Why are they blaming this on a bird? The footage of the plane hitting the bird was mere seconds before the plane touched down, yet the landing gear still wasn't down! Why wasn't the landing gear put down?? A bird wouldn't have affected the landing gear, but even if it would, it doesn't explain why the landing gear wasn't already down when the plane hit the bird. The plane hit the bird 5-10 seconds before the plane landed. The landing gear should have already been engaged and down!!
They came in from the opposite end of the runway. That wall was at the front, not the end. Also no flaps to slow the plane. There was a possible double bird-strike. But no reason why they would have no flaps or gear .
@@thestingyham1188 Mechanical failure, however, there are incidents where the landing gear doesn't deploy where the pilots successfully crash the plane safely under C-FIT conditions. This was a total failure because the plane's crew made no efforts to either bank or deploy the airbrakes.
The plane collided into an earth mound 60 meters before the airport perimeter wall. Some kind of antenna, ILS? was installed on top of the earth mound.
Was there no way for the pilot to 1) dump fuel 2) decrease speed? Was there a longer runway? Why wasn't firefighting foam used on the runway to reduce the fire? Why was this a short runway with a barrier at the end? The pilots were able to navigate a landing. Why did they not choose the option to do a soft landing in the sea?
LENGTHY POST I EDITED SO HOPE IT DOESN'T APPEAR TWICE. This is the 1st video I have seen showing where the aircraft "touched down" initially. It seems the aircraft touched down well past the landing threshold (The large white lines at each end of the runway ...(there is a technical term for the area but will keep this non-aviation nomenclature...Obviouslt the plane landed without any landing gear...Bird strike is extremely unlikely unless was a GAGGLE OF TERADACTYLES... I CAN PROCLAIM WITHOUT ANY RESERVATIONS OR HESITATIONS THAT A BIRD STRIKE WOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN THIS TRAGEDY. A FEW OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS: THE AIRCRAFT ALLEGEDLY PERFORMS A "GO-AROUND" aka ABORTED TAKEOFF AND ALLEGEDLY, IMMEDIATELY AFTER ABORTING THEIR LANDING THEY WERE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY REENTERING THE PATTERN...THIS TIME WITH THEIR LANDING GEAR STOWED IN PREPERATION TO PERFORM A BELLY LANDING...I do not understand that if that actually happened with 2 exceptions... I'd like to ask you: IF A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER WITH 175 SOULS ABOARD (NOT INCLUDING CREW) IS GOING TO ATTEMPT A BELLY LANDING...WHY DID THE AIRCRAFT REENTER THE PATTERN SO SOON INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING TO TROUBLESHOOT THE PROBLEM AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO DEPLETE /BURN OFF AS MUCH FUEL AS POSSIBLE? WHY WAS THERE SEEMINGLY NO DETERRANT PLACED ON THE RUNWAY AND LASTLY WHY DID THEY CHOOSE THAT RUNWAY TO LAND...THE RUNWAY WITH WHAT APPEARED TO BE A CONCRETE BARRIER RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE END OF THE RUNWAY...WAS THAT RUNWAY "ACTIVE"...OPEN? IT DEFINITELY IS A RUNWAY AND NOT A TAXIWAY... BECAUSE CAN SEE THE PAINTING MARKS IN THE VIDEOS. WHO MADE THE DECISION TO LAND THEM THERE...LIKELY THE PILOT IN COMMAND (PIC) THE AIRCRAFT DID NOT "CATCH ON FIRE" NOR DID IT "VEER OFF THE RUNWAY, CRASH, AND CATCH ON FIRE" AS I HAVE HEARD STATED BY NEWS ANCHORS AND EVEN A SO CALLED AVIATION EXPERT... THE AIRCRAFT LANDED CLOSE TO OR DIRECTLY ON THE RUNWAY'S CENTERLINE AND APPEARED NOT TO VEER OR DEVIATE AT ALL...(I WILL DISCUSS WHY BELOW) THE AIRCRAFT LANDED FURTHER PAST THE THRESHOLD THAN IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE...( LANDED LONG) ... HOWEVER, I NOTICED IN MY HASTY RESEARCH, THAT RUNWAY IS ALMOST 10,000 FT LONG (3000m)+....A LONG RUNWAY...WHEN THE PILOTS REALIZED THEY OVERSHOT THE PRIMARY LANDING AREA WHY DIDN'T THEY PERFORM ANOTHER GO AROUND...more on that below BASED ON THE NUMEROUS ANGLES AND VIDEOS OF THE TRAGEDY THAT I WATCHED NUMEROUS TIMES ...AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY I LISTENED...THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT OR ARE CONCERNING THAT RAISE RED FLAGS TO ME....OR THEY DO NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME.... IF HAVE TIME AND IF YOU ARE OK WITH IT...FOCUS ON THE SOUND AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE WINGS AND THE AIRCRAFT TAIL. BELOW ARE A FEW OF MY OBSERVATIONS: - THE PILOTS EXECUTED A PERFECT BELLY LANDING ALIGNING ALMOST PERFECTLY WITH THE CENTERLINE... IT SEEMS THERE WAS NO "VEERING" - THE AIRCRAFT DID LAND "HOT"...MEANING IT LANDED WITHOUT HAVING ANY FLAPS DOWN...IN FACT ALL OF THE FLAPS WERE STILL IN CRUISE CONFIGURATION... - THE AIRCRAFT, AS I MENTIONED ABOVE...DID NOT HAVE THE NO FLAPS EXTENDED AND ANOTHER FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACE WAS STATIONARY THAT RESULTED IN THE THE AIRCRAFT NOT VEERING OFF THE SIDE OF THE RUNWAY (ALTHOUGH I WOULD THINK THE PIC WOULD HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DO SO NEAR THE END..) PAY ATTENTION TO THE TAIL OF THE AIRCRAFT, THE TALL PART...ON THE BACK OF THE TAIL THERE IS A LARGE VERTICAL FLAP (rudder)... THAT IS CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE PILOT'S PUSHING ON THE "PEDALS" IN THE COCKPIT WITH HIS/HER FEET...THE "RUDDER PEDALS" CONTROL THE TAIL RUDDER AND RESULTS IN BASICALLY SAME AS A BOAT'S RUDDER...HOWEVER, IF NOTICE, THE RUDDER NOR THE AILERONS (ARE FLAPS THAT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE PILOT STEERING DEVICE (YOLK OR STICK) LOCATED ON THE BACKSIDE AND 1/3 OF THE END OF THE WINGS (IF THAT MADE ANYS SENSE)....THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF OTHER FLAPS AND TABS ALONG THE FRONT PART OF THE WINGS AND TAIL AREA AND TO ME, IT SEEMED OR APPEARED TO ME NONE OF THEM WERE IN A LANDING CONFIGURATION ...HOWEVER, WHEN THE AIRCRAFT DOES LAND THE NOSE IS PITCHED UP ALMOST PERFECTLY WHICH THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN HAPPEN IS IF THEY HAVE SOME CONTROL OF AT LEAST 1-2 FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACES....AS THE PILOTS KEEP THE NOSE OFF THE RUNWAY OR AT LEAST DO NOT LAND NOSE FIRST WHICH WOULD HAVE ENDED RIGHT THERE...THE MOST LIKELY CONTROL WOULD OF BEEN THE "TRIM" CONTROL ...THAT'S ALL I CAN THINK OF... FLAPS, TRIM, ELAVATORS, ETC...ALL OF THESE FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACES (PARTS) ARE USED TO SLOW THE AIRCRAFT DOWN AFTER LANDING...WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE TWO MOST CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS... IMO, IT APPEARS THE THE AIRCRAFT OVERSHOOTS THE LANDING THRESHOLD... BUT THAT IS LIKELY DUE TO LANDING WITHOUT FLAPS AND THE PILOTS NOT BEING PROFICIENT IN LANDING WITHOUT FLAPS OR THERE WERE OTHER FACTORS GOING ON THAT DID NOT ALLOW THEM TO LAND WHERE THEY INTENDED...EVENSO, IMO, THE AIRCRAFT SEEMED TO HAVE CROSSED THE LANDING THRRESHOLD AND SEEMINGLY TOUCHED DOWN AT SPEEDS FAR EXCEEDING THE LANDING SPEED FOR BASICALLY ANY AIRCRAFT.... THAT AIRCRAFT WAS SEEMINGLY ABOVE STALL SPEED (RATHER CONFIDENT OF THAT) JUST AS IMPORTANT, THERE WERE VERY FEW SPARKS...HARDLY ANY UNTIL THE NEAR THE END...THERE ALSO SEEMED TO BE NO PREPERATION MADE FOR THIS BELLY LANDING THAT I FIND STRANGE...POINT BEING IS A THEORY...WITHOUT SPARKS SEEMS TO SUGGEST THE AIRCRAFT'S FULL WEIGHT WAS NOT IN CONTACT OR BEING EXERTED DOWN ON THE RUNWAY...MY THEORY IS THE AIRCRAFT'S SPEED BEING ABOVE STALL SPEED COMBINED WITH GROUND EFFECT DYNAMICS RESULTED IN THE JET BASICALLY FLYING, GLIDING, SKIMMING, ALMOST LEVATATING AT 150-160 KNTS OVER THE TOP OF THE RUNWAY BY 1-2 INCHES... CURIOUS WHAT OTHERS MAY THINK ABOUT THAT....THIS IS THE REASON THERE WERE MINIMUM SPARKS... BECAUSE THE AIRCRAFT WAS "GLIDING" ACROSS THE RUNWAY ON A THIN LAYER OF AIR....A POCKET OF AIR...CAUSED BY THE SPEED AND SHAPE OF THE AIRCRAFT CAUSING A PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL JUST ENOUGH TO KEEP THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE AIRCRAFT FOR COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE RUNWAY...THIS IS ONE REASON WHY THE AIRCRAFT BASICALLY NEVER SLOWS DOWN...THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANTATION IN MY MIND...SIMILARLY TO THEM SLIDING ACROSS A LAYER OF ICE... LASTLY, EVEN IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE...REWATCH OR JUST LISTEN...CLOSE YOUR EYES ...DO YOU NOTICE THE AIRCRAFT'S ENGINES NOT DROPPING RPMS??? IT SEEMS THRUST NEVER DECREASED EVEN ON THE GROUND AND HENCE THE AIR POCKET THEORY BUT ALSO WHY THE PLANE DID NOT SLOW DOWN BASICALLY AT ALL FOR BASICALLY A MILE...THE AIRCRAFT'S AIRSPEED AND GROUNDSPEED DID NOT SEEM TO DECREASE AT ANY POINT AFTER IT LANDED ON IT'S BELLY...IT DID NOT INCREASE THRUST EITHER THAT I HOPED THE PIC WOULD HAVE ATTEMPED....CURIOUS IF THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE PILOTS WOULDN'T ATTEMPT TO BELLY LAND A COMMERCIAL JET OF THAT SIZE ON A RUNWAY 3000M OR 10OOOMETERS IF THEY COULDN'T DECREASE THRUST....3000 METERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF DISTANCE FOR THAT AIRCRAFT TO SLOW AND NEVER REACH THE END....BUT THE PILOTS MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CHOICE....CURIOUS WHAT THE COMMS SAID BETWEEN ATC AND THE PILOTS ...THIS ONE IS VERY TRAGIC...THE PILOTS FOR CERTAIN KNEW THEY WERE GOING WAY TOO FAST...THAT IS WHY I ASKED WHY THEY LANDED ON THAT RUNWAY...WHY LAND ON A RUNWAY THEY KNEW HAD THE LARGE CONCRETE LOOKING BARRIER AND THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF TRAP PIT OR OVERRUN SAND PIT BUT INSTEAD HAS A CONCRETE DEATH WALL??? IN ANYCASE, THE AIRCRAFT DEFINITELY DID NOT DECREASE IN SPEED (IF DID IT WAS NOT BY MUCH) ; THE ENGINES DID NOT SOUND AS THOUGH THEY "SPOOLED" DOWN OR LOST ANY THRUST BASED ON WHAT I HEARD...DEFINITELY NO REVERSE THRUST OR WHATEVER THEY USE THESE DAYS...ONLY THING I DO KNOW IS A BIRD STRIKE AND INCLEMENT WEATHER HAD ZERO TO DO WITH THIS TRAGEDY... Apologize for the novel and for the all caps...I just noticed but too lazy to change it...RIP.
