Probably not, as the concrete structure was on top of the berm and was hit and ruptured by the forward part of the aircraft. So the engines are likely hardly damaged by impacting it.
@@joso5554 I think you didn't get it that the above comment was probably ironic...!..How should they find " a concrete wall " in the engines....? This discussion is getting to be idiotic..!
Agreed. There's redundancy in the hydraulic systems for the landing gear, including a manual override. The bird strike was just one of many contributing factors.
@@JS-zv3yw incompetence and rush to landing did. No attempt to even swerve the airplane off runway with rudder while concrete wall fast approaching? Bizarre! So many wrong things…
Bird strike. Pilots turned off wrong engine. Panics. Configures plane to purely glider mode (no landing gear, flaps, etc). Manages to align and land the plane. Crashes to a wall.
Ridiculous randomly comment. This is not a guessing and blaming game for you to feel good. As if you knew anything more than the average gossiping keyboard junkie… Give us a break.
@@joso5554 people are allowed to speculate and have their own view on things. It’s not a sinister way of thinking, people want to understand and question the anomalies that occurred, it would be a worse world if no one said anything as if they didn’t care. Extreme loss of life will always be a talking point, after all it could be you or your family on that plane
You can clearly see the right engine recovered is intact and that was still burning thrust when landing and that's the one hit by a bird or birds right?
It was not the wall a chain of missteps led to its tragic end. The jet hit the wall at 160 knots wall, or the brick perimeter wall would have been the same end
I've seen Arirang News reporting that the Ministry of Transport confirmed it was a bird strike that caused "the tragedy". Then as I scrolled down, YT algorithm recommended the Miracle at Hudson's documentary. Similar bird strike event: one departing the airport when they hit the birds and Jeju's was preparing for landing when they hit the birds, but its pilots chose to abort their landing to return to the sky with engines failing. That reinforced concrete mound just made sure that no one else survived (except the two people on the tail). Isn't this an important reason (versus simply stating it's a bird strike) why this has a very tragic end, Ministry of Transport?
Captain Sully was at about 5,000 feet when he flew thru a flock of Canadian Geese which took out both his engine.... but he had altitude and airspeed though, and thus time to weigh his options and realize he couldn't glide to the nearest runway and his only option was to try and land on the Hudson River (it wasn't even a choice he had no other options open to him!). So other than birds severely damaging both engines, there is really not much in common between these two airplane incidents... Captain Sully had luck on his side, while these Korean pilots with barely 500 feet of air below them just could not catch a break IMHO! Just saying. 😕That mound or berm or whatever it's official name is, was a REALLY BAD IDEA just waiting for an aircraft in distress to be unable to stop in time! Would everyone have survived if not for that "mound" being there... probably not honestly. But would more than 2 have survived? Probably!
@lifelemonade777 (edited for clarity) fan blades letting loose due to bird strike can pierce hydraulic lines, and then not enough time at that height to manually release gear down.
@NWer-c5u Dude what are you smoking? You really think a bird strike would cause turbine blades to come out of their slots? Please don't tell me you're a pilot or a mechanic.
@@NWer-c5u When doing a manual extension, you don't crank the gear down in a 737. The manual extension procedure consists of flipping a small door on the cockpit floor behind the FO seat open, and pulling 3 cables. That's it.
@@NWer-c5u You do not "crank" the landing gear down manually. You can only pull on a set of handles, which are located in a recess in the floor *behind* one of the pilot seats, and all that does is release the locks holding the gear up... then gravity has to pull the gear down. And that all takes time and a free hand to do it, which the pilots may have both been struggling with the flight controls if the hydraulic system had failed that badly. I agree overall with your comment friend, I only wanted to point out that you do not "crank" the gear down, that's all. Regards!
Just wait until Boeing and CFMI have given their expert assessment. I have assessed many military birstrikes or engine ingestions one being a 300mm cannon ricochet (it still returned to base even after a Pan Pan call was not accepted by nearest diversion unit, flew on 70 miles only to take in a bird on finals on the second engine) . Most survived small to medium birds with a cough/gulp (surge) or two as appeared with No2 in this accident. Double surge appeared on No2 but reverse translating door was open on landing. A no time decision sudden teardrop (low level forced landing) and yet the banking appeared controlled as it aligned centrally to RW19. Such banking would almost certainly have required power from No1 engine to get around and down, There was a crew awareness as the No 2 appeared to have selected Reverse, but I am not au fait with this ac/ engine reverse thrust selection criteria as the translating door may have operated but what power was being generated to give effective speed shedding. All conjecture at this time but if a serious ac or engine issue had been found than 737-800 operators would soon be advised. Yet this was not the case with Kegworth when the wrong engine was shut down (vibration) and the actual bad actor (other) was powered up on finals and failed catastrophically.
They deployed the thrust reverser on the engine that had the compressor stall. This was all one big accident. Pilots should have continued and landed the first try.
The thrust reverser (TR) can be selected by the crew but can only be deployed when either the weight on wheels switches are made or if the aircraft is within 10 ft of the runway, which is determined by a Low Range Radio Altimeter (LRRA). Two actions are required to deploy the TR, to unlock it and then to move it to the selected position, deployed or stowed. This requires hydraulic power, but much less than that required for the flags & slats and undercarriage. This arrangement is to ensure that the TRs cannot be unintentionally be deployed in flight. The deployment is assisted by the engine trust. In this case the No 1 left engine was not running and the TR was not deployed, which is unusual as both are normally deployed together. This suggest that there was insufficient hydraulic power to deploy the TR, without engine thrust. This is an indication that there would not have been enough hydraulic power to operate the flaps & slats and the undercarriage.
@@christopherrobinson7541 Uhh, that has been debunked by another 777 pilot who said that this model of plane does not use weight sensors on the landing gear to enable the engine thrust reversers. Another claim people have made, that the pilots should have circled the airport dumping fuel before attempting to land again, has also been debunked because according to other 777 pilots this model plane does not have the hardware to allow it to dump fuel in flight. Another line of though on the thrust reverser being apparently activated though, is that it either opened up in flight due to internal damage by the birds OR it opened upon hitting the runway at touchdown... but was not hydraulically nor commanded to actually open by the pilots. This makes some sense to me, as the pilots must have known engine #1 wasn't running at all and an activated thrust reverser on 1 wing only would induce a lot of yaw to the aircraft if that engine was producing any significant thrust. But we will learn the truth of much of this once the preliminary accident report is released.... I do agree with most of your assessment however, this plane was in much worse condition than many people have assumed, I think because most people assume "bird strike" means just 1 bird was ingested into 1 engine only and all modern jet passenger plane engines can easily survive that! But this, was much worse than that.
@@jamesm568 Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have. Pity these pilots didn't have it in this case. We should not judge them too harshly as such, imho. 😞
It is likely that both engines suffered bird strikes, possibly two separate events. When the aircraft touched down the No 1 left engine was not running and the No 2 right appeared to be operating but at low power.
Agreed. If the plane can complete a go around and a traffic pattern, the plane could have been landed safely going straight in. Bird strike straight to landing. The pilot in command, flew this airplane to the crash site.
@@janinsweden8559 That's the $Million question. In over 20 years of flying 737's, we've practiced engine failures of all kinds, not just bird strikes, while fully configured in what we call a "low energy state" The airplane will fly to the runway on one engine and flaps 30 degrees, gear down with absolutely zero problems. On the other hand, it will also do a single engine go around to get set up for a single engine landing with absolutely zero problems. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) the crew maintained control of the flight path adequately, 9100 feet of runway when you already have the gear down and flaps extended, would almost always be the best decision. If they had some flight path control issues after the bird strike and elected to go around and get stabilized I can maybe (MAYYYYYBE) see their decision to go around. At which point one of 2 things likely happened. They either had a bird strike to the second engine, or they were in the process of running the engine failure/severe damage checklist and mistakenly shut down the wrong engine. Either way, from the perspective of a 737 Captain, the only thing that could account for their decision to land gear and flaps up is they were either facing, or believed they were about to be facing, a zero available thrust situation. Hopefully we get factual information released from the CVR soon. The NTSB has the DFDR in the USA so most of us are fairly comfortable with whatever their transcripts are going to show.
There are around 20,000 bird strikes per year in North America alone. A bird strike does not cause plane crashes. The "other engine was intact". Ten bucks says the pilots shut down the good engine, then panicked, then elected not to run checklists, then elected to do a wheels-up, no-flaps landing, and then never manually deployed spoilers once they touched down. The bird strike will just one of several events that led to the fatal accident.
That's typical all over Asia, in all first world asian countries like Singapore as well. Unlike western countries, we have no rights over what we can say.
You'd think that manufacturers would make things idiot-proof in such situations. Like, the engine in trouble would be flashing red or something, or the remaining engine would resist being shut off. But I guess it's tough for designers of all kinds of things to anticipate what people will do when confused and panicking. And when designers go too far we make jokes about their warnings and safety efforts. Sometimes we'll even try to disable or bypass irritating safety measure completely. Thus an idiot-proof design can actually backfire and make things more dangerous.
