The testimony from the two surviving crew members are even more crucial now. If there was indeed a massive electrical failure then they should be able to corroborate it. Mind blowing how a bird strike can knockout the entire electrical system on a 737
@@yogamon It's still really bad if you kill the both engines all electric power shuts down. You don't have the time to start APU. Everything gets much harder if you don't have electric power. No instruments, no air speed. A guessing game. Maybe they didn't know how fast they were going, and wanting to be on the safe side not stall the plane out. It's a real tragegy. But it's a shame that Boeing doesn't have RAM turbine or a battery backup that are immediately kicking in.
No minimal battery backup on the recorders are you kidding! This is ridiculous for a device which is supposed to record unforeseen circumstances such as power going out!
When looking at the flight data recorder, the round thing on the exterior is the battery. Either a Lithium or, nickle metal hydride depends on what Boeing specified. Electrical engineers will design a robust FDR to suit the A/C you can bet on that.
@@paulschneeman1476Stop taking generalities like they are facts in this specific case... The recorders had no battery, as Boeing didnt fit them, as they weren't yet required to do so. This shows that companies will go the cheap route if they can, no matter what the engineer designs.
... and you are an accident investigator? Aircraft maintenance engineer? Pilot? I'm sure the "Gimli Glider" CVR and FDR stopped recording after both engines flamed out. The black boxes are often powered by the main electrical busses.
@ImperrfectStranger but the batteries run them so you saying the batteries lost all power as soon as engine failed. Don't think so. You work for Boeing or something
A similar crash happened in Jamaica in 2009. AA B737 landed really fast down wind in bad weather 3/4 way down the wet runway, it hydroplaned off the end of the runway, went through the ILS antennae, across a run off area, across a main road and unto a beach. Everyone survived. There was no wall to kill them.
Hitting the wall was the result of the crash, not the cause. 2 separate issues. . Should the ILS mounting be discussed. Absolutely.. The big mystery right now is why was that plane there at that speed to begin with?
The landing speed of the Jeju flight was way too high and they would have crashed into a pump station which is used by travel coaches 500m down that runway. At that speed if they would have survived that pump station, and blocks of hotel in its path, after killing many more people the plane would still be ditched into the sea.
The 737 crash happened in Jamaica in 2009 is different in the sense that pilot ad co-pilot already knew that there is malfunction of landing gear when the plane take off. They decided to manually put down the landing gear at the destination. When the landing gear failed to deploy at the destination, they decided to do a belly landing. They have one hour to prepare for emergency landing but for the Jeju crash, they only have a few minutes.
none of this makes sense. If engine was running at touchdown then at least one generator should have been online. Even if both main generators stopped for some reason the CVR and FDR should have remained powered.
New models have a separate backup battery for the CVR in case of a normal electrical failure. It looks like this particular aircraft did not have that battery. The FDR is also powered by the normal electrical system. Very strong evidence here of an electrical interruption (transponder failed, CVR and FDR failed).
It seems very unlikely that both generators were taken out by the (probable) bird strike, leaving one engine still running. However, when it comes to determining the cause of an accident, once you've disproved the impossible, the possible, however unlikely, is probably the cause. With a jet engine, you don't necessarily need electrical power to run because they are continuously burning fuel and thus don't rely on electrical ignition.
Oui. Les boîtes noires de l’Airbus de Sully ont enregistré les données jusqu’au bout, or il n’avait plus du tout de moteur contrairement à celui de Jeju. C’est incompréhensible.
I took a bird in a Md80 about 15 years ago which disabled the right engine. This was on a 10 mile final going into ORD. Pretty simple procedure, flaps 28, 11 for go ground, QRC for engine failure and land. Why the go around? This whole thing makes no sense to me. Ive flown most Boeing aircraft from the 727 to the 777.
Because they shut the good engine down and knew they didn't have time to start it and the power on the bird engine wasn't giving them enough to climb or maintain altitude.
@@michaelallen1396Yes. Probably what happened. Been an airline pilot for 25yrs and this is the most likely scenario. Been flying the 737-800 for over 15yrs. A compressor stall is scary and they panicked. Folks who live near that airport reported loud explosion sounds as this 73 went around.
i'm a layman but that was my initial question. if you can fly around you can find the start of the runway. also you can manually let the gear down. what's up doc?! 😂 if you accidentally shut down an engine, what do you need to do to restart and how long does it take? thanks
@@apexclip3458as a pilot, you think they panicked and put the plane down in the middle of the runway no gear. that suggests no training or inadequate training or some serious panic.
Like he said, it's very possible that they decided to go around BEFORE the bird strikes, precisely trying to avoid that. You still had one engine and you could maintain everything under normal control - if they had damage on both engines on a clean configuration (which the compressor stall video appears to corroborate) they did not have that option. Perhaps they could have resumed immediate emergency landing, but then again without HYD and only partial electrics they would have landed even faster than what they did.
According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport on the 30th, Captain Han served as a pilot in the Air Force before joining Jeju Air in 2014. He was promoted to captain in March 2019. To date, his total flight time is 6,823 hours, with approximately 2,500 of those hours as a captain over the past five years." Former colleagues recalled him as a skilled and disciplined pilot. "I remember Captain Han (then an instructor) as someone who strictly adhered to regulations and procedures and never compromised when it came to safety."
Definitely skilled to pull off that turn and get on the runway. The go around decision was so unfortunate. Understandable given an unstable approach but in this circumstance being land minded would have been better Also I think the entire event was 3 minutes so even if they switched on the APU instantaneously they would only have had electrical power available for 1 min 30 secs max I think anyone blaming the crew here doesn’t understand the time and startle effect. And the fact they got safely back on the ground and were foiled by a concrete wall which is just ridiculous Extremely easy to say from a comfy chair and with hindsight but the only thing they could of done after deciding to go around would be either A) ditch the go around and dive for the runway before they had cleaned up and raised the gear B) FO starts the apu puts it online when available then waits for the captain to call that they’ll definitely make the runway and manually extend the gear. All of this would require a lot of initiative and coordination in an incredibly hectic situation. And would technically be poor QRH discipline as they’re not following abnormal situation checklists and just acting on gut instinct
@@mm89coyrHe and the FO skillfully landed the plane. Go around or not, he put the malfunctioning aircraft down. He would have likely taken the souls on board to safety IF a concrete barrier wasn’t in place. Go around really doesn’t matter-many rational decisions were made in a bad situation. This was an excellent pilot.
@@Anca820 Nope. He did NOT "put the malfunctioning aircraft down". If he had maybe it would have stopped on the runway, or at least exited it at a speed more compatible with more survivors. Instead he skated off the end of the runway in ground effect at a basically undiminished speed. Bad idea.
Not buying it. The whole purpose of these data recorders is to survive and keep recording AT ALL COSTS. Otherwise, what's the point? Never heard of one not recording data due to ANY issue.
@@lexerdaniel4843 The problem is that there is no data to recover (at least for the last 4 minutes). The black boxes stopped recording. The NTSB can't recover something that doesn't exist.
This has to be the most ludicrous thing I ever heard, the flight recorders shut down when there's an emergency. WTF I thought FDR has its own emergency backup power source.
This model was built/designed before they became mandatory. FAA later ruled in the 90s all recorders to have backup power, Boeing issued an advisory, likely the operator or original plane orderer took it as just that - advice - different country different laws, and Jeju would never have had to operate in US airspace to comply with FAA
Normally they do. Apparently this older model of 737-800 isn't equipped with independent backup battery power for both the FDR and CVR. Someone on here said that didn't become standard practice until the 2010 models starting rolling out.
@@mipmipmipmipmip-v5x Because they were a foreign carrier, with no obligation to meet FAA requirements, this plane never got a battery backup. But, as an aviation maintenance tech, I'm not sure why they weren't installing them in airliners 50 years ago as standard practice.
This is looking more and more like the worst of the worst case scenarios for a pilot. Very little if any thrust, no electrical and very close to the ground. I agree with you that they probably did drop the handle for the gear but there's no way they would have seen the indications with everything else going on. My heart really goes out to these guys this is absolutely terrifying. Regardless of when they chose to go around, once they did they were doomed. 3 or 4 minutes may sound like a long time but it is nothing considering they had to figure out what happened and then prepare that aircraft to get it on the runway. With no thrust I think my concern would definitely be making the runway and I can certainly see how that type of stressed tunnel vision could keep a pilot from seeing those gear indications. This is just so horrifying
@@Tracy-zr9mg and if it was some swiss cheese technical and total electrical failure preventing even APU startup, they got it down level, on the runway, and kept it on the runway somehow, which would be one hell of a heroic achievement, if it weren't for some folk deciding to build a reinforced concrete aircraft exploder just past the end of the runway.
"once they did they were doomed". No they weren't. The landing was good. If the airport had no death-wall they all would have survived. Also, if the pilot was told about the death-wall when he requested to land in the opposite direction, he probably would have preferred to do a Scully landing on the water.
@@cyber5515 he clearly was able to steer to stay on the runway. He could have easily gone off sideways into the grass after getting the plane down on the runway, if he'd only known about the concrete antennae mount. Likely no radios though even if ATC had known of the hazard.
@cyber5515 First of all, "they were doomed" is a direct reference to that fortress at the end of the runway. Also, no pilot I don't care who you are is going to choose a water landing when there is a Runway right there. Also, there was no time at all to advise the pilots of any obstructions at the end of the runway and it probably never entered the mind of anybody there. The decision was no thrust means get on runway now or end up in the water. The water is THE LAST place any pilot puts a passenger aircraft down. This was only a few minutes there was no time for discussions and decisions about what was at the end of the runway. Scully was everything being just right for a water landing. This situation was everything going wrong at once and the worst luck in history with that unbelievably robust antenna installation. These guys went through every pilots worst nightmare in a span of four minutes. God bless them
Solid overview. I'm a retired WSO and the media speculation has been horrendous. Obviously plenty of questions remain but thanks for the intelligent update.
Well, the speculation in these threads are even worse, complete with full on blame game and criminal pursuit. And they love to pump up each other like in an echo chamber, leaving the sane threads pretty much untouched.
@@gottagowork i agree, speculation is one thing, but blaming the pilot is not on, whatever the circumstance which we will never know or understand, i think the pilot made a valiant attempt, but sadly went south with other failures and running out of time - its just sad putting the wheels up might have been the final hole in the Swiss cheese lineup, i wonder if this might have changed the outcome with wheels down and the aircraft riding higher, but most likely the plane would have shot over the berm and still bust into flames, i suppose flying with wheels down is against procedures, and its easy for us to say having had so long to think about it, the plane is broke, it won't make any difference i think a natural pilot instinct, while on an approach to avoid birds, would be to climb, in this case would make the final approach dangerous when running out of runway, so a go round had to be performed - if only the flight continued down through or below the birds to the runway with no go round from bird strike to landing or possible crash landing, the pilot had around two minutes to access and decides the outcome, he bought everyone 2 more minutes, i can imagine everyone cheering as they touched down and then nothing - of course we will never learn and planes will still crash
“We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.”
I honestly think they may have a full failure or accidentally shut off with the left engine 1, because you cant see the heat wave and left reverser not engaged. Sad!!
@@mautre Except we don't. There hasn't been any confirmation of anything regarding the left engine. All we know is we have a video of a compressor stall on engine no. 2, and a video that suggests exhaust was coming out of that engine and not engine no. 1 at landing.
@@MTStingrayexactly - and engine nr2 has dmg on ground and engine nr1 doesnt. Which means birds didnt enter engine nr1... they shut it down in a rush by mistake
As far as I know, there are backup batteries on the 737 but they are dedicated to supply the cockpit with power in a case of generator failures, NOT the recorders!
What an outstanding, straightforward, thorough presentation of facts and analysis. So much info, presented in a way that even laypeople and GA pilots like myself can understand and appreciate. Always impresses me just how little time pilots have to make life and death decisions. And can we just state the obvious...if somebody hadn't decided to build a WALL at the end of a runway, many of those passengers and crew might still be alive.
Initial loss of ADS-B data (through the selected transponder) seemed to coincide with the bird strike. Now we find out that the CVR and the FDR quit almost at the same time as the ADS-B ceasing transmitting. Suggests to me cascading electrical failures because they are powered by different buses.
@@michaelallen1396 I could sense this from the outset, i could fill both sides of an A4 paper with remarkable and suspect anomalies from an aeronautical engineering aspect to media and human psychology factors...the manner in which every msm outlet reports word for word the drip fed info, Just the way the same plane incident footage was replayed over and over and over..which media outlets rarely do if fataliites are involved, (normally blurred out)..why we convientiently have so much footage of the plane in general..(not normal)..president impeachment on same day..both survivors (both) mysteriously have amnesia..Re: the grieving factors, If your whole family had just been wiped out, would you be so calm and playing on your phone..not a sore red eye in sight..no tears just fake acting..The high quality footage available immediently following the explosion would have shown fragments of human remains everywhere..the grass was pristine..the plane went through two walls not one according to the footage..this wasn't mentioned...we still have no names released of the Victims..sherlock homes is turning in his grave with all the obvious clues on this pre-planned psi-op..
@@michaelallen1396 There's no way for the locals to tamper with the CVR before it was sent to the NTSB. If it had been tampered with, it would have been noticed by the NTSB. The CVR is powered by the #1 AC Transfer Bus. Not the hot battery bus. It is supposed to have a backup battery but this aircraft CVR didn't have one.
That's because the impact to engine #2 is so much more dramatic. You have two engines that just ate an unknown quantity of birds. #2 is experiencing severe compressor stalls, the other one isn't. For some inexplicable reason they shut down the #1 engine. Would hardly be the first time a plane crashed because someone shut off the wrong engine.
