Thank you so much for your support and for taking the time to watch my videos in both Spanish and English! It means the world to me to know that the content resonates across different languages and communities. If there’s a topic you’d like me to cover in the future, feel free to share it. I truly appreciate having you as part of this amazing community! 😊✈️
Finally a well balanced analysis of this tragedy so far as we know. I love your "to the point" analysis here with the facts known... and "let me explain the nuance" approach. So many people jump to conclusions before they even understand the facts let alone the nuances. Yes there are some basic similarities with 1549 as you mention but there are more dissimilarities to make one think about that part if you have a any ability to do basic critical thinking. The 320 apu generator comes online so fast it's amazing and I too am triggered to immediately push the button to turn it on when something happens when I'm flying. These guys on jeju had much less time to deal with the situation at hand and yes, OK,. Maybe they could have done better with the landing even with the wall at the end of the runway.... But they had their lives on the line too. They bet their lives on their actions and they came up short in the end on that. Now we can only learn from those actions and events that we believe occurred and train the what ifs and fix the other parts like giant Earth barriers at the end of the runway as well. New subscriber here.
Hola Aviadora 76, pues es para comentarte que ayer viendo un documental sobre Carole Lombard me enteré que había muerto a los 33 años en un accidente de aviación, su madre adicta a la Numerología se había discutido con ella para que no tomara ese avión por contener demasiados "3" y de hecho había muchos treses..... me encanta la aviación y miro todos los vídeos que puedo, me gusta con la seriedad e información que lo explicas. Saludos.
The ADS-B data also suggests that the pilot elected to go around (with two good engines), perhaps because of an unstabilized approach, and or birds in the vicinity, and was cleaning-up the aircraft as it hit birds. Inf correct this would answer the question why the pilot did not land ahead with just one engine, the answer being he did not.
There is one massive advantage which Sullenberger flight had..... Space - as soon as he decided to do ditching on Hudson, he had very smal limitations in terms of "where to land" - if I remember correctly - he had about 10 kilometers of "free water space" where to ditch a plane. I think I have quite a good explanation about what happened with Jeju flight...... I agree with main conclusion - they were in far worse situation than "Miracle on Hudson" flight. They lost both engines during critical situation of final approach - which means lower speed and much lower altitude.... They decided to make a go-around and they decided to make it in "glider" setting to borrow as much time and distance as possible..... and they were probably worried they will not make it to runway and end up short..... But actually - it ended up differently and they were too long. They made their teardrop "too short" to lose enough speed and altitude to make an optimum landing and they were forced to go down much faster then they expected (because runway was much closer than they wanted).... Fast decline means increase of speed and this increase of speed probably caused a ground effect which did not allowed them to land on threshold of runway....
It can be difficult to start the APU using battery power in cold conditions. The aircraft had flown for 4 1/2 hrs at a cruising altitude above FL300, so the APU and the batteries would have been cold soaked, resulting in the time required to start the APU being extended. From the images of the tail section it can be seen that the APU air inlet door is closed, which suggests that the crew did not attempt to start the APU.
The aircraft overran the runway and depart at 150 kts and hit an ILS Localizer Antenna Installation, which had been designed and built by the US military when the airport was a US airbase, during the 1950's. It is compliant with the ICAO guidelines as it is located outside of the safety area. If the antenna had not been present the aircraft would have continued for 70m and then struck the airport boundary wall, with a similar outcome. The aircraft approached at 200 kts, which is the correct speed for a flapless landing. AT that speed to stop on the runway it would need to be at least 6,000m long. The longest airport runway is 5,500m long. The selected runway is usually 2,800m, but only 2,500m was available because of construction work to extend the runway. 1,200m beyond the boundary wall is a hotel complex and other buildings on the shore. The aircraft would have skidded into these buildings and/or the sea. A flapless landing, without undercarriage and brakes, without spoilers was never going to have a happy outcome.
Thanks for commenting. I agree that they would have hit any myriad of other things but hitting the boundary wall would be a different outcome. We covered the construction of the concrete structure which is built like a fortress whereas the wall is made of hollow concrete blocks. And yes they made a super fast landing w no flaps so it wasn’t going to be good either way.
Hi Joe and thanks for the comment. Pilots put the airplane u=on the runway under incredibly intense conditions. Pilot errors and aircraft failures didn't kill the people aboard this flight. The concrete structure where the ILS antennas were mounted did. If they had hit anything else, the damage would likely have been less given the way that concrete structure was built like a bunker.
Excellent and detailed information on such a complex situations, I wonder is she is a pilot or a engineer. Very good work. Best.
Me encantas tus clarísimos videos, y parece que a tu gato tambien, porque anda por ahi atrás prestando atención! cariños y felicitaciones
I love you videos, first in spanish and then in english
Thank you so much for your support and for taking the time to watch my videos in both Spanish and English! It means the world to me to know that the content resonates across different languages and communities.