Like so many others, you seem to assume it was just 1 bird though. How many birds can a plane actually run into at 1 time and still survive? I suspect this plane exceeded that number by at least 1 bird! Just saying. There is no such thing as infinite redundancy... engineers can only plan and design for so much stuff to happen at one time and still have a safe flying aircraft.
@michaelshrader5139 I don't think that the birds...either one or more... are the cause of this terrible crash. It seems that the concrete wall was the fatal part.And the too short distance on the landing stretch plus the wrong direction AND the lack of wheel contact on the runway. Thats just too much all together. Sometimes one has to call it " fate "...unfortunately.For lack of a definite and clear cause..
in 34 years of professional flying, including 20+ in 737s, I've had countless bird strikes. The Vref/Vtarget of that airplane was likely over 145/150kias. Depending on the species of bird they hit it's a lot of impact force. Big cranes or geese can weigh over 2 or 3kg. Remember basic grade school physics? F=MA? We don't yet have the DFDR data to know their Vtarget exactly, but based on them being full, it was likely over 170mph. That's a lot of "A" to calculate into the equation. And sometimes it's not even damage to the fan blades themselves or the compressor section downstream of the fans, per se. All it takes is something disrupting the airflow over the blades and vanes to cause a reduction in thrust.
@@CanyonBlue737Capt Exactly! These weren't medium sized barn yard chickens thrown into a running engine on the ground to see if the engine could ingest them and keep running properly... Me thinks they need to do more realistic testing to be honest, because it is far from clear just how many large species birds any jet engine can ingest at once and still be a viable engine, and from reports I have seen there was a witness that described this plane as having flown "thru a wall of birds" which strongly suggest it had many bird strikes and in both engines! Just saying.... we honestly do not know how badly that plane was damaged nor what the pilots were dealing with in their last 3 or 4 minutes of flight. It is far too soon to be judging the pilots for this disaster!
@@CanyonBlue737Capt Also, what do you think could have caused the transponder to quit transmitting? It appears to have stopped right at the time of the plane encountering the flock of birds... if that quit working upon the plane striking birds, what else wasn't working? Just saying. 😕
@@trevorharris400the engines slammed into the dirt and wall and wouldn’t have gone far from impact while the majority of the fuel/fireball traveled up and over the wall.
But, it is "confirmed" now... so we can all relax knowing this finally! smh! When what we really want to know was what was on the black box recorders and what the pilots were saying in the cockpit... but, that's coming sooner than later I think. It's just, difficult to be patient. 😞
Also I may be wrong but the plane was travelling really fast after the gear-up landing. After realizing they did not lower gear were the crew trying to get airborne again? Think this happened in the PIA flight. . .
Once thrust reversers are deployed .. there is no getting airborne again. Pilots are well trained ... once reversers are deployed the plane is finished flying for that cycle.
Pretty certain that was not an option and the pilots knew they had to ride-it-out and hope for the best... pretty certain that nobody realized just how substantial that raised earth berm was, or that it had so much concrete in it!
Bird strikes could have damaged both engines resulting in insufficient hydraulic power to extend the undercarriage. The lack of flaps & slats was much more important.
@@christopherrobinson7541 And take all together, it strongly suggests that the plane had little if any hydraulics by the time it touched-down on the runway with wheels up flaps up and spoilers up.... all of which is hydraulically operated equipment (and all of which can manually be activated but not easily and not quickly). And if no hydraulics, then no "power steering" either (ie. the plane's flight controls would have been dang near impossible to control). This is what people are not "getting" though, people have been utterly convinced that it is not possible for a modern jet plane to crash after being struck by *A* bird, but they are not accounting for multiple birds being struck by the plane and all the damage that could have caused... even the best engineered and built machine, can only take so much damage before it will fail. smh! 😕
We should always allow for the startle factor that such a bird strike will cause when configured to land. The immediate response may have been to go around only for subsequent events to show this was not a wise decision. It's easy to be wise in hindsight. RIP.
I disagree. Throughout my career, we regularly practiced handling major malfunctions close to the ground. That means all 7-800 pilots in just my fleet. After one or two of these events even the slowest leaners realised that if you were on approach, landing and then sorting out the mess was preferable. So bird-strikes, fires, engine failures, smoke in the cabin, electrical failure, gross fuel imbalance the solution was invariably land.
Consider if they had not aborted their landing but had tried to go thru with the landing and crashed and burned and everyone died... people would still be criticizing them, that they obviously should have aborted their initial approach and done a full go-around to fully evaluate how badly the plane may had been damaged by the bird strikes before attempting to land again. It's like, the pilots are dam'ed either which way, they truly still can not catch a break even today! smh! :-]
The No 1 left engine may also have been damaged by birds and failure during the go around or there was another bird strike. It is also possible that the crew shout-down the wrong engine.
@@Deploracle Uhh, no they did not use frozen birds for those tests (but I have heard that joke before too... it is a joke, you know this right?). But they didn't throw multiple birds in at a few hundred miles per hours either as far as I know. Captain Sully lost both his engines due to flying thru a line of Canadian Geese at about 5,000 ft altitude, are you claiming it wasn't the geese that destroyed both his engines at once then? Please, do elaborate on what really happened with Captain Sully's plane then... 😕
@@michaelshrader5139 I don't think there are any jet engines that are certified to endure a goose strike. Sully hit geese and was going down like it or not. Had he been over LA instead of NYC .... :( The Jeju birdstrike was a lot more common .. several times a day around the world it happens, uneventfully.
Birds of a feather....Instead of confirming feather in the left engine but can't confirm if feather is in the right engine, let us listen to the recording.
@joso5554 And why not? Is it impossible to identify which engine is having the feathers? There were only two engines on that 737, one of which is reported to have feathers. Nothing is said about the other engine. Could it be another clumsy attempt at cover-up? If you are in Korea, please tell us which engine has the feathers. It's either the left or the right. You can't miss it.
Apparently, the cockpit voice recorder was analyzed a couple days ago. The fact that they are not revealing it’s contents leads me to suspect the evidence isn’t favorable. They’d most likely report it’s contents quickly if it exonerated the flight crew. I hope I’m wrong.
The architects and engineers who placed the reenforced concrete there should be on trial. If it weren’t for the barrier, all the passengers would’ve survived.
Maybe not all since airplane still had a lot of kinetic energy and would definitely brake up when hitting uneven terrain but it would be much much better.
yeah nah as we would say in New Zealand implying Yes i see where you are at in your thinking Na your thoughts are wrong , Certainly having large concrete structures that close is bad but was legal so rules were made , presumably understanding the risks . The wall was the cherry on the top of the swiss cheese model . The swiss cheese model of accident investigation states for an accident to happen many protective barriers or slices of cheese have to align so that many faults have to occur at the same time in order for the accident to happen , ie all the holes in the slices of cheese need to align for the laser beam to pass though. Dumb name but I hope you get the point . So the problem was not the wall that was just the last thing on the list . I guess the first thing would be building a international airport right next to wildlife habitats slice 1 . This allowed the engine(s) to fail from bird strike , slice 2 . Wrong engine shut down or both engines degraded slice 3 , forced to trim plane for glide no time to do checklist or think about an off field landing, Choosing to goto the left of the runway slice 4 , this stopped the captain whom would have been flying from easily seeing the runway , Leading to an error of turning back to airport early , came in hot, without ability to quickly deploy landing gear and or flaps slice 5 , leading to the airplane to float 40 % of the runway before touchdown . Slice 6 possum in the headlight effect , the captain didn't input any rudder when they could see the plane was not going to stop , and just rode it into the large dirt concrete reinforced wall .
The aircraft hit an ILS Antenna Localizer installation. This provides azimuth information to the approaching information to indicate the aircrafts position with regard to the runway centerline. Hence the installation sbe on the runway centerline. This installation was designed and built the US military when the airport was a US airbase. It was originally constructed during the 1950's and was modified latter, but still during the time when it was a US airbase. This end of the airfield is low and is prone to flooding. With the combination of strong winds and saturated ground the installation moved, requiring frequent calibration of the system. To resolve this problem the ILS Antenna were mounted an a concrete raft, situation an a earth plinth. The current installation complies with the ICAO guidelines. Each country uses these guidelines to formulate their own regulations. Those for Korea mirro the ICAO guidelines, those for the US are now much stricter. 70m beyond the ILS Antenna, is the airport boundary wall. This is a security installation which has cameras and watchtowers and encircles the airport. If the aircraft had not been there, the aircraft would have struck this wall at 150 kts, with a similar outcome. This was a non-survivable accident.
@@christopherrobinson7541 It would not have struck that 6 inch thick cinder block wall with any sort of similar outcome. A 6 inch wall will give way to an aircraft, a raised earthen berm topped with a thick concrete slab though... not so much! Which one would you rather run into? I'll take the 6 inch thick cinder block wall any day ending in "y" thank you very much! Just saying.