Great observations. Unfortunately looks like the outcome of this INVESTIGATION will leave us with the impression of that plot from the first Jack Reacher Movie.
1) They didn't hit the brick wall but approx 2-2,5 m high earthen rampart on which ILS LOC antennas stood about 240m after the end of the runway and only 140 m after the end of the concrete surface. I really don't understand how anyone could have certified the airport with such an obstacle so close to the end of the runway. There have to be only light constructions. 2) The opposite side looks safer because there is no rampart, LOC antennas are on the ground, and right behind them is a brick wall which would be possible to break through - even though dangerous in comparison to a fence. The only question is the relatively quickly rising terrain after the wall because the airport is about 2 m below the terrain - probably to make it perfectly horizontal. 3) It seems the right-wing engine has a reverse thrust set. 4) Surelly, they did go around and attempted to land in the opposite direction on runway 19 than usual on runway 01. 5) They started go around quite early - about 4-4,5 km before the beginning of the runway in 450 ft. But a few seconds later ADS-B data on flightradar24 are lost. 6) There are questions about why they attempted belly landing because it's possible to manually release the landing gear in these aircraft if hydraulics is lost. Anyway, it's really a big question, what had happened?
Though I pressed the like button, because I didn't realise what to press, it's a disaster. RIP , the departed souls and deep 😢😢😢 condolences to their families.
That’s sad man I thought airports had “runoffs” for situations like this. Reverse thrust didn’t do shit for him would have been better off trying to land in a body of water somewhere
@@joelourdes1947 exactly, water slows even big plane down, and it doesn't catch fire from friction. Most of planes could be repaired. But I hope after these, all states will join , that it's obligatory. I'm also suprised by passangers, that risk it on such airport, I would never take plane on such airport.
In korea here. All airports are built to be utilized in times of war so we have walls etc. This guy didn't even have spoilers or flsps deployed. There's really no explanation for it because even in a bird strike they have residual hydraulic control.l and can manually pump the landing gear down. I csn only guess the pilots were so focused on the engine failure they made some mistake
According to other news sites they knew the landing gear was not working and they already did a fly around, why didn't they burn off fuel before trying a belly landing? Would it have been better to attempt a belly landing at sea where there are no brick walls? Lots of questions.
@@feefeshjygd6030 It is common practice for a plane to go into a holding pattern away from the airport and use excess fuel before attempting a dangerous landing.
Oh man, seems like emergency landing without the landing gear. the plain was rolling so smoothly after the touchdown, but that WALL!!!! Why??? Why would you put a wall at the end of a runway? Condolences to the families of the victims. RIP
@@RebeccaHawthorne-k8b there are more dangerous airports everywhere. recently , there was accident, that there was a road behind the airport, and it hit the car, the driver of car didnt make it and passed out. There was only weak fence, aircraft of course smashed through it, and didnt lose much speed.
The failure of the landing gear to extend will be the focus of a post-accident investigation. The pilot and copilot may have jettisoned the remaining fuel, but that act guaranteed the jet would have to land. If there was a problem in extending the landing gear, their options were limited.
@@davidmurphy8190 This airliner does not have a fuel jettison system. This had to have been human error. I think one of the reasons the plane was still up to speed is that the pilots may have been trying to attempt a "touch and go" to try crash landing again but would not get enough airspeed due to the friction between the aircraft and the runway. They were going WAY too fast to land even if their landing gear was working properly. I was an aviation electrician in the Marines and I have personally witnessed many mishaps. My experience is screaming at me that someone messed up big time either between maintenance or pilot error.
Not much of an overrun area. Airliners do not have arrestor hooks and a limited number of airports have cables or nets to slow down an aircraft without landing gear. There is a new technology for slowing down aircraft overrunning the end of the runway. It works, but is very expensive.
The airport is surrounded by a tall concrete fence, likely due to wartime purposes. The runway is 2,800 meters long, while a 737-800 typically requires a runway of 1,500-2,000 meters to come to a stop under normal conditions. It’s unfortunate that they chose an airport where there’s a concrete fence at the end of the runway.
Looks like hydraulic system issue across the plane...no landing gear in the video...which requires hydraulic fluid... no flaps in the video...which require hydraulic fluid aswell... Pilots can't control the plane without it much.. since there is no landing gear there won't be any brakes unless they use reverse engine brakes which require hydraulic fluid aswell indirectly... even if they did use that that's not just enough...so basically pilots landed it and hoped it would come to a stop slowly due to ground friction but due to overspeed it wasn't enough
When fire like this, plane itself must have any suitable gas tank and sprayer to spray gas automatically at least to some extent to control fire if it is possible
If landing gears wont work they should have done it manually by hands..if they have that on every planes..if landing gears wont work,due to malfunctions then they should have someone do it manually..
System hydraulic failure results in massive loss of controls. It could have crashed in highly populated places. That the pilots were able to do a go-around and finally set the plane down on the runway speaks volumes of their flying skills. They couldn’t divert. They didn’t have a chance. RIP
Because an aircraft hitting the water at 130 to 150 knots is like hitting a brick wall. I talked with Navy and Army Air Corps pilots who ditched in the ocean, who had served in WW2.
Until a little over 100 years ago, it was impossible for man to fly a vehicle heavier than air. There must be some way to design a model of airplane that ejects all passengers and crew in moments of tension before an accident, but the truth is that airlines don't care about people's safety; what matters to them is profit. Cars, trucks, motorcycles and buses are constantly being improved and new models are launched from time to time. A car from the early 2000s is already considered old today. Even military aircraft (fighter aircraft, for example) are also launched with new, more sophisticated models every decade. But what about commercial airplanes? Broadly speaking, they are always the same models that were designed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, with just a few improvements here and there. No new features and no new models to prevent accidents are designed. Airlines are profit-oriented and are constantly going through financial crises, so it is obvious that the more economical the aircraft model is for them, the better. Airplane accidents are less common than with other types of vehicles, but when they happen, it is a pure catastrophe with hundreds of deaths at once. It is Russian roulette and this must be prevented!
