systemic issues: Problems with training, procedures, or equipment that may have contributed to the error. Fatigue or stress: External factors affecting the pilot’s ability to make sound decisions. Design flaws: Issues with the aircraft's design or operational systems that can complicate decision-making or increase the likelihood of mistakes. In this context, saying "90% not a pilot error, but a human error" indicates that the error was primarily due to these broader, systemic human factors rather than just the pilot's actions. It could imply that the accident or incident could have been prevented with better systems, communication, or training, rather than being solely blamed on the pilot's mistakes.
a human factor is likely responsible for 90% of the accident, potentially including errors from other crew members, maintenance personnel, or air traffic control,etc
If you actually look at a lot of airports, many of the runways do not have significant overrun areas. Like he said some of them have huge drop offs. Some of them shoot off right into the damn ocean. Practically ALL runways have the antenna system at the end which is pretty robust and that in itself would cause significant damage if struck by a plane full of fuel. Having said that, it does seem unnecessary to have the antennas embedded in a giant concrete wall and it does seem like a generally bad idea to have a concrete wall where it was. On the other hand the plane was 1000 feet past the end of the runway when it hit the wall and you cant just have endless overrun. I think at the very least there should have been a large sand bunker between the end of the runway and the concrete wall to stop the plane before it got to the wall.
I am not an expert but as a kid growing close to a military base among pilots, while my dad was a soldier and cousins are pilots or fly controllers, I learnt a couple of things about flight and I have a couple of observations: 1. From the pictures I saw, the bird could get into the right engine but the engine was not shut down completely, it had some power. If you look at the last moments before landing the right engine appears not to be fully functional but functional enough to land the plane and save the day. 2. The left engine is a mistery though because it looks as if it had some critical error and shut down or was shut down by the pilots. It doesn’t create any blast while landing as if it didn’t work at that moment. The cause might be birds too but it’s very hard for a bird or a couple of birds to create such a critical failure for the engine unless it’s a very big bird like kondor in Andes. It could be a mechanical failure. Pilots could also turn off the wrong engine, which is unlikely but not impossible. 3. In this type of plane (a slightly older Boeing) when the left engine fails, the exhaust fumes get into the cockpit and the crew needs to put masks on. When the right engine fails the fumes get into the rest of the plane so the passengers need to wear masks. If they inhale enough fumes it may impact their decision making abilities, for example the decision of not to go through emergency protocol and not to open the landing gear manually. There are 3 systems in this plane that enable the crew to open the gear, the last one manual. It’s very unlikely that all of them failed. It’s more likely that something convinced the crew that they have no time and need to land now. It wasn’t the wind so maybe the lack of fuel? 4. All those factors are important but the most important part is this: The pilots landed the plane and it was a survivable situation until the plane crashed into the concrete and the impact was the cause of passengers’ death. The plane may be damaged and the pilots could make mistakes but both pilots and the plane saved the passengers’ lives (They may cause them injuries but the impact of the landing was not strong enough to kill them). What killed them was the airport. Putting a solid concrete wall in such place is criminal.
Remember them saying they lost all contact and transponder when they struck the birds that means both engine generators stopped and the backup battery was out of service it had to have failed also for the transponder to stop transmitting and they lost all hydraulics from both system a and b because both engines stalled you can see more than ten white birds on both sides of the plane and the witness who filmed it heard 2 or 3 loud bangs that is both engines stalling. No hydraulics from a because no left engine and no pressure from system b because a cut line near the pump when birds bent or broke a blade and a piece hitting the line cutting it at the pump before any fuses and it explains why you can see a dark plume of liquid right next to the white cloud, So no hydraulics no flaps no air brakes and no power they were busy and you can see a lot of damage on the right engine in the approach video. They were able to restart the right engine because you can see a heat plume behind that engine about 10 feet before the landing but no heat behind the left engine and they still landed perfectly using the backup flight control cable system for the three control surfaces Elevator, Rudder and ailerons awesome pilots so they opted for a wheels up landing knowing they would stop a lot faster than rolling on wheels with no hydraulic brakes and might have even thought that dirt berm would help slow them down safely how could they know it was loaded with 2 foot thick concrete foundation. I think they are going to find a broken blade, A cut hydraulic line on the right engine and a battery with no voltage. All my best to the families and everyone involved.