If the fan blades were damaged on the right engine, pulling the reverser would probably have had the opposite effect, as the center core of the engine would spool up and increase thrust, whereas the damaged fan would probably not exert any thrust to the reverser. This might explained why the plane did not seem to slow down by any means, while skidding down the runway…
Ok,,,,,,,so this is why we hear ,,in vids,,,,,engines spinning up,,,with no effect on reversers,....( but still power???,, why loss of C.V.R.??,,,, alot of questions to be made here😮
They were going way, way too fast. That one thrust reverser, working at a fraction of capacity, was like pissing into the wind. The plane was still technically flying, with minimal contact between the aircraft and runway. From the video of the bird ingestion, we know that #2 was suffering severe compressor stalls. The #1 engine wasn't. They shut down the wrong engine, immediately cutting electrical and hydraulic power (gonna go out on a limb and say batteries were bad when they tried switching to standby electrical). Then they failed to switch critical systems over to system B on the #2 (right) engine. Hydraulic system B was working or thrust reverser #2 would not have deployed. This means they should have still had the gear and flaps down and would have also had spoilers and brakes. It is probable electric system B was also functioning. Engines are designed to withstand bird ingestion and continue running at reduced power. Sometimes you get way more birds than is probable, such as with the Miracle on the Hudson. That doesn't appear to be the case here. It is unlikely either engine suffered an uncontained blade failure, which would be necessary in order to break things like electrical generators or hydraulic pumps and/or sever wires and hydraulic lines. A bird strike definitely won't cause the immediate failure of critical systems. But shutting down the wrong engine will. And it would hardly be the first time that has resulted in a fatal crash. If they hadn't shut down #1, and they hadn't foolishly attempted a downwind landing in a damaged plane, they could have gotten around the pattern and had time to properly configure for landing. It is highly doubtful they ever ran any checklists. They were in such a hurry to get on the ground that they basically just flew right into it.
I did not do it correctly. The landing gear can be extended without electrical power. Just behind the center console FO’s side is a cover that can be opened to expose three red handles attached to a cable that goes to each landing gear. Pulling the handle unlocks the gear up locks and the landing gear free falls to the down and locked position. Then you also have brakes via the electrically powered hydraulic system that provides pressure from the electric hydraulic pumps.
I was always under the impression that the black box was practically indestructible & reliable almost always. The only time I hear of black box data not able to be recovered is when a plane falls into the ocean. This is the first time I’ve heard of an incident like this. I’m not an expert or anything but I’m just surprised this is the first I’ve heard of this in my 38 years of searching plane crashes with a morbid curiosity and obsession.
(I’m just a person that consumes aviation content to overcome a fear of planes, so please forgive if this is just inexperience talking) When I was watching the footage for the first time, I remember thinking “oh no. They think the landing gear is down”. To me, it looked as though the plane was almost hovering at the height you’d expect landing gear to make contact with the runway, for the first half of the runway. The belly landing seemed more like a last minute reflexive reaction than an executed plan. An act of self-preservation like putting your arm out to break a fall. It seems pilots are universally bewildered by the way the plane tolerated this bird strike. I wonder if this tragedy has uncovered an engineering blindspot as it pertains to the impact potential of bird strikes. I feel sorry for any pilot confronted with such a novel issue, especially if they are fated with landing at an airport with a stupid concrete wall at the end of the runway.
Je trouve que la première partie de votre remarque est très pertinente, personne n’a encore souligné qu’ils a mis du temps à abaisser l’avion au sol. Certes il y a un effet de sol qui joue mais on a bien l’impression qu’il croit avoir le train sorti.
Thats a possible scenario but it could also be as other channels have noted "ground effect" which is lift created by a wing travelling at speed close to the ground. it changes the wings profile and acts like a cushion under the wing meaning the pilot would need to cut more power or drop the nose more to allow the aircraft to settle on the runway. Its a good observation though, I dont think we will ever know really the root cause thank to Boeing's design and the poor regulations with no retro fitting of backup power for the recorders
It could be that they were hoping that the gear was down because the gear can use gravity to come down to? Maybe he pulled the lever. And it just didn't come down in time.
Problem I have with this analysis is this: You loose both engines and all power with gear/flaps in landing config, you land the plane. What you don't do it retract gear, raise flaps go around and do a 180 to land. Totally doesn't make sense with the loss of all power explanation.
If they tried to avoided birds on approach that means the approach became unstable which is why they went around. By every rule out there going around was acceptable and appropriate when it comes to the regulation.
A few comments: 1:05 The plane arrived at the runway going way too fast (~190 knots) so any concern about not reaching the runway was misplaced as more speed could have been traded for distance and that would have been desirable. That is, the plane probably could have intersected the runway closer to its threshold and at a lower speed. But judging that is a maneuver that the pilots maybe had no simulator training to achieve. The plane unfortunately DIDN'T touch down, apart from an initial tail strike and some scraping of the engine cowlings, until a few hundred meters short of exiting the runway when the first major contact occurred. Slamming harder onto the engines (the belly never touched) might have given them a chance to slow down. Or it might have munged the wings and caused an earlier explosion. 1:20 The FDR and CDR nowadays have batteries, effective with planes built in 2010. But this plane was built in 2009. There are electrical generators on both engines, so no electricity implies both engines not turning fast enough to power the generators. (Edit: Or the erratic speed of a compressor-stalling engine can cause an AC generator to trip off, I have learned.) 0:45 "Electrical failure" does not explain directly why the gear and flaps were not extended. The former requires hydraulic pressure, not electricity, and dropping the gear can be done manually, in about 10 seconds to pull the unlatch cords in a floor mount behind the right seat followed by 20- seconds for the gear (2 main gears and the nose gear) to drop. My impression is that there ought to be enough reserve hydraulic pressure to drop the gear and extend the flaps even with both engines not running. 22:50 If you watch Mentour's video on a 2-engine loss in a 737 you will notice that an electrical emergency blanks out the F)'s display [edit: the FO's, i.e. the right seat's display] until the APU cuts in. So the pilots WOULD know that had happened. But the gear was observed dropped, then were retracted by the time of the cellphone video of a compressor stall, so that might have used up considerable hydraulic pressure. [edit: The SPOILERS require hydraulic pressure, even if the flaps don't, as I understand it.]
Without flaps, clean speed would be around 195-210 kts weight depending. Without flaps it looks like they were at about the right speed? Of course not getting gear down (open hatch in floor, pull 3 cables to the stops, *interesting without elec power did they get 3 red gear indications too late?) for accumulator braking (without hydraulics you cannot pump brakes but a few applications held will work) was a major factor, as was lack of electrical power from APU. I'm not sure how early they got the machine down, but gliding a 737 for a perfect touch down on the numbers is extremely difficult. Time and workload was likely excruciating for the crew. The electrical power from APU and getting electric hydraulic power functioning again would be crucial. Without it no normal gear (thereby brakes), flaps, spoilers. 60-90 seconds to start an apu, largely flick a switch, wait, then select APU generators online. Easy to say sat here, they had complete surprise, an aircraft not flying properly, thrust problems, surging engine (likely), and no runway infront of them after the go around. I feel lessons will be learned here about continuing landing from the initial approach bird strikes, but this takes skill and simulator training to be ready. Some airlines already learned this lesson already (but perhaps not all of them!), others perhaps have less concentration on it thus far. I foresee a lot more training in that area, and possibly a memory action for engine damage to start APU and get power back sooner before waiting for QRH checklists. This event likely borders into survival training. The normal procedures largely cater for single point failures, and not complex multiple failures of numerous systems, hence the need for catastrophic failures with concentration on survival instincts. Turning for the runway, getting electrical and hydraulic power back, getting gear, flaps, brakes working, and getting on the ground. Easily said than done. This crew must have faced a terrible situation and it only got worse after the attempted go around. We need more survival training, more complex failure training. Concentration on early decision making, continuing approaches with engine failures, maintaining control and stability, and getting the APU online with zero delay. If already configured early with gear and flap at 7 miles you can likely land, if you configure late at 4.0 with power loss you are in real trouble. This in effect substantiates a safer approach configuring early as per standard Boeing procedures. By doing that you are better safeguarding the landing before hitting birds. The machine is more stable, and already configured able to land and stop in the event of multiple failures. Another lesson could be having the APU running for any approach with known bird risks. In the event of power loss, you don't have to survive 60-90 seconds without power and normal hydraulics. In a last minute bird strike at low level, you can restore electrics and hydraulics quickly. The 737 800 would require crew action to place the APU generators online, however interestingly the 737 MAX would automatically place the APU generators online, restoring all instruments, electrical and hydraulic systems. None of what I have said, completely understands exactly what happened in this crash, we simply don't know enough, but here I give you some 'experienced' comments in relation to this type. Lessons can be learned but it will take Boeing and airlines to want to learn and adapt. This isn't the first dual engine damage event on approach. Did we learn the lessons all those years ago that were staring us in the face? Think about the 738 Rome Champino incident, were the full lessons learned across the industry?
@@richsyoutube2852 "...were the full lessons learned across the industry?" Obviously not. "Without flaps it looks like they were at about the right speed? " Right for what? Not for landing successfully. It seems to me that they could have traded speed for distance with a nose-up angle of attack, but I'm not criticizing them for not pulling that off. I'm maybe criticizing them for not attempting it despite not being trained on the scenario since it was maybe their best hope to survive, but assigning fault to them is of not what I'm interested in. (If it happens it happens, though. The "wait for the investigation" folks are special pleaders.) Adding this scenario to simulator training is a must, IMHO. What I AM criticizing them for is not smushing the engines into the runway when they realized they were going to fly off the end in ground effect at an undiminished speed. That made more fatalities more probable. "... if you configure late at 4.0 with power loss you are in real trouble." Yep, they were in real trouble. The bird strike was more like at 2.0, iirc. "Another lesson could be having the APU running for any approach with known bird risks." Sounds good to me. I think the MEL allows you to fly w/o a functional APU, however. Not a pilot, and I'm not sure of that.
@@gandydancer9710All well considered ideas, trouble is like anything, expert pilots know the systems well, and have the experience and knowledge to realise some of your ideas wouldn't work in real life the way you are thinking. You need a lot of knowledge to understand the reality of this aircraft crash. Even then it's almost impossible to work out what happened. Every man/woman to their trade! You literally have to be type rated and experienced on type to know how this incident would have possibly felt to the crew. Only huge experience and knowledge could possibly allow appropriate choices instantly. Be in no doubt, good fortune would play its part and having great flight crew really performing well as a team instantly. Some well trained crew do train for similar incidents in the sim, and let me tell you, it's not fun! To try to help explain, speed: Up speed without flap is indicated on the PFD, any slower would be unsafe for manoeuvring in the way this plane clearly must have doe some sharp turns. You can't fly much slower safely. Maybe with time, they could perhaps land nearer to 175-180 kts clean for touchdown, but unlikely to be any slower or they could stall. In theory, land slower would be nice, but that requires flaps. You can't steeply bank, turn and make it back slowly, in fact, the aircraft would glide less with increased drag. In addition, it's not the right technique to smash the engines into the runway at high speed. Experience dictates that an aircraft skidding without any wheel braking, spoilers (dump weight, increase braking and friction), reversers skids and skids. The industry is learning that it takes way more runway than anyone would expect, it's a huge distance to stop a jet going at that speed without stopping devices normally used. In relation to being at 2.0, they were configured with landing gear and flap ready to land. Imagine engine thrust varying, surging 'banging' engines, unstable yaw and roll from engine failure, thrust changes, and you start to get the idea of an aircraft continuing to land and how difficult it is for a pilot to continue and land. All without warning. It can be done is all I will say but not easily. In theory for landing you are in the best configuration already at 2.0 miles, and it isn't going to get any bette with damaged engines after retracting gear and flaps and trying to do a circuit on damaged engines. This is a far better and safer configuration than what they appear to have faced. It appears through good intention they had just enough thrust and time to retract flap, and gear, and climb alongside the runway. This isn't the first time this has happened in this way. In reality your only real option is getting the bird onto the runway if it's already configured. Keeping damaged engines running at low thrust if damaged generally is more successful than stressing them at full go around thrust to the point of destruction.
The problem with the 'engines not turning fast enough'. A simple windmilling of the engines at above-stall speeds is more than sufficient to provide power for critical components, including the FDR and CVR. And we know there was significantly more 'turn' than windmilling by the apparent exhaust coming out of engine no. 2. As for dropping the gear. Using the manual gear extension handles doesn't require any hydraulic pressure. It's designed to solely take advantage of gravity, so that in the event of complete hydraulic failure, the gear can still be extended. We may never get the data on those last few minutes of flight, but I will adamantly stand by my assumption they never even pulled those handles. In the panic of the moment, I don't think the fact the gear was no longer extended ever crossed their minds, as they were likely hyperfocused on getting on the ground.
The FDR is connected to the Battery Buss, so for it to loose power means you have to loose battery power, and they should be good for 30 min without any generators.
Someone else had pointed out that in a high bypass turbo jet, only the bypass gasses are reversed, while the exhaust gasses continue to provide thrust. The exhaust gasses only provide 20% thrust in an engine with a healthy fan. With the fan damaged from a bird strike, it could be that the exhaust was overpowering the bypass gasses. Hence, forward thrust with reverser activated.
Possibly, but they should still get significant drag from the blocker doors which have stopped the bypass air flowing out the back of the reversed engine.
At Halifax In 2004, MK Airlines B747 during takeoff had also struck an earthen berm supporting the ILS localizer antenna positioned 300 meters (980 ft) beyond the end of the runway 24. The jet's lower rear belly had impacted the berm during rotation.
4 minutes before the crash... Stops recording... Have its own battery? I think the fact it stopped recording answers your question? It did not have a battery... It was not required at the time... 1 year later it was.