Sûre, it’s the wall that ordered the crew to hurry an overshoot opposite heading belly landing. Obviously. We don’t give a F about your idiotic blame game. An aircraft accident investigation is about understanding all the factors involved and drawing lessons and meaningful realistic recommendations to improve safety. So STFU.
The aircraft hit an ILS Antenna installation. If it was not there, then the aircraft would have hit the airport boundary wall 70m beyond travelling at 150 kts. That would not have been a survivable event.
For sure more passengers would have survived than with this concrete wall!Who puts a wall like this at the end of a runway?If they do,this is pure stupidity!
@@christinafotopoulou8524 You're trying to talk about other's "pure stupidity" when you still think they crashed into a "concrete wall" "at the end of a runway"????? 🙄🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Thrust reversers were never deployed it was the fan cowl doors pushed up as it is carrying the load and was deformed as evident in the video... Even the thrust reverser cowl seemed to partially have opened as it skidding off the ground
Sounds plausible. Black box data should confirm whether the thrust reverser was commanded to activate or not. I suspect mechanics are even good enough that they will be able to tell what parts of the engines were damaged by birds going thru them vs what was damaged in the touch-down and final crash of the plane.
It maybe started with the bird strike but it ended with human errors. Investigators should be transparent & truthful with their investigation coz it's a way of giving the victims of the crashed & their families a closure.
You are assuming human error then? Because what facts do you have to support that assumption which cannot just as easily be attributed to a badly damaged airplane that was getting worse with every passing second after having flown thru "a wall of birds". Just saying.
If we knew something, it’s that there was at least a very likely bird strike on engine 2. So this is just a confirmation if the engine affected is indeed engine 2. It would be more noticeable news if it was nr. 1. Investigators must already know which engine it is. It’s disappointing that it’s not disclosed.
@ForgotMyOrange they keep bringing up the bird strike, that's implying it's to blame. If it wasn't supposed to be important, they wouldn't mention it..
@@christianbuczko1481 Pathetic logic. You obviously don’t understand the difference between an investigation and a blame game. Give us a break and look for conspiracy elsewhere.
@mago97615 the correct action would have been to continue the landing, that would have meant the wall was never going to be a problem. Also, if the pilot had not rushed the landing and landed 3/4 the way down the runway, the wall wouldn't have been a problem. It was one mistake by the pilot after another.
People keep fixating on the wall, wait until the CVR transcript is released. I bet we're going to find that this was a serious case of pilot error. Even in an emergency situation, crossing the runway threshold at takeoff speed is a big no-no. There are many different things they could have done that would have resulted in not overrunning the runway and hitting that wall. They had options up until the very end.
Ok we know that. We are wondering why the landing gear wasnt deployed, why they rushed the landi g, why they didnt lower the flaps, why the wrong engine was turned off etc
It's almost like the plane had no hydraulics, isn't it? But that can not be! 😲Just as a chunk of foam could NOT POSSIBLY have brought down the Space Shuttle Columbia!!! 😐
You are assuming it was only "A" bird strike, as in 1 single bird. That is highly unlikely however. There is a lot of evidence right now that that plane hit multiple large species coastal birds. From txt messages sent by passengers to their loved ones, to witnesses on the ground and who saw and filmed the plane passing overhead with compressor stalls from #2 engine and sparks being emitted by BOTH the engines. There is at least a preponderance of evidence right now to suggest the plane hit multiple birds.
And the sun could have been in their eyes so they couldn't tell which switch they were turning off, too. There are an infinite number of things that likely had not a thing to do with this disaster. It's far more likely though that they didn't have a "right" engine that was running right, and the left side engine shut itself down as it too had ingested at least 1 bird if not more than 1.... it was trailing sparks also after all.
I really don't understand why is everyone blaming the "wall" for the crash. If a wall/tree existed at the end of a road and a driver crashes his car into it, do you blame the wall/tree for existing? Sure, you can say the road can be better designed, and have all trees plucked/walls removed from a 100m radius from the roads, but there are always constraints in the environment. Furthermore, blaming the bad design of the airport after the crash on hindsight is also simple. Additionally, no one knows how the crash would have been even without the "wall". With the plane still travelling at almost 160 knots, it could just as easily disintegrate/flip etc as the plane continues rolling on the ground, especially with the engines built below the fuselage acting like a "scoop". And if the plane still doesnt stop there, what about all the non airport buildings beginning 400m south of the "wall"??? At 160 knots i doubt the plane can stop before them anyway... meaning the end result could have been just the same, or worst...
A car is much smaller and lighter mass than a 777 aircraft is. You are not comparing apples to apples friend. This is more equivalent to a car running off the road at high speed and ploughing into a concrete drainage pipe under a concrete driveway! You analogy doesn't compare apples to apples is all I'm saying. Had that earth and concrete berm not been there in all likelihood more than 2 people could have survived; not everyone was going to walk away from that landing, but more than 2 would have lived I believe. Regards!
@@michaelshrader5139totally agree with you. Aviation is at much higher at risk of emergencies and so such construction and engineer need to be considered carefully around the runway including the overrun area. Like frangible localisers and not a concrete wall holding them. It’s ridiculous. It’s not just a random tree or fencing is it? It’s a localiser made of death.
This is the most sense/intelligence post I see regarding the crash. Also, even if the wall isn't there. What if it becomes more catastrophic if the wall wasn't there.
You "think" is not factual or evidence based however. I strongly suspect that plane was in far worse condition after having flown thru a "wall of birds" than you think it was. Just saying. Pilots do not forget every thing they are supposed to do in order to safely land an airplane friend.... yeah they might have turned off the wrong engine, yeah they might have forgotten to deploy the landing gear, yeah they might have forgotten to deploy the flaps, and the spoilers too.... but to forget EVBERYTHING? Note that everything people claim the pilots "forgot" to activate for landing has something in common: All that stuff uses hydraulic power to activate, or is otherwise slow and difficult to activate manually!
The person who recorded that video said that that he was alerted by loud bangs from the aircraft and then started recording. He also said that the undercarriage was extended before he commenced recording. It is highly likely that compression stalls occured before the start of the video, possibly by bird strikes in both engines. The video was probably recording the start of the go around.
@@Deploracle Engines often continue to run for a bit after sustaining severe damage... they do themselves in by continuing to run. There is no reason to think that the engines instantly died or lost power upon ingesting birds... and it is quite the coincidence that the plane's transponder stopped transmitting right about the time the plane reportedly flew thru a "wall of birds". One might think the 2 things are even related.... Just saying. 😕
@@michaelshrader5139 I agree that they had to have some thrust to complete "the impossible turn" and back to runway heading but not enough to sustain flight. Obviously they had hydraulic power so ... why no gear, flaps, or speedbrakes? Eight days later and its crickets from officials. I take that to mean "human error". If there was something mechanical, notations would have already been sent to operators of type.
If that was the right hand #2 engine that is missing fan blades, how was that thing even still running? It would have had a severe imbalance to it with missing blades... it should have been shaking all over the place. Are they really sure that was the #2 engine that they recovered with missing fan blades? 😕
@@michaelshrader5139 You are correct in regards to the vibration! It probably was shaking all over the place. It is possible that the LP fan/compressor/turbine seized or was severely compromised, leaving only the HP stage to work. If you watch the one video of the plane skidding down the runway, it appears that there is some exhaust leaving the #2 engine, but it didn't appear to slow the aircraft much at all, even with 5000' of skid. A bird-strike compromised reverser might explain this. Still not sure which engine was hit or which one was shut down, it is all still speculation at this point. I don't have all the answers, waiting patiently for the analysis of the CVR and FDR. Looking for an explanation as to why the aircraft didn't appreciably slow if the reverser(s) were working?
Minister resigned. May not have been responsible. But his resignation does honor to the govt. Sadly, such honorable behavior is not common in other govts (referring to the USA after the dishonorable exit from Afghanistan).
You know who is actually at fault here? Us People never want airports close to where people live ... so airport developers are forced to build where people aren't (but birds are, usually in large numbers).
And then people still build huge subdivisions with houses crammed-in together right along the flight paths of these airports... one might think people are really dumb in general. idk. 😕
Well I somehow doubt they got their pilot certificates by mail order... one had something like 9K hours of flight time (I do not recall exactly now but it was not a low number), the other a little under 2K hours.
As a U.S. citizen, I find the collectivist culture intriguing. I don't agree with it, but it's intriguing. Why should he step down when it wasn't his fault?