If you look close at the video where the white smoke is, When the plane struck the birds you can see on the left of the white puff a smaller darker cloud and hydraulic fluid is dark red or purple, When the plane hit the birds they bent or broke a blade causing a metal piece to fly around inside and cut a hydraulic line and all hydraulic pressure was bled off, That explains the small dark cloud of liquid and with an open circuit none of the pumps will work or the ptu they just dump fluid on the engine and no pressure for anything. Pilot Blog shows the plane approaching and at 50 feet high you can see damage on the left cowling, That is not T/R as he points out they will not deploy over 10 feet high That is also why no flaps, No air brakes but the 737 can still control rudder, Elevators and ailerons with system a and backup cables so they were able to land with full control but without flaps your stall speed would be much higher explaining the high speed landing and it explains why they would choose a belly landing knowing they would stop faster skidding on the fuselage and engines rather than not having primary hydraulic brakes on rolling wheels so they opted not to deploy gear manually and might have even thought that dirt embankment for holding up fiberglass antennas would help safely slow them how would they know it was loaded with 2 foot thick concrete. I think they are going to find a broken blade and a cut hydraulic line on the left engine All my best to the familes and everyone involved
@@marciaquarle8870 Thanks this bothered me a lot and the more I find out now I think both engines stalled and the backup battery failed because that is the only way they would lose the transponder from transmitting like they said around the time they hit the birds so they would have lost all hydraulics and all power at once it looks like but then they were able to restart the right engine as you can see a plume of heat behind the right engine but nothing behind the left engine so they were having all kinds of issues and had to get landed what great pilots and they would still have been able to fly with backup cable system for the elevators, Rudder and ailerons and they landed perfectly and I think might have aimed for that berm without the unseen concrete it would have just been loose dirt with nothing behind it, I think they used all that concrete so typhoons would not wipe out those antennas but what a mistake
I cannot imagine the horror on the pilots’ faces when they saw the concrete wall. My deepest condolences to victims’s family. May the victims rest in peace. 😢
I cant understand why have a concrete barrier after the runway for an area that should be clear in situations like this when aircraft overshoot. If the concrete wall wasn't there the aircraft would have just kept going until it came to a stop.... Airports surely should be designed better. So Sad. Pilots land there all the time and nobody raised it as a major concern and demand it be removed. Airlines have a responsibility to their citizens to ensure that aitports they use meet all safety standards.
I don't disagree, but then it's a slippery slope to raising the question: well what if the airplane had to fly in perpendicular to the airstrip? What if the airplane can't reach an airstrip in time but still has to land?
The embankment is 250 meters or 800 feet from the end of the runway. That is a long way from the end of the runway. The fact that the aircraft was going 150 mph when it hit that embankment is not the fault of the design of the airport. Aircraft aren't supposed to be going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet from the end of the runway. 800 feet (250 meters) should be ample space around a runway. You can't feasibly protect against extreme events like a aircraft traveling across the ground at 150 mph (240 kph) 800+ feet off the runway.
@@alanstevens1296 That's a good point. There are quite a few well known air strips that have basically zero overrun or drop off into the ocean and people don't make a fuss about that. It's not just as simple as there was a wall where there shouldn't have been. I suspect we will find there were significant issues with the plane and/or the way the pilots reacted. They did a very quick, sharp u-turn and came in the wrong way with no flaps or gear down which tells me they probably didn't have any engine power otherwise they wouldn't have been in such a rush to get the plane down. They also landed like halfway down the runway at high speed with zero braking. You can't just have endless overrun area at all runways because some one-in-a-million freak incident might occur some day.
@@foskco87 It's one in a million because of how well the pilots are trained though. For the average person, landing safely is like hitting a bull's eye. If they didn't have engine power, that should make the speed slower no? Maybe they could have spent more time in the air until the speed slowed down enough to land safely, but that window of opportunity would have to coincide with the plane approaching at the right angle, distance, and offset. The plane might not be able to turn quickly enough to have a high likelihood to achieve those conditions. Plus with engine failure, that's one degree of freedom lost with which the pilots could control to get where they need exactly. The option to take off and try again if they couldn't get it exactly right the first time is also lost because of the lack of working engines.
Obviously more investigations to come but please note there are professional airline pilots and it's so easy for us to say "Should've done this, should've done that" because we are just chilling in front of TV or computer screen. Once again please remember these guys are professional pilots but human error still exists in a given situation. Some of the closest possibilities at this stage: 1.Double engine failure due to Bird strike 2. One engine failure but shut down LIVE engine. (Human error) -'Impossible turn' was executed instead Go-Around procedure. -Hydraulics gone so hand fly all the way which ain't easy. -Not enough time and altitude (panic mode or busy hand flying) so no time to lower the gear, flaps and etc. -Manual landing gear takes up to 3~4mins and they probably had to HAND FLY + CREATE DRAG / LOW ALTITUDE with Double Engine Failure. 3. Then we have this stupid Concrete Wall but that's not the cause of the accident. That's the cause of death. The wall was lethal.