I did some research. Only newer ones apparently. Also, you need the audio from the cockpit to still reach the CVR, and I don't know if that needs any power.
Black boxes could be manually stopped. Because if you have an incident and landed, and don't stop them, the plane sitting on the ground will start overwriting the recording with nothing. The loop is only 90 minutes. This has happened before when the pilots forgot and ground crew arrived in the cockpit late. Or something happens in the air and you don't land for hours later. They should extend the loop to 100 hours and record video . Pilots union against it though.
@@Juttutin shocking that such crucial devices (FDR, CVR) are still relying on extremely old technology. You’re right when it comes to the cockpit microphones: they also probably need power from the aircraft and will then stop working in case of electrical failure. But again, a little microphone powered by small, long lasting pill cell batteries can be purchased in any department store for a few dollars. Just inconceivable.
-Crew shuts down wrong engine after bird ingestion. The flames were coming from #2. -Standby electrical doesn't work because cheap azz carrier didn't maintain batteries properly -Crew fails to switch to electrical system B -Crew fails to switch to hydraulic system B -Crew fails to initiate APU start -Crew obsessed with getting plane on ground as quickly as possible when they should have known how that was likely to turn out -Crew decides to make a downwind landing -Crew approaches way too fast and tries to force plane onto runway while still waaaay above stall speed and still technically flying -Crew is unable to stop with just one thrust reverser operating on a severely damaged engine which is probably producing more forward thrust than reverse thrust -Crew flies plane right into reinforced concrete wall, inexplicably placed right at the end of a runway -Everyone except the two cabin crew in the rearmost jumpseats is dead, the plane is pulverized and Texas barbecued apart from the tail section and we have no FDR or CVR data Simple.
Come on, we have all hit birds at sometime and the generator (CSD) output does not vary with engine thrust lever movement. The battery on a 737 supplies essential power up to 30 minutes, more than enough time to start the APU. There is a lot that we are not being told here.
It’s possible the accessory drive gearbox was damaged (blade failure). Also, a serviceable APU is not part of the MEL so possibly inop on that aircraft. Either way, after what looked like a bird strike in both engines (according to the video) it’s likely TOGA thrust further damaged them.
@@davidtappenden6964 I didn't notice or pay attention myself, but some have noticed the aircraft came in completely dark; no strobes or beacon, no nav lights. Is that a feasible explanation, or would it be hard to notice lights on that footage? I take it a MEL is signed off prior to takeoff, so should be easy to track?
@@gottagowork 2 crippled engines would severely limit their go-around options, and would help explain the teardrop manoeuvre (‘impossible turn’) they opted for. With 2 crippled engines and possibly smoke in cabin, your top priority is to reach the runway. Having done a few dead stick landings myself, it’s all about max glide ratio vs min sink ratio, hence no flaps and gear extended. Without sufficient thrust to maintain height, there would be no time to complete the checklist let alone start up the APU (no RAT on a 737). And yes, if that a/c was on emergency (battery) bus, then it’s wuite a dark flight deck, and could explain why the surviving cabin crew didn’t realise what was going on, as no cabin public address available on battery power.
very strange situation, very rarely , hardly ever , bird strike would down the plane , and I’ve never heard of birds taking out both engines … and flight recorder stopped working 4 minutes before crash ??? … hmmm … something doesn’t quite add up here …
@@flyingformoney777right, but they landed , nobody died , and flight recorder was working … but again , very very rarely that happens… that Hudson thing is the only one situation I can think off , where birds would take out both engines
@@damirzanne that's enough of a situation to prove that it is possible, as rare as it might be. Nobody died in the Hudson because they were fortunate enough to 1) have an extremely experienced, glider and military trained pilot on board and 2) they did not hit a concrete wall at 150mph. The data recorders were still working because it was an Airbus, not a Boeing.
I also simply refuse to believe the stupidity of the idea that black box recorders are not battery-backed. Cant imagine, as an electrical engineer, anything more ludicrous.
Well, when you don't have a dedicated battery backup, pilots shut down the wrong engine and standby power doesn't work because they didn't properly maintain the batteries, this can happen. The crew likely had a functional system B (hydraulic system B was definitely working because of the thrust reverser being deployed, meaning they should have had gear, flaps, spoilers, brakes.), they just didn't turn the knobs to make it happen.
Where is the CVR prior to the 4 min blackout? Where is the record of the conversation between ATC and the pilots during the crash? There should be more transparency to the public!
This helps explain a lot, thank you for your analysis. The two things I still don't make sense to me are why the landing gear wasn't -- or couldn't be -- extended; and why the CVR and FDR stopped recording. If there was some kind of catastrophic electrical failure aircraft-wide -- like something that had the same effect as an EMP (not even sure what that would be) -- that could explain it. But if engine 2 was producing some power, then shouldn't it have been providing enough electricity for nominal operations? Or could it be damaged in such a way that it still produces some thrust but cannot charge the generator? Very strange all around.
@@teijaflink2226 Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Either something catastrophic shut down all electrical systems or the pilots did not properly respond to the emergency. Or perhaps both. But with the landing gear -- I don't see how that could be anything but pilot error. Either they forgot, or tried to lower the gear normally but didn't check to make sure they had three green, or simply didn't know how to do it manually. I can't think of anything that would make the manual extension inoperable?
After the generators tripout, if the engine generators come into operation the crew must manually put them back on line, connecting them to the main buses. It is not automatic,
It’s not. They wouldn’t send them to the NTSB for analysis if they were hiding something. The NTSB can extract damaged data better than any agency in the world.
If the pilots had made some massive panic error like shutting down an engine in a hurry and getting the wrong one, it would be very convenient for the image of some concerned parties for the recordings to be blank.
From a Pilot to a Pilot, really well explained! I'm so happy that you are talking about the human factors whilst guessing what conspired in the cockpit. Far too many UA-camrs(armchair pilots) are talking like if they were there, they could have done things differently. When shit hits the fan, in this case the birds, you have very limited time to react. The outcome of the Miracle on the Hudson could have been very different, had it been a red-eye flight or the last leg of a 4 sector day.
OK, first of all, the fact that those black boxes do not appear to have internal batteries to keep them recording in case of total catastrophic power failure is absolutely blisteringly stupid and utterly unforgiveable. Among the worst engineering decisions I have ever heard of. Unbelievable. Those things should keep recording despite having nothing attached to them, totally free of the airframe and falling through the atmosphere, all the way to the bottom of the ocean, using nothing but totally internalized emergency power supplies.
Even if FDR is still operating, it needs the Data streams from aircraft systems, CVR can probably work easier with loss of EDG, it only needs one or more mic and Batt. The underwater detection Pingers are powered by relatively tiny, internal batts which may still operate for 30-60 days for SLB
Not having at least the CVR on it's own backup battery does look like another half-assed Boeing design... Evidently the regulations didn't require it when this aircraft was built.
nope, still have the APU and even if that is gone as well they have to have a minimum of 30 minutes battery. But even total electrical failure you can still lower the gear.
@@Fastvoice which goes right back to the question of why did they rush to land instead of circling and working the problem. And again it was 4 minutes, so they had plenty of battery power. Something very strange happened.
@@TheDornado shut down the wrong engine on the checklist? Makes sense. But once the rwy is made you’ve got to lower the gear!! Had they done that at the right time (which would have been a judgement call) they touch down sooner with the increased drag and could actually use brakes….
@@TheDornado I'm pretty sure there was no real reason for a go-around and circling in the first place. They most likely could have just landed initially and properly with gear, flaps, spoilers and brakes (maybe without thrust reversers but that would have been okay).
@@wf4919 I think that is the likeliest scenario and they just got behind the plane and missed the gear. I just can't figure out why they were going so fast in any scenario. Even without the dumb concrete wall that plane would have broken apart with how fast they were going when they ran off the runway. Such a senseless crash.
The man, a flight attendant identified only by his surname, Lee, had "already been rescued" when he woke up, the hospital official said. "(Lee’s) fully able to communicate," Woong added. “There's no indication yet of memory loss or such." The woman, 25-year-old flight attendant named Koo, was also recovering, though not in intensive care, hospital staff and officials with the Korean Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport said. Neither survivor had life-threatening injuries, the ministry said, adding that both had awoken in the hospital without a clear recollection of what had happened after they heard a blast during the landing.
They're not going to have much information to provide. I would be surprised if the flight crew even got around to calling the flight attendants or making an announcement.
Wait..I thought main battery also provide power to both CVR and FDR? If so than CVR and FDR should continue to function even while losing both engines and generators, no?
I always thought that both flight recorders were able to operate independently from the status of the aircraft systems. My idea was that the flight recorders, which store the data on flash memory, had an onboard backup battery, lasting many hours after the main power is removed. I guess it is time to modify the FDR and ADR - to include a back-up battery...
I don't buy official explanation for multitude of reasons. Why is data from FDR and CVR hidden from public view? When engine number 1 cut off? Who was flying that aircraft? Korean drawing shows aircraft veering to the left and rapidly turning right, this would suggest pilot seating in right chair flying, it will be hard for captain to see the runway. Was captain incapacitated? Aircraft had a power to claim on 1 engine. Backup generator should have been operational. Boeing 737 has APU and triple battery backup systems. Power to FDR and CVR goes through the breaker on the panel behind pilot seat, breaker with red rim around it. Was it tripped? When generators switches are in "auto" position, generator switch is automatic, was "off" position engaged by mistake? Generator will not restart without manual pull of lever, engineering function only. Triple generator, triple battery backup is not all safeguards built to preserve FDR and CVR data. Each recorder sits in own enclosure with additional battery backup. Airline engineers are not allowed to work on FDR and CVR assemblies, they are send to special facilities for maintenance and repair as assemblies. Triple power redundancy doesn't stop tape or memory based recorders unless both generators were off, APU wasn't engaged and battery system backing up generators was completely discharged. Structurally aircraft was intact, birds didn't destroy electrical system. Here is simple explanation of black boxes on aircraft www.madehow.com/Volume-3/BlackBox.html#:~:text=The%20Flight%20Data%20Recorder%20and,devices%2C%20and%20a%20signal%20beacon.
Sorry, something does not add up, never mind the fact that the #2 engine was presumably running all the way down the runway until this unfortunate impact. Where did the 30 minutes of battery power go? Does somebody in the cockpit have the ability to pull the relevant data/voice C/B's 4 minutes before the fatal crash in this Boeing model, because they might have shut #1 by mistake and it would really look bad later on? Just wondering because this just DOES NOT make any sense at all to this helicopter guy. Also around the same time the ADS-B stopped transmitting which got me wondering what was going on.
@@Fastvoice Right, that came a year later in 2010. But it doesn't explain how an aircraft that *WAS* designed to power critical components from simple windmilling of the engines wasn't able to provide adequate power to the CVR and FDR (which don't take much) when it's clear the no. 2 engine was actively producing thrust as evidenced by the videos of the landing/crash.
The compressor stalls on #2 engine or possibly #1 as well looks likely occurred when the gear and possibly flaps were already retracted. Maybe the video shows compressor stalls after the initial bird strike.
They are, the 737 fleet alone did hundreds of millions of safe uneventful flights. It's the designers/managers of airports, politicians, greedy managers and CEOS stretching things to the limit that are to blame.
Nice explanation. I did have a lot of questions based on what media info I had read about the incident. This video helps answer some of them. I'm a retired USAF heavy aircraft crew chief and figured the only way the CVR and FDR would both fail like that is if both engine-driven generators failed (seemed odd, given I thought I read that only the #1 engine failed from the bird strike) OR the pilots intentionally (unlikely) or unintentionally did something to cause the #2 generator to quit working. CVR and FDR should both be powered by one of the battery busses, and should have been able to receive battery charging through #2 transformer-rectifier to sustain their power needs. I wasn't aware, until watching your video, that the #2 engine was experiencing compressor stalls. I might have missed it, but did you mention or do you know anything yet about why that engine was having that issue? Did it also take one or more birds through the core? I was also wondering why they didn't emergency extend the landing gear and flaps before landing, though insufficient power from the one good engine limiting available altitude and time to work with would certainly seem to explain those issues. I also wonder if jettisoning whatever excess fuel possible would have helped any with their landing speed.
@Flying for Money: Thanks for the video. Does this new information rule out the possibility that the pilots shut down the wrong engine by accident after the bird strike? It seems like you implied that, but I'm a little confused if that is still a possible explanation for the loss of thrust in engine 2, or if the timeline from bird strike to recording failure rules that out?
@user-pf5xq3lq8i 0 seconds ago It has not happened before except on the gimley glider where they were many many hours on battery. This is a coverup and this channel here is confidently pushing it.
The black boxes were flown to the US and analyzed by the NTSB, so the NTSB is essentially saying that, and that kind of makes me suspicious. I hope Korean representatives were there at all times when this data downloading and decoding was done.
@@kbboy101 Are you suggesting that the data was deleted to make Boeing look better? There isn't really reason to suspect a Boeing 737 model from the late 90s (this one wasn't a newly build one) would have similar issues as the new ones which were build by DEI hires.
I don't understand why trying a go around when you are already on final and have landing config. its seems very uncertain. they don't know if they have power and then its better to just let the plane glide down to the runway. they would have made it.
@@contender2232 Peut être qu’ils ont heurté les oiseaux après la remise des gaz mais pourquoi le train n’était il pas sorti juste AVANT la remise des gaz ?
An unusual chain of events happened as the pilots dealt with it the best they thought and so far everything seems appropriate with only opinions what should have and shouldn't have been done. Those last 4 minutes were crucial and we don't have that information.
That cant be true when they shut down wrong engine and lost the power. Also how do you explain the landing without flaps and gear with all the warnings blarring at you in the cockpit? You can use manual emergency lever for gear using gravity.