Crash number 1 was the result of one or more SAMs striking the Azeri airliner. Crash number 2 will require a lengthy investigation to determine the causes and conditions that made this accident such a tragedy.
Many airports were built in locations far away from residential areas. However, those same airports have had the areas around the airports become built up with more homes and businesses. A jetliner landing at an airport may be traveling at 130 to 150 knots, the airliner is loaded with passengers and baggage, and there may be many gallons of fuel remaining in the tanks. When the aircraft lands and overruns the end of the runway, the berm at the end is all there is to stop the jet.
@ Well, OK thanks for the high-level expertise on airport design. that berm appeared to have done exactly that here…it SURE DID stop that plane … ASTOUNDINGLY quickly. is that what you expected?? 🤷
HOW !? HOW the f...k in 21th century there should be solid concrete wall in the end of runaway. WHAT A NIGHTMARE! People seen they already on the ground, people believed they are saved! HORRIBLE. R.I.P
The berm at the end of the overrun area guaranteed that the airframe would break up. Guess there was no time to dump fuel. Even if tanks were dumped, the fuel tanks would be filled with jet fuel fumes. BOOM!
The pilots are probably to blame for touching down too late on the runway. The only thing that puzzles me is why there is a concrete wall at the end of the runway. If it weren't for that wall, maybe everyone would have survived!!! As for such a bad decision by the pilots, in my opinion we have to wait for the reading from the black boxes.
If you look at google maps you can see the RED TUBES LIKE STRUCTURE was mounted on a dirt hill and then the concrete wall surrounds the entire back fence of the airport...the plane hit the dirt hill and then hit the concrete wall..which seems not damaged at all....bad planning....
Wondering how much length the pilots had after landing. The video shows time of around 16-17s. Assuming avg 35m/s ( a rough guess) it amounts to 16 x 35 = 560m i.e. ~ 1/2 a km. Another 1/2 km prior (say) would make it ~ 1 km which is still quite short compared to the length of the runway (supposedly 3 km). Still the pilots must have done a very good job. Obviously, the block at the end was the main culprit. RIP to all the victims & my heartiest condolences to their families!
looks like the back wheels were broken and the plane body was scratching the ground and the friction caused the fire. My condolence tot the families of the dead
Egy másik videón láttam, még fenn a levegőben valami történt, lehet hogy madárrajjal ütközött, mert a jobb hajtóműből füst csapott ki. Valószínű elment a hidraulika rendszer, ezért nem volt futómű és fékszárny sem. Tragédia, őszinte részvétem minden érintettnek!
RIP to the everyone lost thier life and wishing for others to get well soon but Landing gear problem planes have done landing without landing gears but speed of this jet was too high and should’ve been given longer runway
2 crashes in 2 weeks now. Sorry for the victims. 😢
в мире от аварии автомобиля, мотоцикла погибают гораздо больше людей, там уже не по неделями считают а по минутам, по секундам
@@TevanTevanelli you are right 😢😢
@@TevanTevanelli Yet when a train and plane crashes, the death toll immediately increases because both vehicles carry more people.
As I said, pilot error is most likely the cause of both incidents. There was no landing gear, and the plane veered off and overshot into the wall.
I was thinking of the same thing.
Why are they blaming this on a bird? The footage of the plane hitting the bird was mere seconds before the plane touched down, yet the landing gear still wasn't down! Why wasn't the landing gear put down?? A bird wouldn't have affected the landing gear, but even if it would, it doesn't explain why the landing gear wasn't already down when the plane hit the bird. The plane hit the bird 5-10 seconds before the plane landed. The landing gear should have already been engaged and down!!
Why is there a brick wall at the end of the runway?
my question as well
I think it was an emergency landing. Did you see that the front wheel did not come out? In this case, they using this type of landing.
They came in from the opposite end of the runway. That wall was at the front, not the end. Also no flaps to slow the plane. There was a possible double bird-strike. But no reason why they would have no flaps or gear .
@@thestingyham1188 Mechanical failure, however, there are incidents where the landing gear doesn't deploy where the pilots successfully crash the plane safely under C-FIT conditions. This was a total failure because the plane's crew made no efforts to either bank or deploy the airbrakes.
The plane collided into an earth mound 60 meters before the airport perimeter wall. Some kind of antenna, ILS? was installed on top of the earth mound.
Music in the background?? Seriously!!! Like Wtf really
It breaks my heart. RIP to everyone on board ❤
Was there no way for the pilot to 1) dump fuel 2) decrease speed? Was there a longer runway? Why wasn't firefighting foam used on the runway to reduce the fire? Why was this a short runway with a barrier at the end? The pilots were able to navigate a landing. Why did they not choose the option to do a soft landing in the sea?
LENGTHY POST I EDITED SO HOPE IT DOESN'T APPEAR TWICE. This is the 1st video I have seen showing where the aircraft "touched down" initially. It seems the aircraft touched down well past the landing threshold (The large white lines at each end of the runway ...(there is a technical term for the area but will keep this non-aviation nomenclature...Obviouslt the plane landed without any landing gear...Bird strike is extremely unlikely unless was a GAGGLE OF TERADACTYLES... I CAN PROCLAIM WITHOUT ANY RESERVATIONS OR HESITATIONS THAT A BIRD STRIKE WOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN THIS TRAGEDY. A FEW OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS:
THE AIRCRAFT ALLEGEDLY PERFORMS A "GO-AROUND" aka ABORTED TAKEOFF AND ALLEGEDLY, IMMEDIATELY AFTER ABORTING THEIR LANDING THEY WERE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY REENTERING THE PATTERN...THIS TIME WITH THEIR LANDING GEAR STOWED IN PREPERATION TO PERFORM A BELLY LANDING...I do not understand that if that actually happened with 2 exceptions...