That's like saying 90% Not an engineering error with the concrete block at the end of a runway. But rather saying it's a human error to put a concrete block at the end of a runway. YOU INSTALL A HUGE CONCRETE BLOCK AT THE END OF A ROAD TO CRASH TEST AND NOT AT THE END OF A ROAD WHERE AIRPLANE LANDS!
Actually it's already been said the the pilots of the crashed plane landed the plane on the runway in the wrong direction plus they didn't touch the runway until till the last 1/3 of the runway. The concrete barrier the plane hit was at the incoming/beginning end of the runway & they were supposed to have flown over it (correct direction the runway was meant to be used) & touched the runway right after the the concrete runway started but they had too much speed coming in from the wrong direction before they were able to touch down on the last 1/3 of the runway. A lot of pilot error involved in this crash, they also may have simply forgot to lower the landing gear since they were so concerned about the #2 engine & they didn't completely following the landing checklist.
@@artfquinn True but for landing it's supposed to be used opposite way the plane that crashed did. I saw from one of those pilot debriefing channels on UA-cam that discusses what happened to cause airplane crash or etc. from a pilot that had flown in & out that airport. He said that's why that barrier have never come close to being hit before.
Clearly the pilots had control of the plane in all axes as demonstrated by the plane's orientation when landing. If there was a hydraulic failure, it would have been a different matter. I think the pilots panicked starting with the bird strike/compressor stall. A landing could have easily been made with only one working engine if that was their only choice, including continuing the approach after the bird strike. Instead they reconfigured the plane and forgot to put the landing gear down; there is no way on earth they would have attempted to land at a no-flaps speed halfway down the runway knowing full well they never would have made it, concrete wall or not. Clearly pilot error all the way.
LAKE??? They didn't even have enough time to completely circle around once, back to the original runway direction landing, but you want them to find a lake??? Besides, every expert I've seen so far has said a water lading would be a terrible idea, and most likely result in the aircraft disintegration or being broken apart, on top of way worse rescue & recovery issues.
@ go google maps n see the water mass around muan airport. The way how the pilots controlled the aircraft perfectly well before hitting the wall, stood a better chance of safe ditching like Hudson River flight if ATC had directed them to water instead they authorized the pilots alternative runway request at 9.01am.
@user-pt2pc5uf1g Yes, because I'm sure you know better than every single expert analyst and seasoned pilot that has been interviewed, or spoken on the subject... 🙄🤦♂️ The Miracle on the Hudson was just that, a miracle. (Besides, there were many issues different in that case compared to this one, including their altitude.) It does not usually end well when you crash an aircraft into a body of water.
If the plane hadn't been going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet after the end of the runway all those people could have walked away from that plane. At that speed it would go another 800+ feet and almost certainly crash into something else along the way. Building, wall, storage tanks, embankment, ditch, waterway, highway, tractor-trailer, train, retaining wall, are some of the possibilities at airports.
MANY issues : A) why was the gear up?? It's designed to gravity Self extend under emergency conditions... for all too obvious reasons. Gear up is a Willful decision B) Why were the Flaps Up? C) Why land at extreme speed? touching down well past the midpoint of the 9,000 Ft long runway D) Korean Kulture dictates that the Captain is the Absolute ruler...Right or wrong Monkey see = Monkey Do. E) Pilot skills training was Clearly inadequate.. at best.
My question for those who may work at the airport control tower is a control tower alert the pilots when they approached the runway without the landing gear and what is the communication and respond from pilots?
Why aren't there information about the pilots background history ? We're they in training ?? We're they certified ?? Are the company hiding these facts ???
More interesting. American Airlines Flight 77 Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon at a speed of 530 miles per hour, penetrating the E, D, and C rings. Jeju Air Flight 2216 Boeing 737-8AS registered as HL8088 failed to breach a berm. The debris fields are vastly different.
Boeing made the plane and within the plane were redundant systems that, from the attitude of the plane when it approached the runway, were functioning perfectly. In your mind, is Boeing also responsible for the birds and the very likely possibility that the pilot(s) panicked and failed to make the plane ready for an emergency landing? Is it Boeing's fault that a high berm is where it is? How in the name of the gods were you somehow able to equate this as a "Boeing error?" For shame.
I think this episode as part of air crash investigation will be called 'panic in the cockpit'. It is only a matter of time to confirm these suspicions.