Without the undercarriage being extended and the flaps & slats not lowered, suggests that there was no (or very limited) hydraulic power. Without the APU running, there would not be high power 115V 3 phase supply to energise the electrical motor hydraulic pumps for A & B and C standby systems. The original intention was to land on runway 01. After the bird strike the pilot declared an emergency and advised ATC that they were going around. Soon after the pilot requested runway 19. It is likely that the undercarriage was retracted and the flaps & slats were stowed as part of the go around procedure. If there was an event to the No 1 left engine shortly after the aircraft was cleaned, this could have resulted in a double engine failure, resulting in the loss of hydraulic power. In such an event the aircraft would be out of range of a landing on runway 01 and elected to use runway 19. As the wind was SW 3 kts, this would a be slight headwind component, but this would be insignificant. Without the capability to configure the aircraft for a normal landing, the aircraft approached at 200 kts, the correct speed for a flapless landing. In this configuration, in order to remain on the runway, it would have had to be 6,000m long. The runway employed is usually 2,800m long, but because of construction work only 2,500m was available. A key question is why did the pilot elect to go around if they were on a stabilised approach? Perhap the approach was not stabilised, which would require a go around. It has also been reported that for Korean airlines, the Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) require a go around in such a situation. IMHO at this time too many events occured at the wrong time and the pilot ran out of luck.
@@christopherrobinson7541 A good working theory, and I agree 100% because it is not an unreasonable chain of events. People keep assuming it was only 1 single bird that this plane hit... that assumption is incorrect and unfounded, "bird strike" does not mean it was just 1 single bird. How many large species birds can an engine ingest and continue to run and produce thrust? Tests have shown that 1 bird the size of an average barn yard chicken doesn't do much if any damage... but I do not think anybody has tested these engines by throwing 2 or 3 wild turkey sized birds into an engine at like ~200+ mph to see what happens! There are limits to what the engines can survive, and they may not fail instantaneously but the damage one would think would get far worse every second the engine continues to run after going thru a "Wall of birds". ps. It may not be clear to some people still, but runway 19 and runway 01 are the exact same runway... the numbers just define which way the aircraft is trying to land on it.
Well the pilots are dead so now they can investigate however they want concluded even if putting all blame on pilots Because "Dead Man Tells No Tales"....
@@manishgurav2369 Well seriously then, why even bother... everybody should just decide they KNOW without a doubt how this happened and disregard anything that remotely suggests otherwise! smh! 😐
They aren't casting blame on the birds. Aircraft accidents are very rarely caused by just one thing. It usually a cascade of failures/errors that the human crew gets confused by, leading to poor choices. Koreans are very careful to eliminate ALL mechanical explanations before convicting their pilots.
@@joegonzalez1941 I'd kind of like one, at least some preliminary report... if only to confirm or debunk the theories I think best fit the known information at this time. 😐
@@Deploracle It's also not very far from the end of the runway though, given the size of the planes and the speed they fly. Let's just say, it may have been perfectly legal and within the regs, but it was still a really bad idea to put something that solid there. smh!
@@Deploracle No, honey, obviously loads of things went wring before the wall, but if that solid wall hadn't been right at the end the plane would have had more space, knocked a clumsy brick wall and fences, until it stopped. Instead it got smashed and incinerated. So yes, even if a car had had some mechanical issue, it could go off the road and nothing else happen, but if it hits the tree and that kills the driver we could say the tree=collission with the tree is what killed the driver. Easy to understand, isn't it??
@@christopherrobinson7541 If you care to actually do sometesearch, te lLS Antenna was built on a thick solid wall (not made of clumsy bricks). Those antennas aren't normally built like that, and if there is a solid structure to support it, it's always hidden underground, precisely to avoid collissions! So, obviously that solid wall was the problem! Not the antennas on top! Check out other airports lLS antennas and see the difference! If the airport lLS antenna had been properly built the plane would have hit the antenna bit it wouldn't have stop the plane, it wouldn't have smashed it and cause the explossion.. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE BARKING
Wow! What a sad display by the lack of empathy & maturity by some of the comments made here today... you know who I am referring to..... I kinda wish YOU could switch places with the victims on the plane so other trolls can talk crap about you & the tragedy while your family is mourning your death....
I bet they find a concrete wall in the engines also.
Probably not, as the concrete structure was on top of the berm and was hit and ruptured by the forward part of the aircraft. So the engines are likely hardly damaged by impacting it.
@@joso5554I think you did not get that the above statement was ironic....!.Probably.
@@joso5554I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or serious…
I Wonder why they used so mutch concrete?, it looks like its built to stop airplanes?
@@joso5554 I think you didn't get it that the above comment was probably ironic...!..How should they find " a concrete wall " in the engines....?
This discussion is getting to be idiotic..!
The fateful bird strike may have started the whole cascade of events that led to the tragedy but by itself it did not bring the plane down.
Agreed. There's redundancy in the hydraulic systems for the landing gear, including a manual override. The bird strike was just one of many contributing factors.
Yes. It’s multiple things
As Hoover from "Pilot De-Brief" would say the bird strike is only one of the holes that make up the "Swiss Cheese" 🤔
@@Bomber-B17 Another hole might be that they started their trip in the middle of the night and were more tired than usual when it came time to land.
@@JS-zv3yw incompetence and rush to landing did. No attempt to even swerve the airplane off runway with rudder while concrete wall fast approaching? Bizarre! So many wrong things…
Has the word "wall" been deleted from the Korean language?
Maybe walls are a sensitive subject when you're near china?😮😢
@@geniferteal4178Looks like you’ve never studied geography. Between China and South Korea, there’s a North Korea you dodo🤣
@@geniferteal4178no. It’s just them higher ups covering up
Why drag 🇨🇳 into this. Ya ppl love blaming 🇨🇳 for everything.@@geniferteal4178
@@geniferteal4178next thing ya be doing is blaming someone for your own death.
BREAKING NEWS: Birds' passports are also found on the crash site.
Pathetic buffoon conspiracy theorist comment.
Bird strike. Pilots turned off wrong engine. Panics. Configures plane to purely glider mode (no landing gear, flaps, etc).
Manages to align and land the plane. Crashes to a wall.
Honestly makes sense
highly likely with the evidence so far
Ridiculous randomly comment. This is not a guessing and blaming game for you to feel good. As if you knew anything more than the average gossiping keyboard junkie… Give us a break.
@@joso5554 people are allowed to speculate and have their own view on things. It’s not a sinister way of thinking, people want to understand and question the anomalies that occurred, it would be a worse world if no one said anything as if they didn’t care. Extreme loss of life will always be a talking point, after all it could be you or your family on that plane
You can clearly see the right engine recovered is intact and that was still burning thrust when landing and that's the one hit by a bird or birds right?
Confirmed - concrete wall
Did the concrete wall order the crew to make a hurried overshoot belly landing in the opposite runway heading ???
STFU and let investigators work.
It was not the wall a chain of missteps led to its tragic end. The jet hit the wall at 160 knots wall, or the brick perimeter wall would have been the same end
@@ezragonzalez8936 the perimeter wall seems to be made of blocks that are flangible and would not cause any considerable damage to the airplane.
@@ezragonzalez8936 A similar landing happened in Jamaica in 2009 and everyone survived because there was no wall to kill them.
@lawrencedavidson6195 What a moronic statement! 160 knots, the estimated speed is 185mph at impact!! Talking out of your as!
I've seen Arirang News reporting that the Ministry of Transport confirmed it was a bird strike that caused "the tragedy". Then as I scrolled down, YT algorithm recommended the Miracle at Hudson's documentary. Similar bird strike event: one departing the airport when they hit the birds and Jeju's was preparing for landing when they hit the birds, but its pilots chose to abort their landing to return to the sky with engines failing. That reinforced concrete mound just made sure that no one else survived (except the two people on the tail). Isn't this an important reason (versus simply stating it's a bird strike) why this has a very tragic end, Ministry of Transport?
Captain Sully was at about 5,000 feet when he flew thru a flock of Canadian Geese which took out both his engine.... but he had altitude and airspeed though, and thus time to weigh his options and realize he couldn't glide to the nearest runway and his only option was to try and land on the Hudson River (it wasn't even a choice he had no other options open to him!). So other than birds severely damaging both engines, there is really not much in common between these two airplane incidents... Captain Sully had luck on his side, while these Korean pilots with barely 500 feet of air below them just could not catch a break IMHO! Just saying. 😕That mound or berm or whatever it's official name is, was a REALLY BAD IDEA just waiting for an aircraft in distress to be unable to stop in time! Would everyone have survived if not for that "mound" being there... probably not honestly. But would more than 2 have survived? Probably!
Right. Bird strike made the landing gear troubled
No, it’s the wall that ordered the crew to hurry an overshoot opposite heading belly landing. Obviously.
@lifelemonade777 (edited for clarity) fan blades letting loose due to bird strike can pierce hydraulic lines, and then not enough time at that height to manually release gear down.
@NWer-c5u Dude what are you smoking? You really think a bird strike would cause turbine blades to come out of their slots? Please don't tell me you're a pilot or a mechanic.
@@NWer-c5u When doing a manual extension, you don't crank the gear down in a 737. The manual extension procedure consists of flipping a small door on the cockpit floor behind the FO seat open, and pulling 3 cables. That's it.