I'd like to ask you: IF A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER WITH 175 SOULS ABOARD (NOT INCLUDING CREW) IS GOING TO ATTEMPT A BELLY LANDING...WHY DID THE AIRCRAFT REENTER THE PATTERN SO SOON INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING TO TROUBLESHOOT THE PROBLEM AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO DEPLETE /BURN OFF AS MUCH FUEL AS POSSIBLE? WHY WAS THERE SEEMINGLY NO DETERRANT PLACED ON THE RUNWAY AND LASTLY WHY DID THEY CHOOSE THAT RUNWAY TO LAND...THE RUNWAY WITH WHAT APPEARED TO BE A CONCRETE BARRIER RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE END OF THE RUNWAY...WAS THAT RUNWAY "ACTIVE"...OPEN? IT DEFINITELY IS A RUNWAY AND NOT A TAXIWAY... BECAUSE CAN SEE THE PAINTING MARKS IN THE VIDEOS. WHO MADE THE DECISION TO LAND THEM THERE...LIKELY THE PILOT IN COMMAND (PIC)
THE AIRCRAFT DID NOT "CATCH ON FIRE" NOR DID IT "VEER OFF THE RUNWAY, CRASH, AND CATCH ON FIRE" AS I HAVE HEARD STATED BY NEWS ANCHORS AND EVEN A SO CALLED AVIATION EXPERT... THE AIRCRAFT LANDED CLOSE TO OR DIRECTLY ON THE RUNWAY'S CENTERLINE AND APPEARED NOT TO VEER OR DEVIATE AT ALL...(I WILL DISCUSS WHY BELOW)
THE AIRCRAFT LANDED FURTHER PAST THE THRESHOLD THAN IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE...( LANDED LONG) ... HOWEVER, I NOTICED IN MY HASTY RESEARCH, THAT RUNWAY IS ALMOST 10,000 FT LONG (3000m)+....A LONG RUNWAY...WHEN THE PILOTS REALIZED THEY OVERSHOT THE PRIMARY LANDING AREA WHY DIDN'T THEY PERFORM ANOTHER GO AROUND...more on that below
BASED ON THE NUMEROUS ANGLES AND VIDEOS OF THE TRAGEDY THAT I WATCHED NUMEROUS TIMES ...AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY I LISTENED...THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT OR ARE CONCERNING THAT RAISE RED FLAGS TO ME....OR THEY DO NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME.... IF HAVE TIME AND IF YOU ARE OK WITH IT...FOCUS ON THE SOUND AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE WINGS AND THE AIRCRAFT TAIL. BELOW ARE A FEW OF MY OBSERVATIONS:
- THE PILOTS EXECUTED A PERFECT BELLY LANDING ALIGNING ALMOST PERFECTLY WITH THE CENTERLINE... IT SEEMS THERE WAS NO "VEERING"
- THE AIRCRAFT DID LAND "HOT"...MEANING IT LANDED WITHOUT HAVING ANY FLAPS DOWN...IN FACT ALL OF THE FLAPS WERE STILL IN CRUISE CONFIGURATION...
- THE AIRCRAFT, AS I MENTIONED ABOVE...DID NOT HAVE THE NO FLAPS EXTENDED AND ANOTHER FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACE WAS STATIONARY THAT RESULTED IN THE THE AIRCRAFT NOT VEERING OFF THE SIDE OF THE RUNWAY (ALTHOUGH I WOULD THINK THE PIC WOULD HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DO SO NEAR THE END..)
PAY ATTENTION TO THE TAIL OF THE AIRCRAFT, THE TALL PART...ON THE BACK OF THE TAIL THERE IS A LARGE VERTICAL FLAP (rudder)... THAT IS CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE PILOT'S PUSHING ON THE "PEDALS" IN THE COCKPIT WITH HIS/HER FEET...THE "RUDDER PEDALS" CONTROL THE TAIL RUDDER AND RESULTS IN BASICALLY SAME AS A BOAT'S RUDDER...HOWEVER, IF NOTICE, THE RUDDER NOR THE AILERONS (ARE FLAPS THAT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE PILOT STEERING DEVICE (YOLK OR STICK) LOCATED ON THE BACKSIDE AND 1/3 OF THE END OF THE WINGS (IF THAT MADE ANYS SENSE)....THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF OTHER FLAPS AND TABS ALONG THE FRONT PART OF THE WINGS AND TAIL AREA AND TO ME, IT SEEMED OR APPEARED TO ME NONE OF THEM WERE IN A LANDING CONFIGURATION ...HOWEVER, WHEN THE AIRCRAFT DOES LAND THE NOSE IS PITCHED UP ALMOST PERFECTLY WHICH THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN HAPPEN IS IF THEY HAVE SOME CONTROL OF AT LEAST 1-2 FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACES....AS THE PILOTS KEEP THE NOSE OFF THE RUNWAY OR AT LEAST DO NOT LAND NOSE FIRST WHICH WOULD HAVE ENDED RIGHT THERE...THE MOST LIKELY CONTROL WOULD OF BEEN THE "TRIM" CONTROL ...THAT'S ALL I CAN THINK OF... FLAPS, TRIM, ELAVATORS, ETC...ALL OF THESE FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACES (PARTS) ARE USED TO SLOW THE AIRCRAFT DOWN AFTER LANDING...WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE TWO MOST CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS...