*for the very last time - the concrete wall was not the problem bec it was NOT at the end of the runway but on the beginning of the runway, the plane came from the wrong side so it was the foult of groundcontroll to advise the 2 pilots to land from the wrong side*
The embankment is 250 meters or 800 feet from the end of the runway. That is a long way from the end of the runway. The fact that the aircraft was going 150 mph when it hit that embankment is not the fault of the design of the airport. Aircraft aren't supposed to be going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet from the end of the runway. 800 feet (250 meters) should be ample space around a runway. You can't feasibly protect against extreme events like a aircraft traveling across the ground at 150 mph (240 kph) 800+ feet off the runway.
@ReynaldoAba-h9e Obvious those pilots never seen Sully land on the ocean on that miracle day , lot of poor decisions made by 🇰🇷 Korea Happy Newyear 2025 🎉
I think every airport should have a special landing strip cater specially for emergency landing . Maybe elevate the gradient of the landing strip might slow the plane down with the help of gravity.
Life is a precious thing so right now before later becomes never let us make God part of our everyday life by us praying to God everyday for his help in all our life situations and by us reading the bible everyday for God loves us and he forgives us for our past and a great place to start reading in the bible is in Psalms of the bible read a chapter in Psalms everyday and after we finish reading Psalms read in Proverbs in the bible and after that read a chapter in the bible everyday till we finish reading the whole bible
Concerning the runway, this landing runway is shorter than average for such a plane to land. Also, their emergency-landing landed at a full third of the distance of this runway. This plane had a large number of flights (13) in the last 48-hours before crashing, as a way to make profits with tour-companies. This is an example of "human-errors" - capitalism. Turning off the wrong engine is a mistake that has previously been demonstrated to occur, but what if one of the two pilots was not fully on the job instead?!? The birds (flock) may have also been such an issue as to partially compromise both engines thus losing the option of reverse-engines for braking!?! The pilot(s) might have forgotten to release the landing gear again when aborting their first landing, although the plane's systems SHOULD warn them of that (if it is not designed to do that, then it is a hardware/software short-coming), which is more likely than two engines failing due to bird-strikes! And/or, the pilots might have had bags or gear over the door on the floor beside their chairs so that manually releasing the gear (in 20 seconds) became a last minute cancelled panic response - if this was indeed required as an emergency action! There are more likely MANY "human-errors" involved in this whole scenario, including BECAUSE Jeju Air had such a decent safety-history leading to complacency! "MAYDAY" should immediately send a call for emergency personnel to start dispatching/deploy, way before any fire-balls are seen!!! Finally, the reinforced concrete at the end was not required for the landing technology to be there and was more likely like that so as to protect the resorts that are not that far in a straight line at the end of the runway - thus putting the plane/passengers' safety as a secondary priority. Professor-Marty. PS. The passenger list also had issues with identifying a couple of the passengers, why is that?!? When one of the surviving crew woke-up at the hospital, he remembered having his safety-belt on but not necessarily that there were issues.such as a landing without the wheels..Is this just a memory-lapse?!?
"90% not a pilot error, but a human error" What does that mean?
Ma'am that means you're never going to know . 🦧
The phrase "90% not a pilot error, but a human error" suggests that the cause of a particular incident or accident is largely attributed to broader human factors rather than just the actions or mistakes of the pilot. In aviation, "pilot error" refers to mistakes or lapses in judgment made by the pilot that directly contribute to an accident. However, "human error" encompasses a wider range of potential factors, including:
Miscommunication: Errors in communication between the pilot and crew, air traffic control, or ground personnel.
Systemic issues: Problems with training, procedures, or equipment that may have contributed to the error.
Fatigue or stress: External factors affecting the pilot’s ability to make sound decisions.
Design flaws: Issues with the aircraft's design or operational systems that can complicate decision-making or increase the likelihood of mistakes.
In this context, saying "90% not a pilot error, but a human error" indicates that the error was primarily due to these broader, systemic human factors rather than just the pilot's actions. It could imply that the accident or incident could have been prevented with better systems, communication, or training, rather than being solely blamed on the pilot's mistakes.
That means pilots are not human??
a human factor is likely responsible for 90% of the accident, potentially including errors from other crew members, maintenance personnel, or air traffic control,etc
There are other humans involved in this other than the pilots... c'mon
John Nance and Miles O'Brien are probably the two best when it comes to aviation disaster experts.
Deep cut
I used to build these... you dont build it on a barrier that high... never seen it before. Sad...
If you actually look at a lot of airports, many of the runways do not have significant overrun areas. Like he said some of them have huge drop offs. Some of them shoot off right into the damn ocean. Practically ALL runways have the antenna system at the end which is pretty robust and that in itself would cause significant damage if struck by a plane full of fuel. Having said that, it does seem unnecessary to have the antennas embedded in a giant concrete wall and it does seem like a generally bad idea to have a concrete wall where it was. On the other hand the plane was 1000 feet past the end of the runway when it hit the wall and you cant just have endless overrun. I think at the very least there should have been a large sand bunker between the end of the runway and the concrete wall to stop the plane before it got to the wall.