@@NWer-c5u You do not "crank" the landing gear down manually. You can only pull on a set of handles, which are located in a recess in the floor *behind* one of the pilot seats, and all that does is release the locks holding the gear up... then gravity has to pull the gear down. And that all takes time and a free hand to do it, which the pilots may have both been struggling with the flight controls if the hydraulic system had failed that badly. I agree overall with your comment friend, I only wanted to point out that you do not "crank" the gear down, that's all. Regards!
Just wait until Boeing and CFMI have given their expert assessment. I have assessed many military birstrikes or engine ingestions one being a 300mm cannon ricochet (it still returned to base even after a Pan Pan call was not accepted by nearest diversion unit, flew on 70 miles only to take in a bird on finals on the second engine) . Most survived small to medium birds with a cough/gulp (surge) or two as appeared with No2 in this accident. Double surge appeared on No2 but reverse translating door was open on landing. A no time decision sudden teardrop (low level forced landing) and yet the banking appeared controlled as it aligned centrally to RW19. Such banking would almost certainly have required power from No1 engine to get around and down, There was a crew awareness as the No 2 appeared to have selected Reverse, but I am not au fait with this ac/ engine reverse thrust selection criteria as the translating door may have operated but what power was being generated to give effective speed shedding. All conjecture at this time but if a serious ac or engine issue had been found than 737-800 operators would soon be advised. Yet this was not the case with Kegworth when the wrong engine was shut down (vibration) and the actual bad actor (other) was powered up on finals and failed catastrophically.
They deployed the thrust reverser on the engine that had the compressor stall. This was all one big accident. Pilots should have continued and landed the first try.
The thrust reverser (TR) can be selected by the crew but can only be deployed when either the weight on wheels switches are made or if the aircraft is within 10 ft of the runway, which is determined by a Low Range Radio Altimeter (LRRA). Two actions are required to deploy the TR, to unlock it and then to move it to the selected position, deployed or stowed. This requires hydraulic power, but much less than that required for the flags & slats and undercarriage. This arrangement is to ensure that the TRs cannot be unintentionally be deployed in flight. The deployment is assisted by the engine trust.
In this case the No 1 left engine was not running and the TR was not deployed, which is unusual as both are normally deployed together. This suggest that there was insufficient hydraulic power to deploy the TR, without engine thrust. This is an indication that there would not have been enough hydraulic power to operate the flaps & slats and the undercarriage.
@@christopherrobinson7541 Uhh, that has been debunked by another 777 pilot who said that this model of plane does not use weight sensors on the landing gear to enable the engine thrust reversers. Another claim people have made, that the pilots should have circled the airport dumping fuel before attempting to land again, has also been debunked because according to other 777 pilots this model plane does not have the hardware to allow it to dump fuel in flight. Another line of though on the thrust reverser being apparently activated though, is that it either opened up in flight due to internal damage by the birds OR it opened upon hitting the runway at touchdown... but was not hydraulically nor commanded to actually open by the pilots. This makes some sense to me, as the pilots must have known engine #1 wasn't running at all and an activated thrust reverser on 1 wing only would induce a lot of yaw to the aircraft if that engine was producing any significant thrust. But we will learn the truth of much of this once the preliminary accident report is released.... I do agree with most of your assessment however, this plane was in much worse condition than many people have assumed, I think because most people assume "bird strike" means just 1 bird was ingested into 1 engine only and all modern jet passenger plane engines can easily survive that! But this, was much worse than that.
The pilot probably should have continued the approach, but it also was not inappropriate to abort the approach.
@@jamesm568 Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have. Pity these pilots didn't have it in this case. We should not judge them too harshly as such, imho. 😞
@michaelshrader5139 They probably suck birds in both engines. That changes the situation.
Bird strike in ONE engine!!!! A 737 can easily continue flying with the remaining engine.
Shut up and wait for the investigation to give proper thorough results.
It is likely that both engines suffered bird strikes, possibly two separate events. When the aircraft touched down the No 1 left engine was not running and the No 2 right appeared to be operating but at low power.
Agreed. If the plane can complete a go around and a traffic pattern, the plane could have been landed safely going straight in. Bird strike straight to landing. The pilot in command, flew this airplane to the crash site.
@@christopherrobinson7541 if the crew noticed the bird strike, why would they try a go around when they were so close to landing?
@@janinsweden8559 That's the $Million question. In over 20 years of flying 737's, we've practiced engine failures of all kinds, not just bird strikes, while fully configured in what we call a "low energy state"
The airplane will fly to the runway on one engine and flaps 30 degrees, gear down with absolutely zero problems. On the other hand, it will also do a single engine go around to get set up for a single engine landing with absolutely zero problems.
Assuming (and this is a big assumption) the crew maintained control of the flight path adequately, 9100 feet of runway when you already have the gear down and flaps extended, would almost always be the best decision.
If they had some flight path control issues after the bird strike and elected to go around and get stabilized I can maybe (MAYYYYYBE) see their decision to go around.
At which point one of 2 things likely happened. They either had a bird strike to the second engine, or they were in the process of running the engine failure/severe damage checklist and mistakenly shut down the wrong engine.
Either way, from the perspective of a 737 Captain, the only thing that could account for their decision to land gear and flaps up is they were either facing, or believed they were about to be facing, a zero available thrust situation.
Hopefully we get factual information released from the CVR soon. The NTSB has the DFDR in the USA so most of us are fairly comfortable with whatever their transcripts are going to show.
There are around 20,000 bird strikes per year in North America alone. A bird strike does not cause plane crashes. The "other engine was intact". Ten bucks says the pilots shut down the good engine, then panicked, then elected not to run checklists, then elected to do a wheels-up, no-flaps landing, and then never manually deployed spoilers once they touched down. The bird strike will just one of several events that led to the fatal accident.
The more I watch this, the more Im convinced South korean media is just as censored as North korean media
In the end it will probably be nearly 100% pilot error. The long wait for any detail IMHO confirms that.
Then you don't know anything about North Korea, so stop blabbering on about absolute nonsense.
That's typical all over Asia, in all first world asian countries like Singapore as well. Unlike western countries, we have no rights over what we can say.
@derrviel Don't try to speak for Korea when you obviously have no clue how the media works there.
@ don’t try to correct me when you don’t live in Asia or didnt live in Korea for 5 years like I have. I know what im saying
I hope the pilots didn't shut down the wrong engine.
Pilots error. Fallen asleep forgot the landing gear.. drunk .
@@edwindsilva5720That description sounds more like you writing this comment... 🙄
You'd think that manufacturers would make things idiot-proof in such situations. Like, the engine in trouble would be flashing red or something, or the remaining engine would resist being shut off. But I guess it's tough for designers of all kinds of things to anticipate what people will do when confused and panicking. And when designers go too far we make jokes about their warnings and safety efforts. Sometimes we'll even try to disable or bypass irritating safety measure completely. Thus an idiot-proof design can actually backfire and make things more dangerous.
@polarvortex3294 Both engines were affected, fool. 🤦🏻♂️
@@mmmquaWhat is your evidence for this?😊
The bird strike did not necessitate the other events that led to the fatal crash.
Like so many others, you seem to assume it was just 1 bird though. How many birds can a plane actually run into at 1 time and still survive? I suspect this plane exceeded that number by at least 1 bird! Just saying. There is no such thing as infinite redundancy... engineers can only plan and design for so much stuff to happen at one time and still have a safe flying aircraft.
@michaelshrader5139 I don't think that the birds...either one or more... are the cause of this terrible crash. It seems that the concrete wall was the fatal part.And the too short distance on the landing stretch plus the wrong direction AND the lack of wheel contact on the runway.
Thats just too much all together.
Sometimes one has to call it " fate "...unfortunately.For lack of a definite and clear cause..
Apparently feathers are much stronger than metals 😮
What do you know to discuss this ??
Are you blind?What does a concrete wall doing there????@@joso5554
in 34 years of professional flying, including 20+ in 737s, I've had countless bird strikes. The Vref/Vtarget of that airplane was likely over 145/150kias. Depending on the species of bird they hit it's a lot of impact force. Big cranes or geese can weigh over 2 or 3kg. Remember basic grade school physics? F=MA? We don't yet have the DFDR data to know their Vtarget exactly, but based on them being full, it was likely over 170mph. That's a lot of "A" to calculate into the equation.
And sometimes it's not even damage to the fan blades themselves or the compressor section downstream of the fans, per se. All it takes is something disrupting the airflow over the blades and vanes to cause a reduction in thrust.
@@CanyonBlue737Capt Exactly! These weren't medium sized barn yard chickens thrown into a running engine on the ground to see if the engine could ingest them and keep running properly... Me thinks they need to do more realistic testing to be honest, because it is far from clear just how many large species birds any jet engine can ingest at once and still be a viable engine, and from reports I have seen there was a witness that described this plane as having flown "thru a wall of birds" which strongly suggest it had many bird strikes and in both engines! Just saying.... we honestly do not know how badly that plane was damaged nor what the pilots were dealing with in their last 3 or 4 minutes of flight. It is far too soon to be judging the pilots for this disaster!