IMO, IT APPEARS THE THE AIRCRAFT OVERSHOOTS THE LANDING THRESHOLD... BUT THAT IS LIKELY DUE TO LANDING WITHOUT FLAPS AND THE PILOTS NOT BEING PROFICIENT IN LANDING WITHOUT FLAPS OR THERE WERE OTHER FACTORS GOING ON THAT DID NOT ALLOW THEM TO LAND WHERE THEY INTENDED...EVENSO, IMO, THE AIRCRAFT SEEMED TO HAVE CROSSED THE LANDING THRRESHOLD AND SEEMINGLY TOUCHED DOWN AT SPEEDS FAR EXCEEDING THE LANDING SPEED FOR BASICALLY ANY AIRCRAFT.... THAT AIRCRAFT WAS SEEMINGLY ABOVE STALL SPEED (RATHER CONFIDENT OF THAT)
JUST AS IMPORTANT, THERE WERE VERY FEW SPARKS...HARDLY ANY UNTIL THE NEAR THE END...THERE ALSO SEEMED TO BE NO PREPERATION MADE FOR THIS BELLY LANDING THAT I FIND STRANGE...POINT BEING IS A THEORY...WITHOUT SPARKS SEEMS TO SUGGEST THE AIRCRAFT'S FULL WEIGHT WAS NOT IN CONTACT OR BEING EXERTED DOWN ON THE RUNWAY...MY THEORY IS THE AIRCRAFT'S SPEED BEING ABOVE STALL SPEED COMBINED WITH GROUND EFFECT DYNAMICS RESULTED IN THE JET BASICALLY FLYING, GLIDING, SKIMMING, ALMOST LEVATATING AT 150-160 KNTS OVER THE TOP OF THE RUNWAY BY 1-2 INCHES... CURIOUS WHAT OTHERS MAY THINK ABOUT THAT....THIS IS THE REASON THERE WERE MINIMUM SPARKS... BECAUSE THE AIRCRAFT WAS "GLIDING" ACROSS THE RUNWAY ON A THIN LAYER OF AIR....A POCKET OF AIR...CAUSED BY THE SPEED AND SHAPE OF THE AIRCRAFT CAUSING A PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL JUST ENOUGH TO KEEP THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE AIRCRAFT FOR COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE RUNWAY...THIS IS ONE REASON WHY THE AIRCRAFT BASICALLY NEVER SLOWS DOWN...THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANTATION IN MY MIND...SIMILARLY TO THEM SLIDING ACROSS A LAYER OF ICE...
LASTLY, EVEN IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE...REWATCH OR JUST LISTEN...CLOSE YOUR EYES ...DO YOU NOTICE THE AIRCRAFT'S ENGINES NOT DROPPING RPMS??? IT SEEMS THRUST NEVER DECREASED EVEN ON THE GROUND AND HENCE THE AIR POCKET THEORY BUT ALSO WHY THE PLANE DID NOT SLOW DOWN BASICALLY AT ALL FOR BASICALLY A MILE...THE AIRCRAFT'S AIRSPEED AND GROUNDSPEED DID NOT SEEM TO DECREASE AT ANY POINT AFTER IT LANDED ON IT'S BELLY...IT DID NOT INCREASE THRUST EITHER THAT I HOPED THE PIC WOULD HAVE ATTEMPED....CURIOUS IF THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE PILOTS WOULDN'T ATTEMPT TO BELLY LAND A COMMERCIAL JET OF THAT SIZE ON A RUNWAY 3000M OR 10OOOMETERS IF THEY COULDN'T DECREASE THRUST....3000 METERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF DISTANCE FOR THAT AIRCRAFT TO SLOW AND NEVER REACH THE END....BUT THE PILOTS MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CHOICE....CURIOUS WHAT THE COMMS SAID BETWEEN ATC AND THE PILOTS ...THIS ONE IS VERY TRAGIC...THE PILOTS FOR CERTAIN KNEW THEY WERE GOING WAY TOO FAST...THAT IS WHY I ASKED WHY THEY LANDED ON THAT RUNWAY...WHY LAND ON A RUNWAY THEY KNEW HAD THE LARGE CONCRETE LOOKING BARRIER AND THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF TRAP PIT OR OVERRUN SAND PIT BUT INSTEAD HAS A CONCRETE DEATH WALL??? IN ANYCASE, THE AIRCRAFT DEFINITELY DID NOT DECREASE IN SPEED (IF DID IT WAS NOT BY MUCH) ; THE ENGINES DID NOT SOUND AS THOUGH THEY "SPOOLED" DOWN OR LOST ANY THRUST BASED ON WHAT I HEARD...DEFINITELY NO REVERSE THRUST OR WHATEVER THEY USE THESE DAYS...ONLY THING I DO KNOW IS A BIRD STRIKE AND INCLEMENT WEATHER HAD ZERO TO DO WITH THIS TRAGEDY...
Apologize for the novel and for the all caps...I just noticed but too lazy to change it...RIP.
Great observations.
Unfortunately looks like the outcome of this INVESTIGATION will leave us with the impression of
that plot from the first Jack Reacher Movie.
1) They didn't hit the brick wall but approx 2-2,5 m high earthen rampart on which ILS LOC antennas stood about 240m after the end of the runway and only 140 m after the end of the concrete surface.
I really don't understand how anyone could have certified the airport with such an obstacle so close to the end of the runway. There have to be only light constructions.
2) The opposite side looks safer because there is no rampart, LOC antennas are on the ground, and right behind them is a brick wall which would be possible to break through - even though dangerous in comparison to a fence.
The only question is the relatively quickly rising terrain after the wall because the airport is about 2 m below the terrain - probably to make it perfectly horizontal.
3) It seems the right-wing engine has a reverse thrust set.
4) Surelly, they did go around and attempted to land in the opposite direction on runway 19 than usual on runway 01.
5) They started go around quite early - about 4-4,5 km before the beginning of the runway in 450 ft. But a few seconds later ADS-B data on flightradar24 are lost.
6) There are questions about why they attempted belly landing because it's possible to manually release the landing gear in these aircraft if hydraulics is lost.
Anyway, it's really a big question, what had happened?
Rip to all who perished… 💔
And that background music was unnecessary.
Though I pressed the like button, because I didn't realise what to press, it's a disaster. RIP , the departed souls and deep 😢😢😢 condolences to their families.
Landing gear failed and this was an emergency landing if it was not for the wall no one would’ve died
Obviously nothing behind that wall could have wrecked the plane.
Serious local corruption in Jeolla-do administration, Korea
That’s sad man I thought airports had “runoffs” for situations like this. Reverse thrust didn’t do shit for him would have been better off trying to land in a body of water somewhere
@@Scrildo1 all airports must have water pools as you said
@@joelourdes1947 exactly, water slows even big plane down, and it doesn't catch fire from friction. Most of planes could be repaired. But I hope after these, all states will join , that it's obligatory. I'm also suprised by passangers, that risk it on such airport, I would never take plane on such airport.
In korea here. All airports are built to be utilized in times of war so we have walls etc. This guy didn't even have spoilers or flsps deployed. There's really no explanation for it because even in a bird strike they have residual hydraulic control.l and can manually pump the landing gear down. I csn only guess the pilots were so focused on the engine failure they made some mistake
@allis5870 I hope pilots knew hydraulic failure. Tats why they tried belly landing
In Warsaw, Poland in 2011 fortunately runaway was enough long.. Captain has landed purely without landing gear
If the brick wall was not there the plane would have eventually come to a stop
Serious local corruption in Jeolla-do administration, Korea
Yes
It definitely did not veer off the runway! The pilot was amazing! The jet struck a fixed object past the end of the runway.