Surely if there hadn't been that wall the plane would have stopped even if after the limits of the runway and more people would have survived
I am not an expert but as a kid growing close to a military base among pilots, while my dad was a soldier and cousins are pilots or fly controllers, I learnt a couple of things about flight and I have a couple of observations:
1. From the pictures I saw, the bird could get into the right engine but the engine was not shut down completely, it had some power. If you look at the last moments before landing the right engine appears not to be fully functional but functional enough to land the plane and save the day.
2. The left engine is a mistery though because it looks as if it had some critical error and shut down or was shut down by the pilots. It doesn’t create any blast while landing as if it didn’t work at that moment. The cause might be birds too but it’s very hard for a bird or a couple of birds to create such a critical failure for the engine unless it’s a very big bird like kondor in Andes. It could be a mechanical failure. Pilots could also turn off the wrong engine, which is unlikely but not impossible.
3. In this type of plane (a slightly older Boeing) when the left engine fails, the exhaust fumes get into the cockpit and the crew needs to put masks on. When the right engine fails the fumes get into the rest of the plane so the passengers need to wear masks. If they inhale enough fumes it may impact their decision making abilities, for example the decision of not to go through emergency protocol and not to open the landing gear manually. There are 3 systems in this plane that enable the crew to open the gear, the last one manual. It’s very unlikely that all of them failed. It’s more likely that something convinced the crew that they have no time and need to land now. It wasn’t the wind so maybe the lack of fuel?
4. All those factors are important but the most important part is this: The pilots landed the plane and it was a survivable situation until the plane crashed into the concrete and the impact was the cause of passengers’ death. The plane may be damaged and the pilots could make mistakes but both pilots and the plane saved the passengers’ lives (They may cause them injuries but the impact of the landing was not strong enough to kill them). What killed them was the airport. Putting a solid concrete wall in such place is criminal.
Remember them saying they lost all contact and transponder when they struck the birds that means both engine generators stopped and the backup battery was out of service it had to have failed also for the transponder to stop transmitting and they lost all hydraulics from both system a and b because both engines stalled you can see more than ten white birds on both sides of the plane and the witness who filmed it heard 2 or 3 loud bangs that is both engines stalling. No hydraulics from a because no left engine and no pressure from system b because a cut line near the pump when birds bent or broke a blade and a piece hitting the line cutting it at the pump before any fuses and it explains why you can see a dark plume of liquid right next to the white cloud, So no hydraulics no flaps no air brakes and no power they were busy and you can see a lot of damage on the right engine in the approach video. They were able to restart the right engine because you can see a heat plume behind that engine about 10 feet before the landing but no heat behind the left engine and they still landed perfectly using the backup flight control cable system for the three control surfaces Elevator, Rudder and ailerons awesome pilots so they opted for a wheels up landing knowing they would stop a lot faster than rolling on wheels with no hydraulic brakes and might have even thought that dirt berm would help slow them down safely how could they know it was loaded with 2 foot thick concrete foundation. I think they are going to find a broken blade, A cut hydraulic line on the right engine and a battery with no voltage. All my best to the families and everyone involved.
Lawsuit against airport for ILS concrete barrier allowed in S. Korea?
If you look close at the video where the white smoke is, When the plane struck the birds you can see on the left of the white puff a smaller darker cloud and hydraulic fluid is dark red or purple, When the plane hit the birds they bent or broke a blade causing a metal piece to fly around inside and cut a hydraulic line and all hydraulic pressure was bled off, That explains the small dark cloud of liquid and with an open circuit none of the pumps will work or the ptu they just dump fluid on the engine and no pressure for anything. Pilot Blog shows the plane approaching and at 50 feet high you can see damage on the left cowling, That is not T/R as he points out they will not deploy over 10 feet high
That is also why no flaps, No air brakes but the 737 can still control rudder, Elevators and ailerons with system a and backup cables so they were able to land with full control but without flaps your stall speed would be much higher explaining the high speed landing and it explains why they would choose a belly landing knowing they would stop faster skidding on the fuselage and engines rather than not having primary hydraulic brakes on rolling wheels so they opted not to deploy gear manually and might have even thought that dirt embankment for holding up fiberglass antennas would help safely slow them how would they know it was loaded with 2 foot thick concrete.