@Izmael1310 We don't know if the pilot shut down the wrong engine or if both engines actually ingested birds. As far as we know it's multiple engine failure.
I agree. This was mayday urgency to land and choosing to risk the urgent impossible turn vs. a full go around. Clearly they lost control of speed, altitude, landing position.. These were trained military pilots not armchair flight simulator commandos casting random judgements.
Well that's a bummer. It's going to take a lot more forensics to determine what exactly happened and even then we will never know for sure if this was a survivable event. Yes, if they hit birds during the approach they should have continued to the runway or pulled a Sully and ditched in it the water. The key would have been energy management which the British Airways pilots that landed their crippled 777 (Flight 38 from Beijing to London) just short of the runway at Heathrow after a fuel starvation event to both engines executed brilliantly. Then again they might have hit that stupid concrete wall going the other way... Seems to me if the 737 loses both engine driven generators the APU should start automatically and the CVR & FDR should be on emergency power or have their own backup systems. How often are they required to load test those backup batteries I wonder?
Bird warning from ATC; pilot follows safety procedures and decides to go around to avoid birds, retracts gear and flaps, gains altitude; tragic bird strike possibly to both engines, electrical and partial HYD failure, pilot executes teardrop; lack of glider experience, due to ground effect lands after more than half the runway; finally, they hit a kamikaze deathtrap concrete wall at 150mph. There are some details that those 4mins of data could help clarify - especially if both engines were hit or if they accidentally shut the wrong engine. But the essential picture is clear: avoid building airports right next to where large flocks of large birds hang out; avoid putting a concrete wall in perfect alignment with the runway. The end.
@@zaratrusta79 Agree - especially if the birds were there before the airport otherwise, remove the reason they are gathering there. Sully did credit his glider experience in the US Air Force for helping him land his plane on the Hudson. With gliders and craft like the Space Shuttle, energy management is how they get back on the ground safely.
@@BlueSpruce2 Not to discredit Sully's heroic unflawed performance, he was still somewhat lucky that he had more altitude than Jeju when he lost both engines. This is also an issue with low-cost companies, they stretch standards to the limits and when shit like this happens you can see the diference. Better trained pilots like Sully tend to go to better companies...
There’s something really vague about this. When was the video of the engine flame-out taken. Was it prior to the go-around or after that? It can’t be before. At that time, the aircraft should’ve been fully configured for landing. Flaps extended and gear down. A stabilised approach criteria would be the aircraft fully conf at 1000ft, and I can see the go-around was initiated just below that altitude. If the video was taken before, then the question would be: “Why didn’t just continue the approach and land?”
A severe electrical failure does NOT explain why the gear wasn't deployed. There are three handles in the 737 cockpit that can be pulled to extend the landing gear by gravity. Plus the recorders are powered by battery in the event of an electrical failure.
The 737-800 recorders are on transfer buses, not essential buses. No power only on battery power. I discuss the gear issue towards the end of the video.
As someone pointed out not all black boxes have a backup, FAA regulations require it but older aircraft that never enter FAA airspace may not, the backup is an upgrade for them and so may not be fitted.
I am Korean. I don't speak English so I use a translator. Korea is becoming socialist due to the huge opposition party that pursues socialism and communism. The president was impeached due to the instigation and illegal activities of this opposition party. This Jeju Air accident occurred in a region that represents the opposition party. If this kind of accident had occurred in a region that represents the opposition party in Korea, the opposition party would have ultimately suffered political damage. Currently, the majority of the people are raising issues with the airport design, but the opposition party is criticizing the pilots and Jeju Air.
Not a pilot but to me, the pilots did their job. They got the plane back on the ground in resonantly good shape. The authorities screwed the pouch on this one. Building the ILS on top of a berm and a concrete wall, allowing development in line with the runway. I firmly believe most if not all the passengers would have serviced had it not been for the wall and there had been enough runout after the end of the runway.
So if the onboard battery should last for 30 minutes, and it went out in one, it's probably a short circuit. It also could have probably burned out something along the way preventing the normal operating scenario of some system. While there is a reason to power the flight data recorder from onboard power(independent battery powered recorder would have nothing to record in case of full blackout), it's strange that the voice recorder doesn't have an independent battery.
Why did they not just land in the First place? no engines required they where yards from the ground with Wheels and Flaps DOWN, WHO has wiped the last 4 mins of the recording then? AND WHY????????????????
Even with a breaker pulled a decent rips has 10-15 minutes of recording before it shuts off. Unless they had a bad rips battery, no way to tell unless you properly did the super easy functional check on it
This airport is a deathtrap, both with the poor management of birds and especially that damn wall. We may be able to tell if the pilots remembered to try to lower the gear and flaps if they recover those levers from the wreckage. Even if the levers were moved by the violence of the crash, there are likely to be witness marks showing the position at impact. Likely a distinction without a difference though.
"This airport is a deathtrap". Yep. => Millions of killer birds, a deathtrap wall and strange Twilight Zone effects that switch off electrical equipment.
I'm happy I have found this channel. The one is the only correct overview in tens of other videos where they just dancing on the bones to get views from any accident since it attracts attention.
In the video of the compressor stall, I don't see any gear deployed. Does that mean that the bird strike happened before they were in landing configuration? Or am I wrong.
It probably means they decided to go around precisely to try to avoid the birds, retracted flaps and gear, suddenly gained altitude and then the bird strike happens. So the bird strike happened after, not before they were in landing config.
I don't see anything that would have stopped the pilots from continuing the original approach. Unless they tried to go around before hitting the birds; maybe the go around was an attempt to avoid the birds.
End of the day, they did NOT need to go around. The distance they were from the airport, they could have landed 3 times over with their height and speed. Boeing 737 is a good glider in these situations, so their decision to TOGA is absolutely leaving a big question mark here.
End of the day, they *always* have the option to go around, even if it turns out to be a bad choice. The mantra is "if in doubt, go around", because most landing accidents happen because they chose *not* to go around, like that recent Cessna 525 Citation business jet in Brazil. That one, at least initially, appears to be a classic case of "get-there-itis" with fatal (1 fatality, the pilot, the rest got extremely lucky) consequences. Company policy also comes into play here. If, for whatever reason, they felt they were no longer in a stabilized approach - like maybe trying to avoid spotted birds - a go around is fully justified.
@@danchanner7887 1. We don't know when TOGA was initiated compared to what we see in the videos. 2. That is speculation. White particulates exiting both engines right before the more visible compressor stall. 3. We have no idea about their options at this point. If both engines were affected and didn't produce enough trust, or at all, with the possibility of a complete electrical failure just to make everything a lot worse, how can you even criticize a tear-drop return? Nor does it qualify as "get-there-itis". Loss of near complete trust (we don't know), complete electrical failure hindering easy control (we don't know), hydraulics failures (we don't know), smoke filling the cabin/cockpit preventing good visibility (we don't know). The maneuver suggest an extreme sense of urgency, and if a variety of those factors are true, I would probably come to "land immediately" over "let's do 15 minutes of checklists" as well. Simply put, there is no "they should have" without the preliminary report out. But again, a decision to go around should *never* be criticized. We have no idea what was going on in the pilots heads when they did.
To show an alternate design. Show how improved human factors might help in high stress situations. Or how engineering and design can provide redundant operations without manual intervention.
Great report Bud. As a non flyer , thats a lot of stuff coming at ya in a short time. The human capacity kicks in, such a shame the ppl who put that runway obstruction at the end of the runway were not on that plane. Im a builder . lts so easy to excavate a footing and use the earth as form work ,than to form up and strip above ground. Unless the area is rock and excavation is a big job. I gotta assume that was the case and thats what happens when accounts call the shots.
Thanks. My understanding is that the airport is in typhoon country and the reinforcement was to make it resistant to 150 mph winds. Still, should not have been there.
It is an impressive overwhelming series of events putting the Pilots on an unique, unimaginable and untrained situation. I’ve flown the 737 and flying the EMBRAER now it’s clear to see how the legacy (grandfather rights) Certification Standards also play a role into this sad accident. EMBRAER 2004 design putz the Pilot on a more “comfortable” position because of RAT and system architecture! God bless the Pilots and their families!
Yeah and look what happened to that embraer that crashed from the Russian missile, manual reversion like the 737 has could have saved that plane ?. Jeju would have survived if it wasn’t for that Loc mound
People have to realize the 737 fleet did hundreds of millions of boring uneventful flights. I still find it astonishing though that someone would design an aircraft and not include data recorders on backup power redundancy. Bad Boeing. Bad Jeju. And above all very very bad, unbelievably stupid and criminal infrastructure design.
The testimony from the two surviving crew members are even more crucial now. If there was indeed a massive electrical failure then they should be able to corroborate it. Mind blowing how a bird strike can knockout the entire electrical system on a 737
They will be coached on what to say it wont matter the truth is gone now
Boeing and SK officials scrubbing everything its all a game
Still looks like the accidentally shut down wrong engine
@@yogamon It's still really bad if you kill the both engines all electric power shuts down. You don't have the time to start APU. Everything gets much harder if you don't have electric power. No instruments, no air speed. A guessing game. Maybe they didn't know how fast they were going, and wanting to be on the safe side not stall the plane out. It's a real tragegy. But it's a shame that Boeing doesn't have RAM turbine or a battery backup that are immediately kicking in.
I still believe with all of these electrical failures. The concrete wall was the ice on the cake!
No minimal battery backup on the recorders are you kidding! This is ridiculous for a device which is supposed to record unforeseen circumstances such as power going out!
It stinks!
@@paulschneeman1476 That sounds so much more sensible thank you for restoring my faith. So the question is why would both stop
When looking at the flight data recorder, the round thing on the exterior is the battery. Either a Lithium or, nickle metal hydride depends on what Boeing specified. Electrical engineers will design a robust FDR to suit the A/C you can bet on that.
@@paulschneeman1476Stop taking generalities like they are facts in this specific case...
The recorders had no battery, as Boeing didnt fit them, as they weren't yet required to do so.
This shows that companies will go the cheap route if they can, no matter what the engineer designs.
How about backup battery for the whole plane. You can get like 16kwh out of 200 pounds of battery. That’s a lot of juice.
Very very strange. Never heard of black boxes having such an issue before, and I'm in my 60's
It sounds pretty suspicious. Something is off here in this crash
Bad juju!
No sht cover up looks like
... and you are an accident investigator? Aircraft maintenance engineer? Pilot? I'm sure the "Gimli Glider" CVR and FDR stopped recording after both engines flamed out. The black boxes are often powered by the main electrical busses.
@ImperrfectStranger but the batteries run them so you saying the batteries lost all power as soon as engine failed. Don't think so. You work for Boeing or something
A similar crash happened in Jamaica in 2009. AA B737 landed really fast down wind in bad weather 3/4 way down the wet runway, it hydroplaned off the end of the runway, went through the ILS antennae, across a run off area, across a main road and unto a beach. Everyone survived. There was no wall to kill them.
No problemm..
Hitting the wall was the result of the crash, not the cause. 2 separate issues.
.
Should the ILS mounting be discussed. Absolutely.. The big mystery right now is why was that plane there at that speed to begin with?
The landing speed of the Jeju flight was way too high and they would have crashed into a pump station which is used by travel coaches 500m down that runway. At that speed if they would have survived that pump station, and blocks of hotel in its path, after killing many more people the plane would still be ditched into the sea.
The 737 crash happened in Jamaica in 2009 is different in the sense that pilot ad co-pilot already knew that there is malfunction of landing gear when the plane take off. They decided to manually put down the landing gear at the destination. When the landing gear failed to deploy at the destination, they decided to do a belly landing. They have one hour to prepare for emergency landing but for the Jeju crash, they only have a few minutes.
there ain't no beach at the end of that runway.
none of this makes sense. If engine was running at touchdown then at least one generator should have been online. Even if both main generators stopped for some reason the CVR and FDR should have remained powered.
I agree
New models have a separate backup battery for the CVR in case of a normal electrical failure. It looks like this particular aircraft did not have that battery. The FDR is also powered by the normal electrical system. Very strong evidence here of an electrical interruption (transponder failed, CVR and FDR failed).
It seems very unlikely that both generators were taken out by the (probable) bird strike, leaving one engine still running. However, when it comes to determining the cause of an accident, once you've disproved the impossible, the possible, however unlikely, is probably the cause. With a jet engine, you don't necessarily need electrical power to run because they are continuously burning fuel and thus don't rely on electrical ignition.
Oui. Les boîtes noires de l’Airbus de Sully ont enregistré les données jusqu’au bout, or il n’avait plus du tout de moteur contrairement à celui de Jeju. C’est incompréhensible.
Sully got his APU running before running out of batt; we don’t even know if Jeju could turn it on assuming damage to the electrical system
I took a bird in a Md80 about 15 years ago which disabled the right engine. This was on a 10 mile final going into ORD. Pretty simple procedure, flaps 28, 11 for go ground, QRC for engine failure and land. Why the go around? This whole thing makes no sense to me. Ive flown most Boeing aircraft from the 727 to the 777.
Because they shut the good engine down and knew they didn't have time to start it and the power on the bird engine wasn't giving them enough to climb or maintain altitude.
@@michaelallen1396Yes. Probably what happened. Been an airline pilot for 25yrs and this is the most likely scenario. Been flying the 737-800 for over 15yrs. A compressor stall is scary and they panicked. Folks who live near that airport reported loud explosion sounds as this 73 went around.
i'm a layman but that was my initial question. if you can fly around you can find the start of the runway. also you can manually let the gear down.
what's up doc?! 😂
if you accidentally shut down an engine, what do you need to do to restart and how long does it take? thanks
@@apexclip3458as a pilot, you think they panicked and put the plane down in the middle of the runway no gear. that suggests no training or inadequate training or some serious panic.