What a tremendous tragedy. , 😭
This is so sad
My heart feels breaks. Condolences to the whole family😢😢😢
According to other news sites they knew the landing gear was not working and they already did a fly around, why didn't they burn off fuel before trying a belly landing? Would it have been better to attempt a belly landing at sea where there are no brick walls? Lots of questions.
The right engine blew up in mid air, rendering the landing gear impossible to engage.
@@Crete1943 The landing gear can be engaged by hand.
The airplane doesn't have system of thraw out fuel
@@feefeshjygd6030 It is common practice for a plane to go into a holding pattern away from the airport and use excess fuel before attempting a dangerous landing.
@@Crete1943 How can the pilots be out of action if they managed to go around and attempt a belly landing?
Oh man, seems like emergency landing without the landing gear. the plain was rolling so smoothly after the touchdown, but that WALL!!!! Why??? Why would you put a wall at the end of a runway? Condolences to the families of the victims. RIP
Exactly wall at end of runway 😢? What
@@RebeccaHawthorne-k8b there are more dangerous airports everywhere.
recently , there was accident, that there was a road behind the airport, and it hit the car, the driver of car didnt make it and passed out. There was only weak fence, aircraft of course smashed through it, and didnt lose much speed.
My deepest condolences for them who witness and involved with this
Veers off?? How do you explain veer off? It didn't veer off, simply landed without gear down and close to the end of the runway.
The failure of the landing gear to extend will be the focus of a post-accident investigation. The pilot and copilot may have jettisoned the remaining fuel, but that act guaranteed the jet would have to land. If there was a problem in extending the landing gear, their options were limited.
@@davidmurphy8190 This airliner does not have a fuel jettison system. This had to have been human error. I think one of the reasons the plane was still up to speed is that the pilots may have been trying to attempt a "touch and go" to try crash landing again but would not get enough airspeed due to the friction between the aircraft and the runway. They were going WAY too fast to land even if their landing gear was working properly.
I was an aviation electrician in the Marines and I have personally witnessed many mishaps. My experience is screaming at me that someone messed up big time either between maintenance or pilot error.
Prayers for the victims and their families. This goes the same for the Azal plane victims. 🙏
looks like no flaps either, so they were coming in fast.
Not much of an overrun area. Airliners do not have arrestor hooks and a limited number of airports have cables or nets to slow down an aircraft without landing gear. There is a new technology for slowing down aircraft overrunning the end of the runway. It works, but is very expensive.
This was the planes second attempt to land. It had already gone around once.
The crew may have been dumping fuel prior to landing.
So tormenting 💔
It is not a proper music for this, is it ?
Пилот вроде Отлично сажал самолет носом к верху, если бы не приграда, или полоса длинее ...это могло спасти всех пасажиров.
I work with alot of south koreans i hope none of them were on this flight. Prayers for the families
Other koreans boarding this flight is ok? 😮
@MakeNagalandGreatAgain only 2 of the crew were rescued. Others are all presumed dead. All Koreans but for 2 Thai.
I am never getting on a plane again.
2 Plane crushed just in 2 weeks..What is happening with humanity?? sad!
Oh! God. Have mercy on mankind. Peace upon the souls that have lost their lives!
Chinese spy dron strikes jet engine intentionally
Amen 🙏♥️🙏
Why they land on the airport with brick wall? They can land in the middle of nowhere in Wales grasses without killing people.
Absence of Landing Gear
The landing gear, both the mains and the nose gear, failed to extend. Why and what went wrong?
Innalillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun 😢
The airport is surrounded by a tall concrete fence, likely due to wartime purposes. The runway is 2,800 meters long, while a 737-800 typically requires a runway of 1,500-2,000 meters to come to a stop under normal conditions. It’s unfortunate that they chose an airport where there’s a concrete fence at the end of the runway.
Pretty sure everyone died on that flight. Thats 250kmph easily
survivors reported
181 😂😂😂😂😂😂
2 people survived, incredibly. Both were crew sitting in the back of the plane.
2 Survivors, 181 Onboard
6 survivors reported as of 0031 ET.
Sad. At 0:19 one can see a person in mid-air, having been launched by the impact.
that wall isn't the smartest idea
That plane was going about 300 mph
no one is surviving that. Rip to all victims
Incredible!! 96 people were saved from dying in such a terrible accident according to the news...
No, 2 survived. 1 flight attendant, 1 passenger.
Why can't I see front landing gear??
Landing gear malfunction
Absolutely tragic. Why does there seem to be so many aircraft crashes over Xmas.
Для аварийной посадки нужна удлиненная посадочная полоса, самолет сел нормально не хватило места. Нужно учить пилотов сажать без шасси.
this doesnt look like a landing. the wing configuration didnt looks like it was trying to slow down. i saw no speed brakes, etc. anyone got more info?
It's really horrific, RIP to the departed soul.😢
Looks like hydraulic system issue across the plane...no landing gear in the video...which requires hydraulic fluid... no flaps in the video...which require hydraulic fluid aswell... Pilots can't control the plane without it much.. since there is no landing gear there won't be any brakes unless they use reverse engine brakes which require hydraulic fluid aswell indirectly... even if they did use that that's not just enough...so basically pilots landed it and hoped it would come to a stop slowly due to ground friction but due to overspeed it wasn't enough
When fire like this, plane itself must have any suitable gas tank and sprayer to spray gas automatically at least to some extent to control fire if it is possible
If landing gears wont work they should have done it manually by hands..if they have that on every planes..if landing gears wont work,due to malfunctions then they should have someone do it manually..
System hydraulic failure results in massive loss of controls. It could have crashed in highly populated places. That the pilots were able to do a go-around and finally set the plane down on the runway speaks volumes of their flying skills. They couldn’t divert. They didn’t have a chance. RIP
So it looked the plane hit the wall and exploded. Prayers to the victims and families 🙏🙏🙏😥
How awful that plane was certainly travelling at great speed.