I think they are going to find a broken blade and a cut hydraulic line on the left engine
All my best to the familes and everyone involved
Great post
@@marciaquarle8870 Thanks this bothered me a lot and the more I find out now I think both engines stalled and the backup battery failed because that is the only way they would lose the transponder from transmitting like they said around the time they hit the birds so they would have lost all hydraulics and all power at once it looks like but then they were able to restart the right engine as you can see a plume of heat behind the right engine but nothing behind the left engine so they were having all kinds of issues and had to get landed what great pilots and they would still have been able to fly with backup cable system for the elevators, Rudder and ailerons and they landed perfectly and I think might have aimed for that berm without the unseen concrete it would have just been loose dirt with nothing behind it, I think they used all that concrete so typhoons would not wipe out those antennas but what a mistake
I cannot imagine the horror on the pilots’ faces when they saw the concrete wall. My deepest condolences to victims’s family. May the victims rest in peace. 😢
No possible causes were mentioned. Click bate title
Surely if there hadn't been that wall the plane would have stopped even if after the limits of the runway and more people would have survived
It should be protocol to ground all aircrafts of an airline when this kind of disaster happened.
How very sad.
I cant understand why have a concrete barrier after the runway for an area that should be clear in situations like this when aircraft overshoot. If the concrete wall wasn't there the aircraft would have just kept going until it came to a stop....
Airports surely should be designed better. So Sad. Pilots land there all the time and nobody raised it as a major concern and demand it be removed. Airlines have a responsibility to their citizens to ensure that aitports they use meet all safety standards.
I don't disagree, but then it's a slippery slope to raising the question: well what if the airplane had to fly in perpendicular to the airstrip? What if the airplane can't reach an airstrip in time but still has to land?
@@cryora?
The embankment is 250 meters or 800 feet from the end of the runway. That is a long way from the end of the runway.
The fact that the aircraft was going 150 mph when it hit that embankment is not the fault of the design of the airport.
Aircraft aren't supposed to be going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet from the end of the runway.
800 feet (250 meters) should be ample space around a runway. You can't feasibly protect against extreme events like a aircraft traveling across the ground at 150 mph (240 kph) 800+ feet off the runway.
@@alanstevens1296 That's a good point. There are quite a few well known air strips that have basically zero overrun or drop off into the ocean and people don't make a fuss about that. It's not just as simple as there was a wall where there shouldn't have been. I suspect we will find there were significant issues with the plane and/or the way the pilots reacted. They did a very quick, sharp u-turn and came in the wrong way with no flaps or gear down which tells me they probably didn't have any engine power otherwise they wouldn't have been in such a rush to get the plane down. They also landed like halfway down the runway at high speed with zero braking. You can't just have endless overrun area at all runways because some one-in-a-million freak incident might occur some day.
@@foskco87 It's one in a million because of how well the pilots are trained though. For the average person, landing safely is like hitting a bull's eye. If they didn't have engine power, that should make the speed slower no? Maybe they could have spent more time in the air until the speed slowed down enough to land safely, but that window of opportunity would have to coincide with the plane approaching at the right angle, distance, and offset. The plane might not be able to turn quickly enough to have a high likelihood to achieve those conditions. Plus with engine failure, that's one degree of freedom lost with which the pilots could control to get where they need exactly. The option to take off and try again if they couldn't get it exactly right the first time is also lost because of the lack of working engines.
You see, when a bird and a concrete wall loves each other very much....
Obviously more investigations to come but please note there are professional airline pilots and it's so easy for us to say "Should've done this, should've done that" because we are just chilling in front of TV or computer screen. Once again please remember these guys are professional pilots but human error still exists in a given situation.
Some of the closest possibilities at this stage:
1.Double engine failure due to Bird strike
2. One engine failure but shut down LIVE engine. (Human error)
-'Impossible turn' was executed instead Go-Around procedure.
-Hydraulics gone so hand fly all the way which ain't easy.
-Not enough time and altitude (panic mode or busy hand flying) so no time to lower the gear, flaps and etc.
-Manual landing gear takes up to 3~4mins and they probably had to HAND FLY + CREATE DRAG / LOW ALTITUDE with Double Engine Failure.
3. Then we have this stupid Concrete Wall but that's not the cause of the accident. That's the cause of death. The wall was lethal.
The saddest news for us although we are rather far away from what was happening. Who is to blame.?
Aviation analyst is unfamiliar and unaware. Anyone could have answered the questions he was handed. 🤦
Did the ATC that directed the pilot to that specific runway not know there was a concrete wall at the end?
Good question: no one knew the wall was not fungible
That's like saying 90% Not an engineering error with the concrete block at the end of a runway. But rather saying it's a human error to put a concrete block at the end of a runway. YOU INSTALL A HUGE CONCRETE BLOCK AT THE END OF A ROAD TO CRASH TEST AND NOT AT THE END OF A ROAD WHERE AIRPLANE LANDS!