Like he said, it's very possible that they decided to go around BEFORE the bird strikes, precisely trying to avoid that. You still had one engine and you could maintain everything under normal control - if they had damage on both engines on a clean configuration (which the compressor stall video appears to corroborate) they did not have that option. Perhaps they could have resumed immediate emergency landing, but then again without HYD and only partial electrics they would have landed even faster than what they did.
According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport on the 30th, Captain Han served as a pilot in the Air Force before joining Jeju Air in 2014. He was promoted to captain in March 2019. To date, his total flight time is 6,823 hours, with approximately 2,500 of those hours as a captain over the past five years."
Former colleagues recalled him as a skilled and disciplined pilot.
"I remember Captain Han (then an instructor) as someone who strictly adhered to regulations and procedures and never compromised when it came to safety."
Definitely skilled to pull off that turn and get on the runway.
The go around decision was so unfortunate. Understandable given an unstable approach but in this circumstance being land minded would have been better
Also I think the entire event was 3 minutes so even if they switched on the APU instantaneously they would only have had electrical power available for 1 min 30 secs max
I think anyone blaming the crew here doesn’t understand the time and startle effect. And the fact they got safely back on the ground and were foiled by a concrete wall which is just ridiculous
Extremely easy to say from a comfy chair and with hindsight but the only thing they could of done after deciding to go around would be either
A) ditch the go around and dive for the runway before they had cleaned up and raised the gear
B) FO starts the apu puts it online when available then waits for the captain to call that they’ll definitely make the runway and manually extend the gear.
All of this would require a lot of initiative and coordination in an incredibly hectic situation. And would technically be poor QRH discipline as they’re not following abnormal situation checklists and just acting on gut instinct
@@mm89coyrHe and the FO skillfully landed the plane. Go around or not, he put the malfunctioning aircraft down. He would have likely taken the souls on board to safety IF a concrete barrier wasn’t in place. Go around really doesn’t matter-many rational decisions were made in a bad situation. This was an excellent pilot.
@@Anca820 I said that too….? Just with some more context. A turn like that in a 737 with no power is not easy at all
@@mm89coyrTrue that. We are all emotional, and my apologies.
@@Anca820 Nope. He did NOT "put the malfunctioning aircraft down". If he had maybe it would have stopped on the runway, or at least exited it at a speed more compatible with more survivors. Instead he skated off the end of the runway in ground effect at a basically undiminished speed. Bad idea.
Not buying it. The whole purpose of these data recorders is to survive and keep recording AT ALL COSTS. Otherwise, what's the point?
Never heard of one not recording data due to ANY issue.
In a catastrophic electrical failure, there'll be no electrical signals to record.
The NTSB will be able to recover the data; that’s why they sent it to them.
@@darkgalaxy5548 I don't have any expertise in this area, but I'd think they'd have a battery backup on the CVR? Do they? Just curious.
@@lexerdaniel4843 The problem is that there is no data to recover (at least for the last 4 minutes). The black boxes stopped recording. The NTSB can't recover something that doesn't exist.
@@lexerdaniel4843 No, even the ntsb can't recover data that has not been recorded.
This has to be the most ludicrous thing I ever heard, the flight recorders shut down when there's an emergency. WTF I thought FDR has its own emergency backup power source.
This model was built/designed before they became mandatory. FAA later ruled in the 90s all recorders to have backup power, Boeing issued an advisory, likely the operator or original plane orderer took it as just that - advice - different country different laws, and Jeju would never have had to operate in US airspace to comply with FAA
It is a covers up. We will never knows the truth.
I assumed black boxes would be capable of operating independently of the aircraft.
Normally they do. Apparently this older model of 737-800 isn't equipped with independent backup battery power for both the FDR and CVR. Someone on here said that didn't become standard practice until the 2010 models starting rolling out.
@@MTStingrayand has been reported that it was a 2009 model.
Batteries were a thing in 2009.
@@mipmipmipmipmip-v5x Because they were a foreign carrier, with no obligation to meet FAA requirements, this plane never got a battery backup. But, as an aviation maintenance tech, I'm not sure why they weren't installing them in airliners 50 years ago as standard practice.
This is looking more and more like the worst of the worst case scenarios for a pilot. Very little if any thrust, no electrical and very close to the ground. I agree with you that they probably did drop the handle for the gear but there's no way they would have seen the indications with everything else going on. My heart really goes out to these guys this is absolutely terrifying. Regardless of when they chose to go around, once they did they were doomed. 3 or 4 minutes may sound like a long time but it is nothing considering they had to figure out what happened and then prepare that aircraft to get it on the runway. With no thrust I think my concern would definitely be making the runway and I can certainly see how that type of stressed tunnel vision could keep a pilot from seeing those gear indications. This is just so horrifying
@@Tracy-zr9mg and if it was some swiss cheese technical and total electrical failure preventing even APU startup, they got it down level, on the runway, and kept it on the runway somehow, which would be one hell of a heroic achievement, if it weren't for some folk deciding to build a reinforced concrete aircraft exploder just past the end of the runway.
"once they did they were doomed". No they weren't. The landing was good. If the airport had no death-wall they all would have survived. Also, if the pilot was told about the death-wall when he requested to land in the opposite direction, he probably would have preferred to do a Scully landing on the water.
@@cyber5515 he clearly was able to steer to stay on the runway. He could have easily gone off sideways into the grass after getting the plane down on the runway, if he'd only known about the concrete antennae mount. Likely no radios though even if ATC had known of the hazard.
@@JuttutinTHIS! Poor people.
@cyber5515 First of all, "they were doomed" is a direct reference to that fortress at the end of the runway. Also, no pilot I don't care who you are is going to choose a water landing when there is a Runway right there. Also, there was no time at all to advise the pilots of any obstructions at the end of the runway and it probably never entered the mind of anybody there. The decision was no thrust means get on runway now or end up in the water. The water is THE LAST place any pilot puts a passenger aircraft down. This was only a few minutes there was no time for discussions and decisions about what was at the end of the runway. Scully was everything being just right for a water landing. This situation was everything going wrong at once and the worst luck in history with that unbelievably robust antenna installation. These guys went through every pilots worst nightmare in a span of four minutes. God bless them
Solid overview. I'm a retired WSO and the media speculation has been horrendous. Obviously plenty of questions remain but thanks for the intelligent update.
Well, the speculation in these threads are even worse, complete with full on blame game and criminal pursuit. And they love to pump up each other like in an echo chamber, leaving the sane threads pretty much untouched.
@@gottagowork yup
@@gottagowork i agree, speculation is one thing, but blaming the pilot is not on, whatever the circumstance which we will never know or understand, i think the pilot made a valiant attempt, but sadly went south with other failures and running out of time - its just sad
putting the wheels up might have been the final hole in the Swiss cheese lineup, i wonder if this might have changed the outcome with wheels down and the aircraft riding higher, but most likely the plane would have shot over the berm and still bust into flames, i suppose flying with wheels down is against procedures, and its easy for us to say having had so long to think about it, the plane is broke, it won't make any difference
i think a natural pilot instinct, while on an approach to avoid birds, would be to climb, in this case would make the final approach dangerous when running out of runway, so a go round had to be performed - if only the flight continued down through or below the birds to the runway with no go round
from bird strike to landing or possible crash landing, the pilot had around two minutes to access and decides the outcome, he bought everyone 2 more minutes, i can imagine everyone cheering as they touched down and then nothing - of course we will never learn and planes will still crash
“We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.”
Why are you talking about RuZZia?
The gear can be extended manually. No need for electricity.
I'm still so confused as to why the gear was not down. CRM issue?
I honestly think they may have a full failure or accidentally shut off with the left engine 1, because you cant see the heat wave and left reverser not engaged. Sad!!
We already know the #1 engine was affected & compromised before #2.
Those sleeves probably got dragged back from the friction of the tarmac
Wrong you can see the heat and reverser engaged. They had electrical. The crew will reveal more if they are not murdered by korean agents.
@@mautre Except we don't. There hasn't been any confirmation of anything regarding the left engine. All we know is we have a video of a compressor stall on engine no. 2, and a video that suggests exhaust was coming out of that engine and not engine no. 1 at landing.
@@MTStingrayexactly - and engine nr2 has dmg on ground and engine nr1 doesnt. Which means birds didnt enter engine nr1... they shut it down in a rush by mistake
As far as I know, there are backup batteries on the 737 but they are dedicated to supply the cockpit with power in a case of generator failures, NOT the recorders!
why wouldn’t the recorders be included in that system?
So why do we have flight data and cockpit voice from numerous incidents and crashes where they experienced total engine failure?
@@Lurch-Bot Which flights are you referring to?
What an outstanding, straightforward, thorough presentation of facts and analysis. So much info, presented in a way that even laypeople and GA pilots like myself can understand and appreciate. Always impresses me just how little time pilots have to make life and death decisions. And can we just state the obvious...if somebody hadn't decided to build a WALL at the end of a runway, many of those passengers and crew might still be alive.
Initial loss of ADS-B data (through the selected transponder) seemed to coincide with the bird strike. Now we find out that the CVR and the FDR quit almost at the same time as the ADS-B ceasing transmitting. Suggests to me cascading electrical failures because they are powered by different buses.
Or external interference...
And no lights on at landing
The main battery is good for 30 minutes, the cvr is on the hot battery bus- it's a cover up.
@@michaelallen1396 I could sense this from the outset, i could fill both sides of an A4 paper with remarkable and suspect anomalies from an aeronautical engineering aspect to media and human psychology factors...the manner in which every msm outlet reports word for word the drip fed info, Just the way the same plane incident footage was replayed over and over and over..which media outlets rarely do if fataliites are involved, (normally blurred out)..why we convientiently have so much footage of the plane in general..(not normal)..president impeachment on same day..both survivors (both) mysteriously have amnesia..Re: the grieving factors, If your whole family had just been wiped out, would you be so calm and playing on your phone..not a sore red eye in sight..no tears just fake acting..The high quality footage available immediently following the explosion would have shown fragments of human remains everywhere..the grass was pristine..the plane went through two walls not one according to the footage..this wasn't mentioned...we still have no names released of the Victims..sherlock homes is turning in his grave with all the obvious clues on this pre-planned psi-op..
@@michaelallen1396 There's no way for the locals to tamper with the CVR before it was sent to the NTSB. If it had been tampered with, it would have been noticed by the NTSB. The CVR is powered by the #1 AC Transfer Bus. Not the hot battery bus. It is supposed to have a backup battery but this aircraft CVR didn't have one.
Outstanding review and explanation. Best out there.
Really really Impressed with your channel.
Your explanation is the most sound I have heard so far very good analysis.
Thank you for noting the sparks in N1 engine. Most other pilots don’t mention it.
That's because the impact to engine #2 is so much more dramatic. You have two engines that just ate an unknown quantity of birds. #2 is experiencing severe compressor stalls, the other one isn't. For some inexplicable reason they shut down the #1 engine. Would hardly be the first time a plane crashed because someone shut off the wrong engine.
If the fan blades were damaged on the right engine, pulling the reverser would probably have had the opposite effect, as the center core of the engine would spool up and increase thrust, whereas the damaged fan would probably not exert any thrust to the reverser. This might explained why the plane did not seem to slow down by any means, while skidding down the runway…
Ok,,,,,,,so this is why we hear ,,in vids,,,,,engines spinning up,,,with no effect on reversers,....( but still power???,, why loss of C.V.R.??,,,, alot of questions to be made here😮
They were going way, way too fast. That one thrust reverser, working at a fraction of capacity, was like pissing into the wind. The plane was still technically flying, with minimal contact between the aircraft and runway.
From the video of the bird ingestion, we know that #2 was suffering severe compressor stalls. The #1 engine wasn't. They shut down the wrong engine, immediately cutting electrical and hydraulic power (gonna go out on a limb and say batteries were bad when they tried switching to standby electrical). Then they failed to switch critical systems over to system B on the #2 (right) engine. Hydraulic system B was working or thrust reverser #2 would not have deployed. This means they should have still had the gear and flaps down and would have also had spoilers and brakes. It is probable electric system B was also functioning. Engines are designed to withstand bird ingestion and continue running at reduced power. Sometimes you get way more birds than is probable, such as with the Miracle on the Hudson. That doesn't appear to be the case here. It is unlikely either engine suffered an uncontained blade failure, which would be necessary in order to break things like electrical generators or hydraulic pumps and/or sever wires and hydraulic lines.
A bird strike definitely won't cause the immediate failure of critical systems. But shutting down the wrong engine will. And it would hardly be the first time that has resulted in a fatal crash.
If they hadn't shut down #1, and they hadn't foolishly attempted a downwind landing in a damaged plane, they could have gotten around the pattern and had time to properly configure for landing. It is highly doubtful they ever ran any checklists. They were in such a hurry to get on the ground that they basically just flew right into it.
The can be extended WITHOUT electrical power. I am retired 737 pilot and an instructor. The FDR and the CVR are powered from Transfer Bus 1.
I did not do it correctly. The landing gear can be extended without electrical power. Just behind the center console FO’s side is a cover that can be opened to expose three red handles attached to a cable that goes to each landing gear. Pulling the handle unlocks the gear up locks and the landing gear free falls to the down and locked position. Then you also have brakes via the electrically powered hydraulic system that provides pressure from the electric hydraulic pumps.
@@phillipspessard6640 brake accumulator
Yes, I mentioned that in my video.
@@phillipspessard6640 Next time, please edit the mistake in your post, versus replying to it. Upvoted anyways.
Excellent video! What a brilliant analysis of the little that we’ve got, instead of speculating on why we dont have more info.
I was always under the impression that the black box was practically indestructible & reliable almost always. The only time I hear of black box data not able to be recovered is when a plane falls into the ocean. This is the first time I’ve heard of an incident like this. I’m not an expert or anything but I’m just surprised this is the first I’ve heard of this in my 38 years of searching plane crashes with a morbid curiosity and obsession.