If there’s a topic you’d like me to cover in the future, feel free to share it. I truly appreciate having you as part of this amazing community! 😊✈️
Very well done girl!
Finally a well balanced analysis of this tragedy so far as we know. I love your "to the point" analysis here with the facts known... and "let me explain the nuance" approach.
So many people jump to conclusions before they even understand the facts let alone the nuances. Yes there are some basic similarities with 1549 as you mention but there are more dissimilarities to make one think about that part if you have a any ability to do basic critical thinking.
The 320 apu generator comes online so fast it's amazing and I too am triggered to immediately push the button to turn it on when something happens when I'm flying.
These guys on jeju had much less time to deal with the situation at hand and yes, OK,. Maybe they could have done better with the landing even with the wall at the end of the runway.... But they had their lives on the line too. They bet their lives on their actions and they came up short in the end on that. Now we can only learn from those actions and events that we believe occurred and train the what ifs and fix the other parts like giant Earth barriers at the end of the runway as well.
New subscriber here.
Hola Aviadora 76, pues es para comentarte que ayer viendo un documental sobre Carole Lombard me enteré que había muerto a los 33 años en un accidente de aviación, su madre adicta a la Numerología se había discutido con ella para que no tomara ese avión por contener demasiados "3" y de hecho había muchos treses..... me encanta la aviación y miro todos los vídeos que puedo, me gusta con la seriedad e información que lo explicas. Saludos.
Thanks! It's really interesting. Good job!
The ADS-B data also suggests that the pilot elected to go around (with two good engines), perhaps because of an unstabilized approach, and or birds in the vicinity, and was cleaning-up the aircraft as it hit birds.
Inf correct this would answer the question why the pilot did not land ahead with just one engine, the answer being he did not.
I am a retired airline pilot. I highly suggest people wait for the accident report before stating opinions, which are usually wrong.
What "people" are you referring to? Did you watch the videos? I am a Part 121 ground instructor and I am extremely responsible in my analyses?
There is one massive advantage which Sullenberger flight had..... Space - as soon as he decided to do ditching on Hudson, he had very smal limitations in terms of "where to land" - if I remember correctly - he had about 10 kilometers of "free water space" where to ditch a plane.
I think I have quite a good explanation about what happened with Jeju flight...... I agree with main conclusion - they were in far worse situation than "Miracle on Hudson" flight. They lost both engines during critical situation of final approach - which means lower speed and much lower altitude.... They decided to make a go-around and they decided to make it in "glider" setting to borrow as much time and distance as possible..... and they were probably worried they will not make it to runway and end up short..... But actually - it ended up differently and they were too long. They made their teardrop "too short" to lose enough speed and altitude to make an optimum landing and they were forced to go down much faster then they expected (because runway was much closer than they wanted).... Fast decline means increase of speed and this increase of speed probably caused a ground effect which did not allowed them to land on threshold of runway....
It can be difficult to start the APU using battery power in cold conditions. The aircraft had flown for 4 1/2 hrs at a cruising altitude above FL300, so the APU and the batteries would have been cold soaked, resulting in the time required to start the APU being extended. From the images of the tail section it can be seen that the APU air inlet door is closed, which suggests that the crew did not attempt to start the APU.
We do regular starts of the APU while cold soak at cruise. This is directed by maintenance on occasion to make sure that it actually starts.
The aircraft overran the runway and depart at 150 kts and hit an ILS Localizer Antenna Installation, which had been designed and built by the US military when the airport was a US airbase, during the 1950's. It is compliant with the ICAO guidelines as it is located outside of the safety area.
If the antenna had not been present the aircraft would have continued for 70m and then struck the airport boundary wall, with a similar outcome.
The aircraft approached at 200 kts, which is the correct speed for a flapless landing. AT that speed to stop on the runway it would need to be at least 6,000m long. The longest airport runway is 5,500m long.
The selected runway is usually 2,800m, but only 2,500m was available because of construction work to extend the runway. 1,200m beyond the boundary wall is a hotel complex and other buildings on the shore. The aircraft would have skidded into these buildings and/or the sea.
A flapless landing, without undercarriage and brakes, without spoilers was never going to have a happy outcome.
Thanks for commenting. I agree that they would have hit any myriad of other things but hitting the boundary wall would be a different outcome. We covered the construction of the concrete structure which is built like a fortress whereas the wall is made of hollow concrete blocks.
And yes they made a super fast landing w no flaps so it wasn’t going to be good either way.
Pilot errors.
Hi Joe and thanks for the comment. Pilots put the airplane u=on the runway under incredibly intense conditions. Pilot errors and aircraft failures didn't kill the people aboard this flight. The concrete structure where the ILS antennas were mounted did. If they had hit anything else, the damage would likely have been less given the way that concrete structure was built like a bunker.