Sensible comment!
The concrete block is actually where they stored confidential government documents
Ignorant comment.
@@barenekid9695 Have you ever flown an airplane?
RIP.
... Finally Pilot can landing , But The Wall ...
I've become an expert myself, the story some cheap airlines with cheap pilots turned off the wrong fucking engine and freaked out
Actually it's already been said the the pilots of the crashed plane landed the plane on the runway in the wrong direction plus they didn't touch the runway until till the last 1/3 of the runway. The concrete barrier the plane hit was at the incoming/beginning end of the runway & they were supposed to have flown over it (correct direction the runway was meant to be used) & touched the runway right after the the concrete runway started but they had too much speed coming in from the wrong direction before they were able to touch down on the last 1/3 of the runway. A lot of pilot error involved in this crash, they also may have simply forgot to lower the landing gear since they were so concerned about the #2 engine & they didn't completely following the landing checklist.
Nope. This is a small airport with only one runway which can be used in both directions depending on tower instructions.
@@artfquinn True but for landing it's supposed to be used opposite way the plane that crashed did. I saw from one of those pilot debriefing channels on UA-cam that discusses what happened to cause airplane crash or etc. from a pilot that had flown in & out that airport. He said that's why that barrier have never come close to being hit before.
Clearly the pilots had control of the plane in all axes as demonstrated by the plane's orientation when landing. If there was a hydraulic failure, it would have been a different matter. I think the pilots panicked starting with the bird strike/compressor stall. A landing could have easily been made with only one working engine if that was their only choice, including continuing the approach after the bird strike. Instead they reconfigured the plane and forgot to put the landing gear down; there is no way on earth they would have attempted to land at a no-flaps speed halfway down the runway knowing full well they never would have made it, concrete wall or not. Clearly pilot error all the way.
100% ATC error. ATC directed them to that concrete wall. The plane stand a better chance of survival if directed to the nearest lake.
But did ATC know the wall was so rigid and not frangible?
LAKE??? They didn't even have enough time to completely circle around once, back to the original runway direction landing, but you want them to find a lake??? Besides, every expert I've seen so far has said a water lading would be a terrible idea, and most likely result in the aircraft disintegration or being broken apart, on top of way worse rescue & recovery issues.
@ go google maps n see the water mass around muan airport. The way how the pilots controlled the aircraft perfectly well before hitting the wall, stood a better chance of safe ditching like Hudson River flight if ATC had directed them to water instead they authorized the pilots alternative runway request at 9.01am.
@user-pt2pc5uf1g Yes, because I'm sure you know better than every single expert analyst and seasoned pilot that has been interviewed, or spoken on the subject... 🙄🤦♂️ The Miracle on the Hudson was just that, a miracle. (Besides, there were many issues different in that case compared to this one, including their altitude.) It does not usually end well when you crash an aircraft into a body of water.
The wall, and partly pilot inexperience. Without either of those conditions, everyone would have survived
the wall bro
If the plane hadn't been going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet after the end of the runway all those people could have walked away from that plane.
At that speed it would go another 800+ feet and almost certainly crash into something else along the way.
Building, wall, storage tanks, embankment, ditch, waterway, highway, tractor-trailer, train, retaining wall, are some of the possibilities at airports.
Everyone survived until it hit the wall.
@@lawrencedavidson6195
If it didn't hit that embankment (not wall) it would have crashed into something else.
MANY issues :
A) why was the gear up?? It's designed to gravity Self extend under emergency conditions... for all too obvious reasons.
Gear up is a Willful decision
B) Why were the Flaps Up?
C) Why land at extreme speed? touching down well past the midpoint of the 9,000 Ft long runway
D) Korean Kulture dictates that the Captain is the Absolute ruler...Right or wrong
Monkey see = Monkey Do.
E) Pilot skills training was Clearly inadequate.. at best.
My question for those who may work at the airport control tower is a control tower alert the pilots when they approached the runway without the landing gear and what is the communication and respond from pilots?
Why aren't there information about the pilots background history ? We're they in training ?? We're they certified ?? Are the company hiding these facts ???
Pilot had 6800 hours of flight experience.
The captain was experienced with approx. 6,800 hours and a former military pilot veteran. He had been working for Jeju Air since 2019.
More interesting. American Airlines Flight 77 Boeing 757-200
hit the Pentagon at a speed of 530 miles
per hour, penetrating the E, D, and C rings.
Jeju Air Flight 2216 Boeing 737-8AS registered
as HL8088 failed to breach a berm.