(I’m just a person that consumes aviation content to overcome a fear of planes, so please forgive if this is just inexperience talking)
When I was watching the footage for the first time, I remember thinking “oh no. They think the landing gear is down”. To me, it looked as though the plane was almost hovering at the height you’d expect landing gear to make contact with the runway, for the first half of the runway. The belly landing seemed more like a last minute reflexive reaction than an executed plan. An act of self-preservation like putting your arm out to break a fall.
It seems pilots are universally bewildered by the way the plane tolerated this bird strike. I wonder if this tragedy has uncovered an engineering blindspot as it pertains to the impact potential of bird strikes. I feel sorry for any pilot confronted with such a novel issue, especially if they are fated with landing at an airport with a stupid concrete wall at the end of the runway.
Je trouve que la première partie de votre remarque est très pertinente, personne n’a encore souligné qu’ils a mis du temps à abaisser l’avion au sol. Certes il y a un effet de sol qui joue mais on a bien l’impression qu’il croit avoir le train sorti.
Thats a possible scenario but it could also be as other channels have noted "ground effect" which is lift created by a wing travelling at speed close to the ground. it changes the wings profile and acts like a cushion under the wing meaning the pilot would need to cut more power or drop the nose more to allow the aircraft to settle on the runway. Its a good observation though, I dont think we will ever know really the root cause thank to Boeing's design and the poor regulations with no retro fitting of backup power for the recorders
@@John_Dreamslikely as not we would have had all the information we wanted had they not built that berm and concrete wall.
It could be that they were hoping that the gear was down because the gear can use gravity to come down to? Maybe he pulled the lever. And it just didn't come down in time.
The appearance is due to the fact that they are still technically flying and the pilot is forcing the aircraft into contact with the runway.
I like your method, matter of factness and details….good stuff!
Problem I have with this analysis is this: You loose both engines and all power with gear/flaps in landing config, you land the plane. What you don't do it retract gear, raise flaps go around and do a 180 to land. Totally doesn't make sense with the loss of all power explanation.
I think he is saying they lost what power they did have at the top of their Go Around climb, necessitating an immediate return.
Most likely two events.
Agree completely. There is a lot more to this story than we know.
If they tried to avoided birds on approach that means the approach became unstable which is why they went around. By every rule out there going around was acceptable and appropriate when it comes to the regulation.
It was an unstable approach
What a great, concise explanation without any added drama. Even I can understand it!
Thanks for that
A few comments:
1:05 The plane arrived at the runway going way too fast (~190 knots) so any concern about not reaching the runway was misplaced as more speed could have been traded for distance and that would have been desirable. That is, the plane probably could have intersected the runway closer to its threshold and at a lower speed. But judging that is a maneuver that the pilots maybe had no simulator training to achieve.
The plane unfortunately DIDN'T touch down, apart from an initial tail strike and some scraping of the engine cowlings, until a few hundred meters short of exiting the runway when the first major contact occurred. Slamming harder onto the engines (the belly never touched) might have given them a chance to slow down. Or it might have munged the wings and caused an earlier explosion.
1:20 The FDR and CDR nowadays have batteries, effective with planes built in 2010. But this plane was built in 2009. There are electrical generators on both engines, so no electricity implies both engines not turning fast enough to power the generators. (Edit: Or the erratic speed of a compressor-stalling engine can cause an AC generator to trip off, I have learned.)
0:45 "Electrical failure" does not explain directly why the gear and flaps were not extended. The former requires hydraulic pressure, not electricity, and dropping the gear can be done manually, in about 10 seconds to pull the unlatch cords in a floor mount behind the right seat followed by 20- seconds for the gear (2 main gears and the nose gear) to drop. My impression is that there ought to be enough reserve hydraulic pressure to drop the gear and extend the flaps even with both engines not running.
22:50 If you watch Mentour's video on a 2-engine loss in a 737 you will notice that an electrical emergency blanks out the F)'s display [edit: the FO's, i.e. the right seat's display] until the APU cuts in. So the pilots WOULD know that had happened.
But the gear was observed dropped, then were retracted by the time of the cellphone video of a compressor stall, so that might have used up considerable hydraulic pressure. [edit: The SPOILERS require hydraulic pressure, even if the flaps don't, as I understand it.]
Without flaps, clean speed would be around 195-210 kts weight depending. Without flaps it looks like they were at about the right speed? Of course not getting gear down (open hatch in floor, pull 3 cables to the stops, *interesting without elec power did they get 3 red gear indications too late?) for accumulator braking (without hydraulics you cannot pump brakes but a few applications held will work) was a major factor, as was lack of electrical power from APU. I'm not sure how early they got the machine down, but gliding a 737 for a perfect touch down on the numbers is extremely difficult. Time and workload was likely excruciating for the crew. The electrical power from APU and getting electric hydraulic power functioning again would be crucial. Without it no normal gear (thereby brakes), flaps, spoilers. 60-90 seconds to start an apu, largely flick a switch, wait, then select APU generators online. Easy to say sat here, they had complete surprise, an aircraft not flying properly, thrust problems, surging engine (likely), and no runway infront of them after the go around. I feel lessons will be learned here about continuing landing from the initial approach bird strikes, but this takes skill and simulator training to be ready. Some airlines already learned this lesson already (but perhaps not all of them!), others perhaps have less concentration on it thus far. I foresee a lot more training in that area, and possibly a memory action for engine damage to start APU and get power back sooner before waiting for QRH checklists. This event likely borders into survival training. The normal procedures largely cater for single point failures, and not complex multiple failures of numerous systems, hence the need for catastrophic failures with concentration on survival instincts. Turning for the runway, getting electrical and hydraulic power back, getting gear, flaps, brakes working, and getting on the ground. Easily said than done. This crew must have faced a terrible situation and it only got worse after the attempted go around. We need more survival training, more complex failure training. Concentration on early decision making, continuing approaches with engine failures, maintaining control and stability, and getting the APU online with zero delay. If already configured early with gear and flap at 7 miles you can likely land, if you configure late at 4.0 with power loss you are in real trouble. This in effect substantiates a safer approach configuring early as per standard Boeing procedures. By doing that you are better safeguarding the landing before hitting birds. The machine is more stable, and already configured able to land and stop in the event of multiple failures. Another lesson could be having the APU running for any approach with known bird risks. In the event of power loss, you don't have to survive 60-90 seconds without power and normal hydraulics. In a last minute bird strike at low level, you can restore electrics and hydraulics quickly. The 737 800 would require crew action to place the APU generators online, however interestingly the 737 MAX would automatically place the APU generators online, restoring all instruments, electrical and hydraulic systems. None of what I have said, completely understands exactly what happened in this crash, we simply don't know enough, but here I give you some 'experienced' comments in relation to this type. Lessons can be learned but it will take Boeing and airlines to want to learn and adapt. This isn't the first dual engine damage event on approach. Did we learn the lessons all those years ago that were staring us in the face? Think about the 738 Rome Champino incident, were the full lessons learned across the industry?
@@richsyoutube2852 "...were the full lessons learned across the industry?"
Obviously not.
"Without flaps it looks like they were at about the right speed? "
Right for what? Not for landing successfully. It seems to me that they could have traded speed for distance with a nose-up angle of attack, but I'm not criticizing them for not pulling that off. I'm maybe criticizing them for not attempting it despite not being trained on the scenario since it was maybe their best hope to survive, but assigning fault to them is of not what I'm interested in. (If it happens it happens, though. The "wait for the investigation" folks are special pleaders.) Adding this scenario to simulator training is a must, IMHO. What I AM criticizing them for is not smushing the engines into the runway when they realized they were going to fly off the end in ground effect at an undiminished speed. That made more fatalities more probable.
"... if you configure late at 4.0 with power loss you are in real trouble."
Yep, they were in real trouble. The bird strike was more like at 2.0, iirc.
"Another lesson could be having the APU running for any approach with known bird risks."
Sounds good to me. I think the MEL allows you to fly w/o a functional APU, however. Not a pilot, and I'm not sure of that.
@@gandydancer9710your last line says it all .... not a pilot ....
@@gandydancer9710All well considered ideas, trouble is like anything, expert pilots know the systems well, and have the experience and knowledge to realise some of your ideas wouldn't work in real life the way you are thinking. You need a lot of knowledge to understand the reality of this aircraft crash. Even then it's almost impossible to work out what happened. Every man/woman to their trade!
You literally have to be type rated and experienced on type to know how this incident would have possibly felt to the crew. Only huge experience and knowledge could possibly allow appropriate choices instantly. Be in no doubt, good fortune would play its part and having great flight crew really performing well as a team instantly. Some well trained crew do train for similar incidents in the sim, and let me tell you, it's not fun!
To try to help explain, speed: Up speed without flap is indicated on the PFD, any slower would be unsafe for manoeuvring in the way this plane clearly must have doe some sharp turns. You can't fly much slower safely. Maybe with time, they could perhaps land nearer to 175-180 kts clean for touchdown, but unlikely to be any slower or they could stall. In theory, land slower would be nice, but that requires flaps. You can't steeply bank, turn and make it back slowly, in fact, the aircraft would glide less with increased drag. In addition, it's not the right technique to smash the engines into the runway at high speed. Experience dictates that an aircraft skidding without any wheel braking, spoilers (dump weight, increase braking and friction), reversers skids and skids. The industry is learning that it takes way more runway than anyone would expect, it's a huge distance to stop a jet going at that speed without stopping devices normally used.
In relation to being at 2.0, they were configured with landing gear and flap ready to land. Imagine engine thrust varying, surging 'banging' engines, unstable yaw and roll from engine failure, thrust changes, and you start to get the idea of an aircraft continuing to land and how difficult it is for a pilot to continue and land. All without warning. It can be done is all I will say but not easily. In theory for landing you are in the best configuration already at 2.0 miles, and it isn't going to get any bette with damaged engines after retracting gear and flaps and trying to do a circuit on damaged engines. This is a far better and safer configuration than what they appear to have faced. It appears through good intention they had just enough thrust and time to retract flap, and gear, and climb alongside the runway. This isn't the first time this has happened in this way. In reality your only real option is getting the bird onto the runway if it's already configured. Keeping damaged engines running at low thrust if damaged generally is more successful than stressing them at full go around thrust to the point of destruction.
The problem with the 'engines not turning fast enough'. A simple windmilling of the engines at above-stall speeds is more than sufficient to provide power for critical components, including the FDR and CVR. And we know there was significantly more 'turn' than windmilling by the apparent exhaust coming out of engine no. 2.
As for dropping the gear. Using the manual gear extension handles doesn't require any hydraulic pressure. It's designed to solely take advantage of gravity, so that in the event of complete hydraulic failure, the gear can still be extended. We may never get the data on those last few minutes of flight, but I will adamantly stand by my assumption they never even pulled those handles. In the panic of the moment, I don't think the fact the gear was no longer extended ever crossed their minds, as they were likely hyperfocused on getting on the ground.
The FDR is connected to the Battery Buss, so for it to loose power means you have to loose battery power, and they should be good for 30 min without any generators.
True
Not correct on the 737. The recorders are powered by transfer busses which require a generator source.
That's a very good analysis, enjoyed the video
Thank you
Someone else had pointed out that in a high bypass turbo jet, only the bypass gasses are reversed, while the exhaust gasses continue to provide thrust. The exhaust gasses only provide 20% thrust in an engine with a healthy fan. With the fan damaged from a bird strike, it could be that the exhaust was overpowering the bypass gasses. Hence, forward thrust with reverser activated.
Possibly, but they should still get significant drag from the blocker doors which have stopped the bypass air flowing out the back of the reversed engine.
No
With modern technologies given and available, voice recording not working is absurd. It’s disgusting….
And it’s a lie.
At Halifax In 2004, MK Airlines B747 during takeoff had also struck an earthen berm supporting the ILS localizer antenna positioned 300 meters (980 ft) beyond the end of the runway 24. The jet's lower rear belly had impacted the berm during rotation.
How the hell does the flight recorder stop recording 4 minutes before the crash?? Does it not have its own battery to power it if need be??
4 minutes before the crash... Stops recording... Have its own battery? I think the fact it stopped recording answers your question? It did not have a battery... It was not required at the time... 1 year later it was.
I did some research. Only newer ones apparently. Also, you need the audio from the cockpit to still reach the CVR, and I don't know if that needs any power.
Black boxes could be manually stopped. Because if you have an incident and landed, and don't stop them, the plane sitting on the ground will start overwriting the recording with nothing. The loop is only 90 minutes. This has happened before when the pilots forgot and ground crew arrived in the cockpit late. Or something happens in the air and you don't land for hours later. They should extend the loop to 100 hours and record video . Pilots union against it though.
@@Juttutin shocking that such crucial devices (FDR, CVR) are still relying on extremely old technology. You’re right when it comes to the cockpit microphones: they also probably need power from the aircraft and will then stop working in case of electrical failure. But again, a little microphone powered by small, long lasting pill cell batteries can be purchased in any department store for a few dollars. Just inconceivable.
@@Juttutin The area microphone is powered by the CVR itself. @ carlo_berruti You don't need "pill cell batteries".
Why they went around rather than landing on their first approach is confusing and troubling.
*government agent* blaming pilots already.
Having been a professional flight crew member for 40 odd years, I don't believe it. Simple.
-Crew shuts down wrong engine after bird ingestion. The flames were coming from #2.