@@CanyonBlue737Capt Also, what do you think could have caused the transponder to quit transmitting? It appears to have stopped right at the time of the plane encountering the flock of birds... if that quit working upon the plane striking birds, what else wasn't working? Just saying. 😕
Amazing. Bird feathers can survive plane explosions without being burnt up. 🙄
@@nuraycelebi5325 literally in the title “feathers found in the engines”
@@LeCarneAsada they must have analyzed the remainin particles. It doesn't need to be visible feathers
Passengers were burnt beyond recognition, but feathers inside the engine survived the 2000 degrees combustion temperature
@@trevorharris400the engines slammed into the dirt and wall and wouldn’t have gone far from impact while the majority of the fuel/fireball traveled up and over the wall.
@@bugra320 sure pal
Feel so sad for the many we lost 😢.God please accept prayers May this never ever happen again and everyone can travel safely and happily always
They were on final, configured tower land, single engine, AND they went around. The feathers are not the cause, LAND ASAP when on final.
Excellent Report!
We knew that from the start ??????????
But, it is "confirmed" now... so we can all relax knowing this finally! smh! When what we really want to know was what was on the black box recorders and what the pilots were saying in the cockpit... but, that's coming sooner than later I think. It's just, difficult to be patient. 😞
_Which_ engine is the big question.
Also I may be wrong but the plane was travelling really fast after the gear-up landing. After realizing they did not lower gear were the crew trying to get airborne again? Think this happened in the PIA flight. . .
The aircraft did not have the flaps & slats lowered and only one engine running, probably at low thrust, hence it was impossible to take-off.
Once thrust reversers are deployed .. there is no getting airborne again. Pilots are well trained ... once reversers are deployed the plane is finished flying for that cycle.
Pretty certain that was not an option and the pilots knew they had to ride-it-out and hope for the best... pretty certain that nobody realized just how substantial that raised earth berm was, or that it had so much concrete in it!
What does a birds trike have to do with the wheels not coming out?
Bird strikes could have damaged both engines resulting in insufficient hydraulic power to extend the undercarriage. The lack of flaps & slats was much more important.
@@christopherrobinson7541 And take all together, it strongly suggests that the plane had little if any hydraulics by the time it touched-down on the runway with wheels up flaps up and spoilers up.... all of which is hydraulically operated equipment (and all of which can manually be activated but not easily and not quickly). And if no hydraulics, then no "power steering" either (ie. the plane's flight controls would have been dang near impossible to control). This is what people are not "getting" though, people have been utterly convinced that it is not possible for a modern jet plane to crash after being struck by *A* bird, but they are not accounting for multiple birds being struck by the plane and all the damage that could have caused... even the best engineered and built machine, can only take so much damage before it will fail. smh! 😕
I don't think you need an investigation to confirm a bird strike. If the pilot tells you bird strike,
We should always allow for the startle factor that such a bird strike will cause when configured to land. The immediate response may have been to go around only for subsequent events to show this was not a wise decision. It's easy to be wise in hindsight. RIP.
I disagree. Throughout my career, we regularly practiced handling major malfunctions close to the ground. That means all 7-800 pilots in just my fleet. After one or two of these events even the slowest leaners realised that if you were on approach, landing and then sorting out the mess was preferable. So bird-strikes, fires, engine failures, smoke in the cabin, electrical failure, gross fuel imbalance the solution was invariably land.
Consider if they had not aborted their landing but had tried to go thru with the landing and crashed and burned and everyone died... people would still be criticizing them, that they obviously should have aborted their initial approach and done a full go-around to fully evaluate how badly the plane may had been damaged by the bird strikes before attempting to land again. It's like, the pilots are dam'ed either which way, they truly still can not catch a break even today! smh! :-]
Feathers found in one engine. The 737 can fly perfectly well on the other engine. Why the dirty dive to the runway?
The No 1 left engine may also have been damaged by birds and failure during the go around or there was another bird strike. It is also possible that the crew shout-down the wrong engine.
Most of the time a bird ingestion causes little to no damage. In certification large frozen birds are tossed into the spinning fans for testing.
@@Deploracle Uhh, no they did not use frozen birds for those tests (but I have heard that joke before too... it is a joke, you know this right?). But they didn't throw multiple birds in at a few hundred miles per hours either as far as I know. Captain Sully lost both his engines due to flying thru a line of Canadian Geese at about 5,000 ft altitude, are you claiming it wasn't the geese that destroyed both his engines at once then? Please, do elaborate on what really happened with Captain Sully's plane then... 😕
@@michaelshrader5139 I don't think there are any jet engines that are certified to endure a goose strike. Sully hit geese and was going down like it or not. Had he been over LA instead of NYC .... :(
The Jeju birdstrike was a lot more common .. several times a day around the world it happens, uneventfully.
@ No not frozen birds. That happened once at Rolls-Royce and the engine blew up.
Birds of a feather....Instead of confirming feather in the left engine but can't confirm if feather is in the right engine, let us listen to the recording.
The video never said which is the engine where they found feathers.
@joso5554 And why not? Is it impossible to identify which engine is having the feathers? There were only two engines on that 737, one of which is reported to have feathers. Nothing is said about the other engine. Could it be another clumsy attempt at cover-up? If you are in Korea, please tell us which engine has the feathers. It's either the left or the right. You can't miss it.
Rip to the innocent birds killed in this air drive-by by humans🙏🏼
Apparently, the cockpit voice recorder was analyzed a couple days ago. The fact that they are not revealing it’s contents leads me to suspect the evidence isn’t favorable. They’d most likely report it’s contents quickly if it exonerated the flight crew. I hope I’m wrong.
*Next time, in this context, use the word "its", not the contraction "it's".*
The architects and engineers who placed the reenforced concrete there should be on trial. If it weren’t for the barrier, all the passengers would’ve survived.
Maybe not all since airplane still had a lot of kinetic energy and would definitely brake up when hitting uneven terrain but it would be much much better.
yeah nah as we would say in New Zealand implying Yes i see where you are at in your thinking Na your thoughts are wrong , Certainly having large concrete structures that close is bad but was legal so rules were made , presumably understanding the risks . The wall was the cherry on the top of the swiss cheese model . The swiss cheese model of accident investigation states for an accident to happen many protective barriers or slices of cheese have to align so that many faults have to occur at the same time in order for the accident to happen , ie all the holes in the slices of cheese need to align for the laser beam to pass though. Dumb name but I hope you get the point . So the problem was not the wall that was just the last thing on the list . I guess the first thing would be building a international airport right next to wildlife habitats slice 1 . This allowed the engine(s) to fail from bird strike , slice 2 . Wrong engine shut down or both engines degraded slice 3 , forced to trim plane for glide no time to do checklist or think about an off field landing, Choosing to goto the left of the runway slice 4 , this stopped the captain whom would have been flying from easily seeing the runway , Leading to an error of turning back to airport early , came in hot, without ability to quickly deploy landing gear and or flaps slice 5 , leading to the airplane to float 40 % of the runway before touchdown . Slice 6 possum in the headlight effect , the captain didn't input any rudder when they could see the plane was not going to stop , and just rode it into the large dirt concrete reinforced wall .
The aircraft hit an ILS Antenna Localizer installation. This provides azimuth information to the approaching information to indicate the aircrafts position with regard to the runway centerline. Hence the installation sbe on the runway centerline. This installation was designed and built the US military when the airport was a US airbase. It was originally constructed during the 1950's and was modified latter, but still during the time when it was a US airbase. This end of the airfield is low and is prone to flooding. With the combination of strong winds and saturated ground the installation moved, requiring frequent calibration of the system. To resolve this problem the ILS Antenna were mounted an a concrete raft, situation an a earth plinth.
The current installation complies with the ICAO guidelines. Each country uses these guidelines to formulate their own regulations. Those for Korea mirro the ICAO guidelines, those for the US are now much stricter.
70m beyond the ILS Antenna, is the airport boundary wall. This is a security installation which has cameras and watchtowers and encircles the airport. If the aircraft had not been there, the aircraft would have struck this wall at 150 kts, with a similar outcome.
This was a non-survivable accident.
Do you also want to sue the construction crew, who built the sidewalk and laid pavement below every building someone has jumped out of???
@@christopherrobinson7541 It would not have struck that 6 inch thick cinder block wall with any sort of similar outcome. A 6 inch wall will give way to an aircraft, a raised earthen berm topped with a thick concrete slab though... not so much! Which one would you rather run into? I'll take the 6 inch thick cinder block wall any day ending in "y" thank you very much! Just saying.
Sinister:only a birds feather remains...a birds feather
The rest of the bird that was spit out is now someone's belated Christmas roast.
Don't blame the birds, blame the wall. Without that thing it was a surviveable event
Sûre, it’s the wall that ordered the crew to hurry an overshoot opposite heading belly landing. Obviously.
We don’t give a F about your idiotic blame game. An aircraft accident investigation is about understanding all the factors involved and drawing lessons and meaningful realistic recommendations to improve safety.
So STFU.