How going along then? Looks like a fence was in way ?
Was it boeing?
the run way was too short
WTF have a crash-test wall at end of runway?
This is a worst thing many people lost lives
106 still alive 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
Do all Airports put brick Walls up in case a plane overshoots the Runway? Why not allow an extra runway if an aircraft needs to skid off the runway?
Sorry 😢
Did i just saw people flying out of the plane
maybe pilot did not have info about the brickwall end of the runway???? i think the plane might survive if there is no brickwall
Oh my God 😢
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Boeing shd be blamed 🤬😠😡
The distance from touchdown to crash is only 1 km
The explosion seemed to happen a little too easily. Shouldn't planes be built with a lot more preventive material ?
Was the pilot new ?
Why can't these pilots see the seas in situations like this?
Because an aircraft hitting the water at 130 to 150 knots is like hitting a brick wall. I talked with Navy and Army Air Corps pilots who ditched in the ocean, who had served in WW2.
@@davidmurphy8190 did you konw sully movie? It is based on a true story,
Flaps were up
It is a belly landing... Failure of nose and main landing gear... Probably complete hydraulic failure...
Until a little over 100 years ago, it was impossible for man to fly a vehicle heavier than air.
There must be some way to design a model of airplane that ejects all passengers and crew in moments of tension before an accident, but the truth is that airlines don't care about people's safety; what matters to them is profit.
Cars, trucks, motorcycles and buses are constantly being improved and new models are launched from time to time. A car from the early 2000s is already considered old today. Even military aircraft (fighter aircraft, for example) are also launched with new, more sophisticated models every decade. But what about commercial airplanes?
Broadly speaking, they are always the same models that were designed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, with just a few improvements here and there. No new features and no new models to prevent accidents are designed.
Airlines are profit-oriented and are constantly going through financial crises, so it is obvious that the more economical the aircraft model is for them, the better.
Airplane accidents are less common than with other types of vehicles, but when they happen, it is a pure catastrophe with hundreds of deaths at once. It is Russian roulette and this must be prevented!
Wtf is happening in the aviation industry? 2 big crashes in just 2 weeks😡😡
Chinese spy dron strikes jet engine intentionally
Crash number 1 was the result of one or more SAMs striking the Azeri airliner. Crash number 2 will require a lengthy investigation to determine the causes and conditions that made this accident such a tragedy.
Ya Allah reham farma mere Malik 🤲
Did Wile E. Coyote design the runoff area of that airport???? JFC…
Many airports were built in locations far away from residential areas. However, those same airports have had the areas around the airports become built up with more homes and businesses. A jetliner landing at an airport may be traveling at 130 to 150 knots, the airliner is loaded with passengers and baggage, and there may be many gallons of fuel remaining in the tanks. When the aircraft lands and overruns the end of the runway, the berm at the end is all there is to stop the jet.
@
Well, OK thanks for the high-level expertise on airport design. that berm appeared to have done exactly that here…it SURE DID stop that plane … ASTOUNDINGLY quickly.
is that what you expected?? 🤷
HOW !? HOW the f...k in 21th century there should be solid concrete wall in the end of runaway. WHAT A NIGHTMARE! People seen they already on the ground, people believed they are saved! HORRIBLE.
R.I.P
Very unfortunate
just read the latest report, all dead except for 2 people
how did 2 survive
My God...!
Two guys still alive omg 🤯🤯🤯🤯
@@donrixw9955they were sitting in the back
It seems no landing gears, the belly mesh directly on the runway, may be the fault of piolet!!
It's the second flight related incident this week
Why
Jeju air, travelled several times, always frustrated when takeoffs and landing😢. Old flights with technical issues always. RIP. So sad
looks like a bowling ball straight down the alley into the pins
The berm at the end of the overrun area guaranteed that the airframe would break up. Guess there was no time to dump fuel. Even if tanks were dumped, the fuel tanks would be filled with jet fuel fumes. BOOM!
The pilots are probably to blame for touching down too late on the runway. The only thing that puzzles me is why there is a concrete wall at the end of the runway. If it weren't for that wall, maybe everyone would have survived!!! As for such a bad decision by the pilots, in my opinion we have to wait for the reading from the black boxes.
Very so sad😢
I thought we had Run Off Areas Designated for Runways for this very reason?..It’s been highlighted by USA their NTSB to have runoff areas. Tragic.
If you look at google maps you can see the RED TUBES LIKE STRUCTURE was mounted on a dirt hill and then the concrete wall surrounds the entire back fence of the airport...the plane hit the dirt hill and then hit the concrete wall..which seems not damaged at all....bad planning....
If no landing gear was there other issues that made it have to land there,like bigger runways near by?
Tylko kapitan WRONA potrafi tak wylądować
Wondering how much length the pilots had after landing. The video shows time of around 16-17s. Assuming avg 35m/s ( a rough guess) it amounts to 16 x 35 = 560m i.e. ~ 1/2 a km. Another 1/2 km prior (say) would make it ~ 1 km which is still quite short compared to the length of the runway (supposedly 3 km). Still the pilots must have done a very
good job. Obviously, the block at the end was the main culprit. RIP to all the victims & my heartiest condolences to their families!
looks like the back wheels were broken and the plane body was scratching the ground and the friction caused the fire. My condolence tot the families of the dead
No landing gear, look like it probably malfunctioned.
Der Pilot hätte viel früher die Nase des Flugzeugs senken müssen. Ob der Bremsweg dann gereicht hätte weiß ich nicht.
Disaster😭
Egy másik videón láttam, még fenn a levegőben valami történt, lehet hogy madárrajjal ütközött, mert a jobb hajtóműből füst csapott ki. Valószínű elment a hidraulika rendszer, ezért nem volt futómű és fékszárny sem. Tragédia, őszinte részvétem minden érintettnek!
Worst year
RIP….
RIP to the everyone lost thier life and wishing for others to get well soon but Landing gear problem planes have done landing without landing gears but speed of this jet was too high and should’ve been given longer runway
Ina Lilllah WA Ina Ilehirajeoon
this sound is bad bro, original sound is better
SAD! AZERBAIJAN NOW S.KOREA!
Landing gear was not opened!
That’s a really old airplane