-Standby electrical doesn't work because cheap azz carrier didn't maintain batteries properly
-Crew fails to switch to electrical system B
-Crew fails to switch to hydraulic system B
-Crew fails to initiate APU start
-Crew obsessed with getting plane on ground as quickly as possible when they should have known how that was likely to turn out
-Crew decides to make a downwind landing
-Crew approaches way too fast and tries to force plane onto runway while still waaaay above stall speed and still technically flying
-Crew is unable to stop with just one thrust reverser operating on a severely damaged engine which is probably producing more forward thrust than reverse thrust
-Crew flies plane right into reinforced concrete wall, inexplicably placed right at the end of a runway
-Everyone except the two cabin crew in the rearmost jumpseats is dead, the plane is pulverized and Texas barbecued apart from the tail section and we have no FDR or CVR data
Simple.
Come on, we have all hit birds at sometime and the generator (CSD) output does not vary with engine thrust lever movement. The battery on a 737 supplies essential power up to 30 minutes, more than enough time to start the APU. There is a lot that we are not being told here.
Pilot error
This bird weighed over 1,000 pounds. So there was major damage.
It’s possible the accessory drive gearbox was damaged (blade failure). Also, a serviceable APU is not part of the MEL so possibly inop on that aircraft. Either way, after what looked like a bird strike in both engines (according to the video) it’s likely TOGA thrust further damaged them.
@@davidtappenden6964 I didn't notice or pay attention myself, but some have noticed the aircraft came in completely dark; no strobes or beacon, no nav lights. Is that a feasible explanation, or would it be hard to notice lights on that footage? I take it a MEL is signed off prior to takeoff, so should be easy to track?
@@gottagowork 2 crippled engines would severely limit their go-around options, and would help explain the teardrop manoeuvre (‘impossible turn’) they opted for. With 2 crippled engines and possibly smoke in cabin, your top priority is to reach the runway. Having done a few dead stick landings myself, it’s all about max glide ratio vs min sink ratio, hence no flaps and gear extended. Without sufficient thrust to maintain height, there would be no time to complete the checklist let alone start up the APU (no RAT on a 737). And yes, if that a/c was on emergency (battery) bus, then it’s wuite a dark flight deck, and could explain why the surviving cabin crew didn’t realise what was going on, as no cabin public address available on battery power.
very strange situation, very rarely , hardly ever , bird strike would down the plane , and I’ve never heard of birds taking out both engines … and flight recorder stopped working 4 minutes before crash ??? … hmmm … something doesn’t quite add up here …
Miracle on the Hudson…
@@flyingformoney777right, but they landed , nobody died , and flight recorder was working … but again , very very rarely that happens… that Hudson thing is the only one situation I can think off , where birds would take out both engines
@@damirzanne that's enough of a situation to prove that it is possible, as rare as it might be. Nobody died in the Hudson because they were fortunate enough to 1) have an extremely experienced, glider and military trained pilot on board and 2) they did not hit a concrete wall at 150mph. The data recorders were still working because it was an Airbus, not a Boeing.
@@zaratrusta79 Airbus or boeing... doesn't matter... data recorders still work on 99 percent of them.
@@zaratrusta79 The most amazing thing was the Boeing was still flying.
I also simply refuse to believe the stupidity of the idea that black box recorders are not battery-backed. Cant imagine, as an electrical engineer, anything more ludicrous.
They are on the hot battery bus, lost only if the battery cables were disconnected period which didn't happen, it's a cover up.
@@michaelallen1396 I don't doubt it. Notice how nobody is mentioning the shrapnel holes in the rear of the fuselage and horizontal stabilizer anymore!
@@michaelallen1396Some cultures must "save face" at all cost.
@jackberlien8916 you're talking about the wrong crash genius. The one you're talking about was in Kazakhstan.
@@WhiteNoise493 True. Genius? I do have several patients, but I wouldn't go that far.
Black boxes stopping recording should NEVER ever happen... This is sickening
Thats why it was changed in 2010. Just not applied to existing aircraft.
Well, when you don't have a dedicated battery backup, pilots shut down the wrong engine and standby power doesn't work because they didn't properly maintain the batteries, this can happen. The crew likely had a functional system B (hydraulic system B was definitely working because of the thrust reverser being deployed, meaning they should have had gear, flaps, spoilers, brakes.), they just didn't turn the knobs to make it happen.
Where is the CVR prior to the 4 min blackout? Where is the record of the conversation between ATC and the pilots during the crash? There should be more transparency to the public!
Yep. smells fishy.... We'll see how this pans out......
The whole thing is incredibly suspect.
South Korea is a corrupt country so not much transparency
So well spoken and easy to understand your thoughts on this sad crash. 😢
Thank you. It is a sad situation.
This helps explain a lot, thank you for your analysis. The two things I still don't make sense to me are why the landing gear wasn't -- or couldn't be -- extended; and why the CVR and FDR stopped recording. If there was some kind of catastrophic electrical failure aircraft-wide -- like something that had the same effect as an EMP (not even sure what that would be) -- that could explain it.
But if engine 2 was producing some power, then shouldn't it have been providing enough electricity for nominal operations? Or could it be damaged in such a way that it still produces some thrust but cannot charge the generator? Very strange all around.
I'm very confused, sounds like there was more wrong with the plane than birds? How can couple of birds shutdown everything?
@@teijaflink2226 Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Either something catastrophic shut down all electrical systems or the pilots did not properly respond to the emergency. Or perhaps both.
But with the landing gear -- I don't see how that could be anything but pilot error. Either they forgot, or tried to lower the gear normally but didn't check to make sure they had three green, or simply didn't know how to do it manually. I can't think of anything that would make the manual extension inoperable?
After the generators tripout, if the engine generators come into operation the crew must manually put them back on line, connecting them to the main buses. It is not automatic,
They don't even need to produce any trust. They are designed to windmill to generate power.. That's why it has no RAT
Maybe it was a drone strike not a bird strike and there was some kind of EMP as a result.
If the intent is to hide culpability, this is a great way to admit culpability. 😐
It’s not. They wouldn’t send them to the NTSB for analysis if they were hiding something. The NTSB can extract damaged data better than any agency in the world.
If the pilots had made some massive panic error like shutting down an engine in a hurry and getting the wrong one, it would be very convenient for the image of some concerned parties for the recordings to be blank.
I agree ,something smells of fish.
Yep and if you know about the Sewol ferry disaster and how it changed koerean politics… they are scared shitless of transport disasters
From a Pilot to a Pilot, really well explained! I'm so happy that you are talking about the human factors whilst guessing what conspired in the cockpit. Far too many UA-camrs(armchair pilots) are talking like if they were there, they could have done things differently. When shit hits the fan, in this case the birds, you have very limited time to react.
The outcome of the Miracle on the Hudson could have been very different, had it been a red-eye flight or the last leg of a 4 sector day.
Thank you for the detailed explanation of the accident.
You are very welcome.
OK, first of all, the fact that those black boxes do not appear to have internal batteries to keep them recording in case of total catastrophic power failure is absolutely blisteringly stupid and utterly unforgiveable. Among the worst engineering decisions I have ever heard of. Unbelievable.
Those things should keep recording despite having nothing attached to them, totally free of the airframe and falling through the atmosphere, all the way to the bottom of the ocean, using nothing but totally internalized emergency power supplies.
Even if FDR is still operating, it needs the Data streams from aircraft systems, CVR can probably work easier with loss of EDG, it only needs one or more mic and Batt. The underwater detection Pingers are powered by relatively tiny, internal batts which may still operate for 30-60 days for SLB
Not having at least the CVR on it's own backup battery does look like another half-assed Boeing design... Evidently the regulations didn't require it when this aircraft was built.
@@kitt44kt There really needs to be cameras looking and recording the primary flight control displays.
@@BlueSpruce2what a silly thing to say, why would they need cameras when data is used to simulate lol
Or.... They could have just told the public the boxes had no power and nobody would even flinch. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if it was a lie.
nope, still have the APU and even if that is gone as well they have to have a minimum of 30 minutes battery. But even total electrical failure you can still lower the gear.
Not enough time to start the APU und activate it in the circuit (two different steps).
@@Fastvoice which goes right back to the question of why did they rush to land instead of circling and working the problem. And again it was 4 minutes, so they had plenty of battery power. Something very strange happened.
@@TheDornado shut down the wrong engine on the checklist? Makes sense. But once the rwy is made you’ve got to lower the gear!! Had they done that at the right time (which would have been a judgement call) they touch down sooner with the increased drag and could actually use brakes….
@@TheDornado I'm pretty sure there was no real reason for a go-around and circling in the first place. They most likely could have just landed initially and properly with gear, flaps, spoilers and brakes (maybe without thrust reversers but that would have been okay).
@@wf4919 I think that is the likeliest scenario and they just got behind the plane and missed the gear. I just can't figure out why they were going so fast in any scenario. Even without the dumb concrete wall that plane would have broken apart with how fast they were going when they ran off the runway. Such a senseless crash.
I'm curious to know if the two survivors are able to contribute any information. I haven't heard anything regarding their conditions.
The man, a flight attendant identified only by his surname, Lee, had "already been rescued" when he woke up, the hospital official said. "(Lee’s) fully able to communicate," Woong added. “There's no indication yet of memory loss or such."
The woman, 25-year-old flight attendant named Koo, was also recovering, though not in intensive care, hospital staff and officials with the Korean Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport said. Neither survivor had life-threatening injuries, the ministry said, adding that both had awoken in the hospital without a clear recollection of what had happened after they heard a blast during the landing.
They're not going to have much information to provide. I would be surprised if the flight crew even got around to calling the flight attendants or making an announcement.
Wait..I thought main battery also provide power to both CVR and FDR?
If so than CVR and FDR should continue to function even while losing both engines and generators, no?
Only in aircraft built after 2010. This aircraft was built in 2009.
If there was no bus power, there was nothing to record.
I pray for answers for these families, although nothing will change the outcome. Praying for these families.
I always thought that both flight recorders were able to operate independently from the status of the aircraft systems. My idea was that the flight recorders, which store the data on flash memory, had an onboard backup battery, lasting many hours after the main power is removed.
I guess it is time to modify the FDR and ADR - to include a back-up battery...
I don't buy official explanation for multitude of reasons. Why is data from FDR and CVR hidden from
public view? When engine number 1 cut off? Who was flying that aircraft? Korean drawing shows
aircraft veering to the left and rapidly turning right, this would suggest pilot seating in right chair flying,
it will be hard for captain to see the runway. Was captain incapacitated? Aircraft had a power to claim
on 1 engine. Backup generator should have been operational. Boeing 737 has APU and triple battery
backup systems. Power to FDR and CVR goes through the breaker on the panel behind pilot seat,
breaker with red rim around it. Was it tripped? When generators switches are in "auto" position, generator
switch is automatic, was "off" position engaged by mistake? Generator will not restart without manual
pull of lever, engineering function only. Triple generator, triple battery backup is not all safeguards built
to preserve FDR and CVR data. Each recorder sits in own enclosure with additional battery backup.
Airline engineers are not allowed to work on FDR and CVR assemblies, they are send to special
facilities for maintenance and repair as assemblies. Triple power redundancy doesn't stop tape or
memory based recorders unless both generators were off, APU wasn't engaged and battery system
backing up generators was completely discharged. Structurally aircraft was intact, birds didn't destroy
electrical system. Here is simple explanation of black boxes on aircraft www.madehow.com/Volume-3/BlackBox.html#:~:text=The%20Flight%20Data%20Recorder%20and,devices%2C%20and%20a%20signal%20beacon.
Sorry, something does not add up, never mind the fact that the #2 engine was presumably running all the way down the runway until this unfortunate impact. Where did the 30 minutes of battery power go? Does somebody in the cockpit have the ability to pull the relevant data/voice C/B's 4 minutes before the fatal crash in this Boeing model, because they might have shut #1 by mistake and it would really look bad later on? Just wondering because this just DOES NOT make any sense at all to this helicopter guy. Also around the same time the ADS-B stopped transmitting which got me wondering what was going on.
Battery doesn't power the flight recorders in that model.
Yeah pilots fighting for their lives decide to waste time pulling the recorders at exactly the same time 😂
@@Fastvoice Right, that came a year later in 2010. But it doesn't explain how an aircraft that *WAS* designed to power critical components from simple windmilling of the engines wasn't able to provide adequate power to the CVR and FDR (which don't take much) when it's clear the no. 2 engine was actively producing thrust as evidenced by the videos of the landing/crash.
The compressor stalls on #2 engine or possibly #1 as well looks likely occurred when the gear and possibly flaps were already retracted. Maybe the video shows compressor stalls after the initial bird strike.
Your videos and presentations in this accident are commendable. Thanks for your professional perspective,
Thank you
I believe those recorders are connected to a service BUS bypassing all circuits and are connected directly to BAT.
aerospace engineers and their physicists are amazing.
They are, the 737 fleet alone did hundreds of millions of safe uneventful flights. It's the designers/managers of airports, politicians, greedy managers and CEOS stretching things to the limit that are to blame.
Should be impossible for the black boxes to go off, this is outragious and shows the hand of evil Humans
Even if the black box had a battery backup, in the event of complete power failure there would be no sensor readings to record.
Not familiar with Hanlon's Razor are you?
Why should it be impossible on this model of airplane?
Please explain in detail why it's impossible at all?
They will/should still know what happened up until that loss of power which will show if the pilot turned off the wrong engine or both failed
Top comment
Nice explanation. I did have a lot of questions based on what media info I had read about the incident. This video helps answer some of them. I'm a retired USAF heavy aircraft crew chief and figured the only way the CVR and FDR would both fail like that is if both engine-driven generators failed (seemed odd, given I thought I read that only the #1 engine failed from the bird strike) OR the pilots intentionally (unlikely) or unintentionally did something to cause the #2 generator to quit working. CVR and FDR should both be powered by one of the battery busses, and should have been able to receive battery charging through #2 transformer-rectifier to sustain their power needs. I wasn't aware, until watching your video, that the #2 engine was experiencing compressor stalls. I might have missed it, but did you mention or do you know anything yet about why that engine was having that issue? Did it also take one or more birds through the core?