The aircraft hit an ILS Antenna installation. If it was not there, then the aircraft would have hit the airport boundary wall 70m beyond travelling at 150 kts. That would not have been a survivable event.
@@christopherrobinson7541 that would be better then a wall !
For sure more passengers would have survived than with this concrete wall!Who puts a wall like this at the end of a runway?If they do,this is pure stupidity!
@@christinafotopoulou8524 You're trying to talk about other's "pure stupidity" when you still think they crashed into a "concrete wall" "at the end of a runway"????? 🙄🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
They lost both engines. It was clear since first moment, but what happened, crew mistakes?
STFU your blind guessing blame game. Nobody cares what you guess. You don’t know anything.
They could not climb, turn, and return on no engines.
I blame Indiana jone's father.
I blame a cyclist, there was probably one on the runway
It all comes down to: Birds error -> pilots errors -> light support design error.
I don't believe it is mainly caused by bird strike. the plane must have some technical issue and then that wall
Can't even confirm if the second engine was still running? You would think that's relatively easy to see if you're right there.
Einstein enters the comment section, at last!!
bird strikes are not uncommon... and non fatal... real question is why did the pilots panicked?
There is no evidence that the crew panicked.
How many pounds of bird(s) striking an engine can it survive and continue running well, though? Riddle me that friend!
Thrust reversers were never deployed it was the fan cowl doors pushed up as it is carrying the load and was deformed as evident in the video... Even the thrust reverser cowl seemed to partially have opened as it skidding off the ground
Sounds plausible. Black box data should confirm whether the thrust reverser was commanded to activate or not. I suspect mechanics are even good enough that they will be able to tell what parts of the engines were damaged by birds going thru them vs what was damaged in the touch-down and final crash of the plane.
It maybe started with the bird strike but it ended with human errors. Investigators should be transparent & truthful with their investigation coz it's a way of giving the victims of the crashed & their families a closure.
You are assuming human error then? Because what facts do you have to support that assumption which cannot just as easily be attributed to a badly damaged airplane that was getting worse with every passing second after having flown thru "a wall of birds". Just saying.
If we knew something, it’s that there was at least a very likely bird strike on engine 2. So this is just a confirmation if the engine affected is indeed engine 2. It would be more noticeable news if it was nr. 1.
Investigators must already know which engine it is. It’s disappointing that it’s not disclosed.
It's either of the two. And we should be happy about that disclosure.
If that aircraft had just continued to land, nobody would have died. This is pilot error, blaming the bird is just complete BS..
Yeah no one is blaming the birds tho
@ForgotMyOrange they keep bringing up the bird strike, that's implying it's to blame. If it wasn't supposed to be important, they wouldn't mention it..
@@christianbuczko1481 Pathetic logic. You obviously don’t understand the difference between an investigation and a blame game. Give us a break and look for conspiracy elsewhere.
@@christianbuczko1481 PILOT ERROR ? or concrete wall (govnt error)?
@mago97615 the correct action would have been to continue the landing, that would have meant the wall was never going to be a problem. Also, if the pilot had not rushed the landing and landed 3/4 the way down the runway, the wall wouldn't have been a problem. It was one mistake by the pilot after another.
It's a very unfortunate circumstance
But still it hit something solid at the end of the runway. That is why it exploded.
Sue the bird
🕊🕊🕊
Sue the idiotic commentators who can’t tell the difference between a blame game and an aircraft accident investigation.
People keep fixating on the wall, wait until the CVR transcript is released. I bet we're going to find that this was a serious case of pilot error. Even in an emergency situation, crossing the runway threshold at takeoff speed is a big no-no. There are many different things they could have done that would have resulted in not overrunning the runway and hitting that wall. They had options up until the very end.
Ok we know that. We are wondering why the landing gear wasnt deployed, why they rushed the landi g, why they didnt lower the flaps, why the wrong engine was turned off etc
Calm down. This is just the very beginning of the investigation. It will likely last over a year.
It's almost like the plane had no hydraulics, isn't it? But that can not be! 😲Just as a chunk of foam could NOT POSSIBLY have brought down the Space Shuttle Columbia!!! 😐
@@joso5554 wow relax joso, just asking questions, no need to get huffy 😂
A single bird strike should not cause the engine to stop making power.
You are assuming it was only "A" bird strike, as in 1 single bird. That is highly unlikely however. There is a lot of evidence right now that that plane hit multiple large species coastal birds. From txt messages sent by passengers to their loved ones, to witnesses on the ground and who saw and filmed the plane passing overhead with compressor stalls from #2 engine and sparks being emitted by BOTH the engines. There is at least a preponderance of evidence right now to suggest the plane hit multiple birds.
If the L/R engine indicator/switch were inadvertently crisscross wired can lead to shutting down the wrong engine.
And the sun could have been in their eyes so they couldn't tell which switch they were turning off, too. There are an infinite number of things that likely had not a thing to do with this disaster. It's far more likely though that they didn't have a "right" engine that was running right, and the left side engine shut itself down as it too had ingested at least 1 bird if not more than 1.... it was trailing sparks also after all.
How did feathers survive that massive fire?
Plot armor
birds hit engines all the time, but a wall at the end of a runway safety area is the real culprit..
Need to appoint Bird traffic controller ASAP.
Children are the future of Korea.
Concrete walls are wrong position. It’s not necessary at there. The concrete walls for hell.
The wall was a factor?
I really don't understand why is everyone blaming the "wall" for the crash. If a wall/tree existed at the end of a road and a driver crashes his car into it, do you blame the wall/tree for existing? Sure, you can say the road can be better designed, and have all trees plucked/walls removed from a 100m radius from the roads, but there are always constraints in the environment. Furthermore, blaming the bad design of the airport after the crash on hindsight is also simple. Additionally, no one knows how the crash would have been even without the "wall". With the plane still travelling at almost 160 knots, it could just as easily disintegrate/flip etc as the plane continues rolling on the ground, especially with the engines built below the fuselage acting like a "scoop". And if the plane still doesnt stop there, what about all the non airport buildings beginning 400m south of the "wall"??? At 160 knots i doubt the plane can stop before them anyway... meaning the end result could have been just the same, or worst...
A car is much smaller and lighter mass than a 777 aircraft is. You are not comparing apples to apples friend. This is more equivalent to a car running off the road at high speed and ploughing into a concrete drainage pipe under a concrete driveway! You analogy doesn't compare apples to apples is all I'm saying. Had that earth and concrete berm not been there in all likelihood more than 2 people could have survived; not everyone was going to walk away from that landing, but more than 2 would have lived I believe. Regards!
@@michaelshrader5139totally agree with you. Aviation is at much higher at risk of emergencies and so such construction and engineer need to be considered carefully around the runway including the overrun area. Like frangible localisers and not a concrete wall holding them. It’s ridiculous. It’s not just a random tree or fencing is it? It’s a localiser made of death.
This is the most sense/intelligence post I see regarding the crash.
Also, even if the wall isn't there. What if it becomes more catastrophic if the wall wasn't there.
Most certainly a ambulance chasing lawyer somewhere out there contemplating a law suit against the bird specie responsible for this tragedy.
I think the bird strike caused more of a catastrophic panic rather than a catastrophic mechanical failure.
You "think" is not factual or evidence based however. I strongly suspect that plane was in far worse condition after having flown thru a "wall of birds" than you think it was. Just saying. Pilots do not forget every thing they are supposed to do in order to safely land an airplane friend.... yeah they might have turned off the wrong engine, yeah they might have forgotten to deploy the landing gear, yeah they might have forgotten to deploy the flaps, and the spoilers too.... but to forget EVBERYTHING? Note that everything people claim the pilots "forgot" to activate for landing has something in common: All that stuff uses hydraulic power to activate, or is otherwise slow and difficult to activate manually!
Legal structure doesn't mean it was a right structure to be built.
*I bet no-one's passport burned*
they will change the localizer even if it "doesn't" comply.. what?!?!
How does a bird feather survive a burning plane with jet fuel?
teflon
TELL THE TRUTH, DON'T BE COWARDS
I blame bird s parents, misbehaving him in the sky.
so every time a plane hits a bird it crashes?
"Wall" has left the dictionary.
If you watch the video taken from a balcony, you can see both engines had a bird strike. The left engine show a tiny puff coming out of the engine.
The person who recorded that video said that that he was alerted by loud bangs from the aircraft and then started recording. He also said that the undercarriage was extended before he commenced recording. It is highly likely that compression stalls occured before the start of the video, possibly by bird strikes in both engines. The video was probably recording the start of the go around.
If both engines were lost, a climb, turn, and return would be impossible.
@@Deploracle Engines often continue to run for a bit after sustaining severe damage... they do themselves in by continuing to run. There is no reason to think that the engines instantly died or lost power upon ingesting birds... and it is quite the coincidence that the plane's transponder stopped transmitting right about the time the plane reportedly flew thru a "wall of birds". One might think the 2 things are even related.... Just saying. 😕
@@michaelshrader5139 I agree that they had to have some thrust to complete "the impossible turn" and back to runway heading but not enough to sustain flight. Obviously they had hydraulic power so ... why no gear, flaps, or speedbrakes?