The debris fields are vastly different.
Ban Boeing
Wow!! Looking more and more like I have to consider early boarding, free alcohol, and wide seats vs the last row and your life.......
Not pilot error+human error=Boeing error!
Boeing made the plane and within the plane were redundant systems that, from the attitude of the plane when it approached the runway, were functioning perfectly. In your mind, is Boeing also responsible for the birds and the very likely possibility that the pilot(s) panicked and failed to make the plane ready for an emergency landing? Is it Boeing's fault that a high berm is where it is? How in the name of the gods were you somehow able to equate this as a "Boeing error?" For shame.
I think this episode as part of air crash investigation will be called 'panic in the cockpit'. It is only a matter of time to confirm these suspicions.
*for the very last time - the concrete wall was not the problem bec it was NOT at the end of the runway but on the beginning of the runway, the plane came from the wrong side so it was the foult of groundcontroll to advise the 2 pilots to land from the wrong side*
The embankment is 250 meters or 800 feet from the end of the runway. That is a long way from the end of the runway.
The fact that the aircraft was going 150 mph when it hit that embankment is not the fault of the design of the airport.
Aircraft aren't supposed to be going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet from the end of the runway.
800 feet (250 meters) should be ample space around a runway. You can't feasibly protect against extreme events like a aircraft traveling across the ground at 150 mph (240 kph) 800+ feet off the runway.
What was wrong with landing on the ocean next to the airport , Sully landed on water saved everyone onboard 🛩🌊
the miracle on the hudson
@ReynaldoAba-h9e Obvious those pilots never seen Sully land on the ocean on that miracle day , lot of poor decisions made by 🇰🇷 Korea
Happy Newyear 2025 🎉
Sully only landed on water because he could not make it to a runway.
@lawrencedavidson6195 yes, that was a wise choice...Sully made, every one was happy to live 🛩🌊
If that pilot turned off wrong engine its 1. The avionics would have told them what engine.
2. The crew could have told them
No it was a hydraulic line cut near engine, They are going to find a cut line
I think every airport should have a special landing strip cater specially for emergency landing . Maybe elevate the gradient of the landing strip might slow the plane down with the help of gravity.
Sounds like an incompetent pilot and a concrete wall caused this tragedy …. Horrible 😓
Life is a precious thing so right now before later becomes never let us make God part of our everyday life by us praying to God everyday for his help in all our life situations and by us reading the bible everyday for God loves us and he forgives us for our past and a great place to start reading in the bible is in Psalms of the bible read a chapter in Psalms everyday and after we finish reading Psalms read in Proverbs in the bible and after that read a chapter in the bible everyday till we finish reading the whole bible
Concerning the runway, this landing runway is shorter than average for such a plane to land. Also, their emergency-landing landed at a full third of the distance of this runway.
This plane had a large number of flights (13) in the last 48-hours before crashing, as a way to make profits with tour-companies. This is an example of "human-errors" - capitalism.
Turning off the wrong engine is a mistake that has previously been demonstrated to occur, but what if one of the two pilots was not fully on
the job instead?!? The birds (flock) may have also been such an issue as to partially compromise both engines thus losing the option of
reverse-engines for braking!?!
The pilot(s) might have forgotten to release the landing gear again when aborting their first landing, although the plane's systems SHOULD
warn them of that (if it is not designed to do that, then it is a hardware/software short-coming), which is more likely than two engines failing
due to bird-strikes!
And/or, the pilots might have had bags or gear over the door on the floor beside their chairs so that manually releasing the gear (in 20
seconds) became a last minute cancelled panic response - if this was indeed required as an emergency action!
There are more likely MANY "human-errors" involved in this whole scenario, including BECAUSE Jeju Air had such a decent safety-history
leading to complacency!
"MAYDAY" should immediately send a call for emergency personnel to start dispatching/deploy, way before any fire-balls are seen!!!
Finally, the reinforced concrete at the end was not required for the landing technology to be there and was more likely like that so as to
protect the resorts that are not that far in a straight line at the end of the runway - thus putting the plane/passengers' safety as a secondary
priority.
Professor-Marty.
PS. The passenger list also had issues with identifying a couple of the passengers, why is that?!? When one of the surviving crew woke-up at
the hospital, he remembered having his safety-belt on but not necessarily that there were issues.such as a landing without the wheels..Is
this just a memory-lapse?!?
watch miracle on the hudson
@@ReynaldoAba-h9e That's a movie, right?!? Is that with Tom Hanks? Martin.
Weren’t the pilots Asian?
oppa gangnam style
it's a death of gangnam style
179 deaths and u joking around? go to hell