I was also wondering why they didn't emergency extend the landing gear and flaps before landing, though insufficient power from the one good engine limiting available altitude and time to work with would certainly seem to explain those issues. I also wonder if jettisoning whatever excess fuel possible would have helped any with their landing speed.
@Flying for Money: Thanks for the video. Does this new information rule out the possibility that the pilots shut down the wrong engine by accident after the bird strike? It seems like you implied that, but I'm a little confused if that is still a possible explanation for the loss of thrust in engine 2, or if the timeline from bird strike to recording failure rules that out?
Even if both engines failed, never heard of losing both CVR and FDR
It has happened before
@ don’t they have battery power?
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
0 seconds ago
It has not happened before except on the gimley glider where they were many many hours on battery. This is a coverup and this channel here is confidently pushing it.
@@mhsiehmd No - it's just an option, didn't come as standard on the 737-800. It's an old design.
It is the custom in this country to conceal inconvenient matters.
Interesting how the Korean media is like "blackbox didn't record for final 4 minutes. Oh well."
Just like the media never mention the secret (hidden from charts) wall of death.
What should they do? Make stuff up?😂
@@realGBx64its like some Americans forgot that speculation and opinions is not news 😂
The black boxes were flown to the US and analyzed by the NTSB, so the NTSB is essentially saying that, and that kind of makes me suspicious. I hope Korean representatives were there at all times when this data downloading and decoding was done.
@@kbboy101 Are you suggesting that the data was deleted to make Boeing look better? There isn't really reason to suspect a Boeing 737 model from the late 90s (this one wasn't a newly build one) would have similar issues as the new ones which were build by DEI hires.
I don't understand why trying a go around when you are already on final and have landing config. its seems very uncertain. they don't know if they have power and then its better to just let the plane glide down to the runway. they would have made it.
There was some reason for the go around, perhaps a large flock of birds. During go around they hit the birds and things started to go wrong.
My thoughts exactly. Bird strike! Check gear down. Flaps set. Power as necessary. Land straight ahead. Go straight to the runway!!
agree...👍
@@contender2232 Peut être qu’ils ont heurté les oiseaux après la remise des gaz mais pourquoi le train n’était il pas sorti juste AVANT la remise des gaz ?
@@francesca4966the gear was down before the go around, it was lifted up during the go around.
Earned a sub , awesome breakdown. - Surry Virginia
Welcome to the channel
Very comprehensible description.
Well done!
Thank you very much!
An unusual chain of events happened as the pilots dealt with it the best they thought and so far everything seems appropriate with only opinions what should have and shouldn't have been done. Those last 4 minutes were crucial and we don't have that information.
That cant be true when they shut down wrong engine and lost the power. Also how do you explain the landing without flaps and gear with all the warnings blarring at you in the cockpit? You can use manual emergency lever for gear using gravity.
@Izmael1310 We don't know if the pilot shut down the wrong engine or if both engines actually ingested birds. As far as we know it's multiple engine failure.
I agree. This was mayday urgency to land and choosing to risk the urgent impossible turn vs. a full go around. Clearly they lost control of speed, altitude, landing position.. These were trained military pilots not armchair flight simulator commandos casting random judgements.
Well that's a bummer. It's going to take a lot more forensics to determine what exactly happened and even then we will never know for sure if this was a survivable event. Yes, if they hit birds during the approach they should have continued to the runway or pulled a Sully and ditched in it the water. The key would have been energy management which the British Airways pilots that landed their crippled 777 (Flight 38 from Beijing to London) just short of the runway at Heathrow after a fuel starvation event to both engines executed brilliantly. Then again they might have hit that stupid concrete wall going the other way...
Seems to me if the 737 loses both engine driven generators the APU should start automatically and the CVR & FDR should be on emergency power or have their own backup systems. How often are they required to load test those backup batteries I wonder?
Bird warning from ATC; pilot follows safety procedures and decides to go around to avoid birds, retracts gear and flaps, gains altitude; tragic bird strike possibly to both engines, electrical and partial HYD failure, pilot executes teardrop; lack of glider experience, due to ground effect lands after more than half the runway; finally, they hit a kamikaze deathtrap concrete wall at 150mph.
There are some details that those 4mins of data could help clarify - especially if both engines were hit or if they accidentally shut the wrong engine. But the essential picture is clear: avoid building airports right next to where large flocks of large birds hang out; avoid putting a concrete wall in perfect alignment with the runway. The end.
@@zaratrusta79 Agree - especially if the birds were there before the airport otherwise, remove the reason they are gathering there. Sully did credit his glider experience in the US Air Force for helping him land his plane on the Hudson. With gliders and craft like the Space Shuttle, energy management is how they get back on the ground safely.
@@BlueSpruce2 Not to discredit Sully's heroic unflawed performance, he was still somewhat lucky that he had more altitude than Jeju when he lost both engines. This is also an issue with low-cost companies, they stretch standards to the limits and when shit like this happens you can see the diference. Better trained pilots like Sully tend to go to better companies...
Stopped working FOUR MINUTES before the crash??? Unacceptable
And only at that 4 critical minutes. Not a minute before or after, which has to be a very low probability
Amazing discourse, not a single "uhmm"; very detailed. I knew nothing about how all this works, but I do now!
There’s something really vague about this.
When was the video of the engine flame-out taken. Was it prior to the go-around or after that?
It can’t be before. At that time, the aircraft should’ve been fully configured for landing. Flaps extended and gear down. A stabilised approach criteria would be the aircraft fully conf at 1000ft, and I can see the go-around was initiated just below that altitude.
If the video was taken before, then the question would be: “Why didn’t just continue the approach and land?”
A severe electrical failure does NOT explain why the gear wasn't deployed. There are three handles in the 737 cockpit that can be pulled to extend the landing gear by gravity. Plus the recorders are powered by battery in the event of an electrical failure.
Link for aftermatch pls
If they were gliding dropping the gear would create too much drag it’s prob why they did that teardrop turn too
The 737-800 recorders are on transfer buses, not essential buses. No power only on battery power. I discuss the gear issue towards the end of the video.
Who are they trying to fool by claiming that two black boxes, working independently with their own backup power, stopped working at the same time?
As someone pointed out not all black boxes have a backup, FAA regulations require it but older aircraft that never enter FAA airspace may not, the backup is an upgrade for them and so may not be fitted.
I am Korean. I don't speak English so I use a translator.
Korea is becoming socialist due to the huge opposition party that pursues socialism and communism.
The president was impeached due to the instigation and illegal activities of this opposition party.
This Jeju Air accident occurred in a region that represents the opposition party.
If this kind of accident had occurred in a region that represents the opposition party in Korea, the opposition party would have ultimately suffered political damage.
Currently, the majority of the people are raising issues with the airport design, but the opposition party is criticizing the pilots and Jeju Air.
nam chosun... why the cover up? 😅
The South Korean president is a worse criminal than Trump, this guy just shall, and will, go to jail. Oh. BTW. A bit off topic here, whut?
Not a pilot but to me, the pilots did their job. They got the plane back on the ground in resonantly good shape.
The authorities screwed the pouch on this one. Building the ILS on top of a berm and a concrete wall, allowing development in line with the runway.
I firmly believe most if not all the passengers would have serviced had it not been for the wall and there had been enough runout after the end of the runway.
So if the onboard battery should last for 30 minutes, and it went out in one, it's probably a short circuit. It also could have probably burned out something along the way preventing the normal operating scenario of some system.
While there is a reason to power the flight data recorder from onboard power(independent battery powered recorder would have nothing to record in case of full blackout), it's strange that the voice recorder doesn't have an independent battery.
Why did they not just land in the First place? no engines required they where yards from the ground with Wheels and Flaps DOWN, WHO has wiped the last 4 mins of the recording then? AND WHY????????????????
This is the question 🎯
Seems too convenient that black boxes and voice recorders to stop 4 minutes outs like it’s on o breaker!
Even with a breaker pulled a decent rips has 10-15 minutes of recording before it shuts off.
Unless they had a bad rips battery, no way to tell unless you properly did the super easy functional check on it
This airport is a deathtrap, both with the poor management of birds and especially that damn wall.
We may be able to tell if the pilots remembered to try to lower the gear and flaps if they recover those levers from the wreckage. Even if the levers were moved by the violence of the crash, there are likely to be witness marks showing the position at impact. Likely a distinction without a difference though.
"This airport is a deathtrap". Yep. => Millions of killer birds, a deathtrap wall and strange Twilight Zone effects that switch off electrical equipment.
Bad airport design. But stinks of a Boeing cover-up
Excellent analysis and comments. Thank you
I'm happy I have found this channel. The one is the only correct overview in tens of other videos where they just dancing on the bones to get views from any accident since it attracts attention.
It's heartbreaking to imagine how the pilots were desperately trying to save the passengers and plane. Peace and love to all the souls 🙏🕊💖.
It is terrible! I feel for those pilots and everyone on board! 😢❤
Insane they didn't just land it. They were on final. Insane decision.
What I don’t understand is why the landing gear was not down. As far as I know these are not Electrical operated but mechanical!!!
Normal operation is by hydraulics. The backup pumps are electric. With no hydraulics, can free fall via a separate set of handles.
@ yes that’s why it was not deployed manually by levers?
Excellent video. Thank you!
You are welcome!
In the video of the compressor stall, I don't see any gear deployed. Does that mean that the bird strike happened before they were in landing configuration? Or am I wrong.
They were landing, hit birds, go around and put up the gear…
It probably means they decided to go around precisely to try to avoid the birds, retracted flaps and gear, suddenly gained altitude and then the bird strike happens. So the bird strike happened after, not before they were in landing config.
What if the pilot shut down the WRONG ENGINE? That might explain all their problems.
9:04 sparks from both engines
I don't see anything that would have stopped the pilots from continuing the original approach. Unless they tried to go around before hitting the birds; maybe the go around was an attempt to avoid the birds.
That is a likely possibility. There are reports that Korean airlines SOPs require a go around when high numbers of birds are observed.
yeah. the pilot also said "birds, go around"
@@soirism No, he already reported "Bird Strike" while half landing process...
No one saw birds on the runway though
interesting and informative video, so sad for the families, hopefully more can be learnt to avoid anything similar happening again
Amazing explanation thanks
Your knowledge is amazing
End of the day, they did NOT need to go around. The distance they were from the airport, they could have landed 3 times over with their height and speed. Boeing 737 is a good glider in these situations, so their decision to TOGA is absolutely leaving a big question mark here.
End of the day, they *always* have the option to go around, even if it turns out to be a bad choice. The mantra is "if in doubt, go around", because most landing accidents happen because they chose *not* to go around, like that recent Cessna 525 Citation business jet in Brazil. That one, at least initially, appears to be a classic case of "get-there-itis" with fatal (1 fatality, the pilot, the rest got extremely lucky) consequences.
Company policy also comes into play here. If, for whatever reason, they felt they were no longer in a stabilized approach - like maybe trying to avoid spotted birds - a go around is fully justified.
@@danchanner7887
1. We don't know when TOGA was initiated compared to what we see in the videos.
2. That is speculation. White particulates exiting both engines right before the more visible compressor stall.
3. We have no idea about their options at this point. If both engines were affected and didn't produce enough trust, or at all, with the possibility of a complete electrical failure just to make everything a lot worse, how can you even criticize a tear-drop return? Nor does it qualify as "get-there-itis".
Loss of near complete trust (we don't know), complete electrical failure hindering easy control (we don't know), hydraulics failures (we don't know), smoke filling the cabin/cockpit preventing good visibility (we don't know).
The maneuver suggest an extreme sense of urgency, and if a variety of those factors are true, I would probably come to "land immediately" over "let's do 15 minutes of checklists" as well.
Simply put, there is no "they should have" without the preliminary report out. But again, a decision to go around should *never* be criticized. We have no idea what was going on in the pilots heads when they did.
Well this is exactly 💯 Why risk the plane when you can put it down on the first approach? Was the black box recording when they changed their minds?
Great video Thanks
You bet
What's the point of spending so much time explaining how an airbus works, when we are here to find out what we know about a boeing incident?
To show an alternate design. Show how improved human factors might help in high stress situations. Or how engineering and design can provide redundant operations without manual intervention.
Great report Bud.
As a non flyer , thats a lot of stuff coming at ya in a short time. The human capacity kicks in, such a shame the ppl who put that runway obstruction at the end of the runway were not on that plane.
Im a builder .
lts so easy to excavate a footing and use the earth as form work ,than to form up and strip above ground. Unless the area is rock and excavation is a big job.
I gotta assume that was the case and thats what happens when accounts call the shots.
Thanks. My understanding is that the airport is in typhoon country and the reinforcement was to make it resistant to 150 mph winds. Still, should not have been there.
Thanks. Solid update.
It is an impressive overwhelming series of events putting the Pilots on an unique, unimaginable and untrained situation. I’ve flown the 737 and flying the EMBRAER now it’s clear to see how the legacy (grandfather rights) Certification Standards also play a role into this sad accident. EMBRAER 2004 design putz the Pilot on a more “comfortable” position because of RAT and system architecture! God bless the Pilots and their families!
Yeah and look what happened to that embraer that crashed from the Russian missile, manual reversion like the 737 has could have saved that plane ?. Jeju would have survived if it wasn’t for that Loc mound
People have to realize the 737 fleet did hundreds of millions of boring uneventful flights. I still find it astonishing though that someone would design an aircraft and not include data recorders on backup power redundancy. Bad Boeing. Bad Jeju. And above all very very bad, unbelievably stupid and criminal infrastructure design.