Eight days later and its crickets from officials. I take that to mean "human error". If there was something mechanical, notations would have already been sent to operators of type.
Lack of pilots keeping up on they training.. the 737 Max crashes most likely wouldn't have happened if the pilots were up on the training.
We think it was a flock of concrete walls strike that cause this massive death toll.
Idk we kinda know that from day 1...
Reinforce wall?
Cold-Stream Reversers... Fan blades missing, not just damaged, they were gone.
If that was the right hand #2 engine that is missing fan blades, how was that thing even still running? It would have had a severe imbalance to it with missing blades... it should have been shaking all over the place. Are they really sure that was the #2 engine that they recovered with missing fan blades? 😕
@@michaelshrader5139 You are correct in regards to the vibration! It probably was shaking all over the place. It is possible that the LP fan/compressor/turbine seized or was severely compromised, leaving only the HP stage to work. If you watch the one video of the plane skidding down the runway, it appears that there is some exhaust leaving the #2 engine, but it didn't appear to slow the aircraft much at all, even with 5000' of skid. A bird-strike compromised reverser might explain this. Still not sure which engine was hit or which one was shut down, it is all still speculation at this point. I don't have all the answers, waiting patiently for the analysis of the CVR and FDR. Looking for an explanation as to why the aircraft didn't appreciably slow if the reverser(s) were working?
“We sell all our Boeings now with the ‘Wheels’ as an EXTRA option. Just fyi.” - Boeing Mfg.
(sarcasm)
NO NEW INFO UNTIL THEY RELEASE THE FIGHT RECORDS FROM THE ORANGE BOXES!
Too much crap is always said after any thing that happens !!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you refer to your own comment ?
Was the bird from North Korea?
Minister resigned. May not have been responsible. But his resignation does honor to the govt. Sadly, such honorable behavior is not common in other govts (referring to the USA after the dishonorable exit from Afghanistan).
More lies and propaganda
More buffoon conspiracy theorists… 🤡🤡🤡
@@joso5554 The internet overflows with their kind, doesn't it? smh! 😕
Told you all its wasn't Boeing y'all need to stop
You know who is actually at fault here? Us
People never want airports close to where people live ... so airport developers are forced to build where people aren't (but birds are, usually in large numbers).
And then people still build huge subdivisions with houses crammed-in together right along the flight paths of these airports... one might think people are really dumb in general. idk. 😕
@@michaelshrader5139 Thank God houses don't make planes crash.
i wonder what sort of pilots do these budget airlines employ?
Well I somehow doubt they got their pilot certificates by mail order... one had something like 9K hours of flight time (I do not recall exactly now but it was not a low number), the other a little under 2K hours.
Where's the investigation to whose bright idea was to build a concrete wall on an airplane run way?
As a U.S. citizen, I find the collectivist culture intriguing. I don't agree with it, but it's intriguing. Why should he step down when it wasn't his fault?
How powerful birds are
Some geese weigh 2 to 5kg.
The wall did it! Don't blame innocent birds, for god's sake! 🤬🤬🤬🤬
Could have been a stray duvet
No shit, explain the no landing gears and runway selection
That’s called an investigation, you buffoon.
Without the undercarriage being extended and the flaps & slats not lowered, suggests that there was no (or very limited) hydraulic power. Without the APU running, there would not be high power 115V 3 phase supply to energise the electrical motor hydraulic pumps for A & B and C standby systems.
The original intention was to land on runway 01. After the bird strike the pilot declared an emergency and advised ATC that they were going around. Soon after the pilot requested runway 19. It is likely that the undercarriage was retracted and the flaps & slats were stowed as part of the go around procedure.
If there was an event to the No 1 left engine shortly after the aircraft was cleaned, this could have resulted in a double engine failure, resulting in the loss of hydraulic power. In such an event the aircraft would be out of range of a landing on runway 01 and elected to use runway 19. As the wind was SW 3 kts, this would a be slight headwind component, but this would be insignificant.
Without the capability to configure the aircraft for a normal landing, the aircraft approached at 200 kts, the correct speed for a flapless landing. In this configuration, in order to remain on the runway, it would have had to be 6,000m long. The runway employed is usually 2,800m long, but because of construction work only 2,500m was available.
A key question is why did the pilot elect to go around if they were on a stabilised approach? Perhap the approach was not stabilised, which would require a go around. It has also been reported that for Korean airlines, the Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) require a go around in such a situation.
IMHO at this time too many events occured at the wrong time and the pilot ran out of luck.
@@christopherrobinson7541 A good working theory, and I agree 100% because it is not an unreasonable chain of events. People keep assuming it was only 1 single bird that this plane hit... that assumption is incorrect and unfounded, "bird strike" does not mean it was just 1 single bird. How many large species birds can an engine ingest and continue to run and produce thrust? Tests have shown that 1 bird the size of an average barn yard chicken doesn't do much if any damage... but I do not think anybody has tested these engines by throwing 2 or 3 wild turkey sized birds into an engine at like ~200+ mph to see what happens! There are limits to what the engines can survive, and they may not fail instantaneously but the damage one would think would get far worse every second the engine continues to run after going thru a "Wall of birds". ps. It may not be clear to some people still, but runway 19 and runway 01 are the exact same runway... the numbers just define which way the aircraft is trying to land on it.
Don't always blame on birds blame the wall 🧱
Well the pilots are dead so now they can investigate however they want concluded even if putting all blame on pilots
Because
"Dead Man Tells No Tales"....
Actually, with the cockpit voice recording these dead men may well tell us a lot!
@michaelshrader5139 i know but we can't tell if they temper with voice recorder
@@manishgurav2369 Well seriously then, why even bother... everybody should just decide they KNOW without a doubt how this happened and disregard anything that remotely suggests otherwise! smh! 😐
I can't believe they're blaming the birds 😮 what has happened to accountability from mankind! easier to blame the birds. What nonsense !!!
They aren't casting blame on the birds. Aircraft accidents are very rarely caused by just one thing. It usually a cascade of failures/errors that the human crew gets confused by, leading to poor choices.
Koreans are very careful to eliminate ALL mechanical explanations before convicting their pilots.
The wall !!!!!!!!
The wall was throwing birds at the aircraft. And it’s the wall that ordered the crew to hurry an overshoot opposite heading belly landing. Obviously.
@@joso5554 It's irritating "one-level" thinking. Wall make boom. Wall responsible.
More like bird brain pilots who were responsible for this disaster.
I'm waiting for Air Crash Investigation
Why? All the arm chair quarterbacks have solved the puzzle, we don't need no stinking investigation 😅
@@joegonzalez1941 I'd kind of like one, at least some preliminary report... if only to confirm or debunk the theories I think best fit the known information at this time. 😐
Very sad news 😢
それは最初から分かってます。でなければあんな煙は出ない。
Pilots and concrete wall
Just because it was in compliance with regulations doesn't make it an idiotic idea to put concrete and steel structures in the overrun area.
1000 ft from the runway threshold is not "overrun area".
@@Deploracle It's also not very far from the end of the runway though, given the size of the planes and the speed they fly. Let's just say, it may have been perfectly legal and within the regs, but it was still a really bad idea to put something that solid there. smh!
Okay! AND YET WHAT KILLED ALL THE PASSENGERS + CREW (except for 2) WAS THE FRlKlNG WALL, IT SMASHED THE PLANE AND BURNT IT TO ASHES
The aircraft hit an ILS Antenna installation and not a wall.
Why do people keep thinking everything was fine with this airplane until a wall got into its way? Is it a tree's fault when a car smashed into one?
@@Deploracle No, honey, obviously loads of things went wring before the wall, but if that solid wall hadn't been right at the end the plane would have had more space, knocked a clumsy brick wall and fences, until it stopped. Instead it got smashed and incinerated. So yes, even if a car had had some mechanical issue, it could go off the road and nothing else happen, but if it hits the tree and that kills the driver we could say the tree=collission with the tree is what killed the driver.
Easy to understand, isn't it??
@@christopherrobinson7541 If you care to actually do sometesearch, te lLS Antenna was built on a thick solid wall (not made of clumsy bricks). Those antennas aren't normally built like that, and if there is a solid structure to support it, it's always hidden underground, precisely to avoid collissions! So, obviously that solid wall was the problem! Not the antennas on top! Check out other airports lLS antennas and see the difference! If the airport lLS antenna had been properly built the plane would have hit the antenna bit it wouldn't have stop the plane, it wouldn't have smashed it and cause the explossion..
DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE BARKING
@@ireneserrano4570 But do you blame the tree for the driver's death, as you are doing with this ILS installation?
The bird did not cause the crash so this news is pointless.....
Wow!
What a sad display by the lack of empathy & maturity by some of the comments made here today... you know who I am referring to.....
I kinda wish YOU could switch places with the victims on the plane so other trolls can talk crap about you & the tragedy while your family is mourning your death....
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