@@davidfairchild1640 to be brutal they were sacrificed so others past the stop end wouldn’t get an airliner in their home. There are better ways of achieving this, but this I guess will form a significant part of the investigation.
These is useful information with some/more details different and more than on the News outlets can be said . Why would be anyone can say unnecessary things. Keep these kind of up to dates .
Blimey!! An interesting factual video spoken by a human with no irritating background music or irrelevant subtitles! I need to subscribe, such channels are becoming rare!
There is also the problem of RUclips videos that show video clips that are outdated, irrelevant or misleading. They make one think that one should just close one's eyes and listen.
A lot of things happened and a lot more to be done within a few minutes (which contributed to the mishap), including possibly a few more that were not mentioned, for instance the sunlight glare possibly blinded the pilots...
@bryanmarshall6878 He didn't EXPLAIN anything - he guessed. The bottom line is the pilot was a complete idiot. He did not verify the gear was down. He missed the threshold by HALF a runway. The berm didn't "Save Live" but costed lives. This is poor analysis.
The bottom line is the pilot was a complete idiot. He did not verify the gear was down. He missed the threshold by HALF a runway. The berm didn't "Save Live" but costed lives. This is poor analysis.
@@jtc1964x Him saying that they might have shutdown the only working engine was completely valid. I do admit the pilots rushed things and hence weren't able to make a concrete plan (not a pun) about how to do the landing. If they did shut down the only working engine, it would explain the botched landing and why they rushed things. I think they tried to land but then realized they can't but since their engines were out, they weren't able to pick up speed and hence why it slammed into the mound of concrete wall.
I still can't believe there was a brick wall at the end of the runway. It's even more unbelievable after seeing it from an aerial view. It should not have been there.
everyone puts emphasis on the localizer berm/wall, but i cant get my head around the fact that the pilot touched down well past halfway down the runway in a flaps up and gear up configuration. given the runaway's 9000 ft length, it should have been able to stop regardless of the landing configuration. the plane can very well stay airborne with one engine running, so i can only assume it was pilot error or both engines failed by coincidence. regardless, a 160 knot overrun is not survivable in any aspect, and regardless of the berm, the aircraft would've ran into other major obstacles (brick wall at the border, fences, light poles, trees), and had the aircraft touched down earlier, it would not have crashed into the berm.
Even if the pilots made 200 more mistakes than we know of right now and even if all onboard systems failed, including the toilet soap dispensers, the plane touched the ground undamaged and everybody on board was in good shape. Seconds later they were all killed by a bunker wall that should never be there.
@ Had the plane overrun, which it did in this case, that statement is more than accurate and I am not denying the fact. However, this emergency landing was clearly botched due to the fast landing speed and extremely late touchdown, and a prime example of a safely executed belly landing already exists - LOT Airlines flight 16. If the pilots could've executed this landing safely, or even diverted to an airport with a longer runway, no overrun may have ever occurred.
@@tae5216 if the #1 engine was lost, they'd not have TOGA capability, they basically performed a U turn, got on approach and without flaps for currently unknowable reasons (they had thrust reversers and control surface control, so the hydraulics were operating) or gear (no time for manual drop?), came in hotter than a two dollar pistol, ground effects kept them aloft far down the field and no manually deploying spoilers and speed brakes played in. Checklists take time, if they were flameout on both engines, time is precisely what they did not have - potentially, not even enough time for memory items lists to be ran. What really didn't help though was a berm crested with a goddamned concrete bunker wall, as I saw some footage of the top of that wall and double rebar was shown, that isn't standard concrete or the frangible concrete we use, that essentially was the wall consistent with a bunker, as the only time I've seen double rebar of that size used was in a 10000 pound test reinforced wall that was designed to literally withstand an airplane's impact. Had to cut through similar before, destroyed a fair amount of equipment just getting through it, including diamond saw blades. The concrete border wall would've broken on impact after substantially longer friction time with the ground, resulting in a much lower velocity impact. My suspicion, based upon videos and previous reporting, initial go around was due to landing gear deployment issues post bird strike. That they climbed out implies at least one engine still operating, as the compressor stall was apparent in the video for the #2 engine. There is the potential that engine #1 was also damaged and failed as the aircraft was climbing, necessitating the reciprocal course and landing. That'd leave them no thrust, what speed is what you've got, flaps remain a mystery, as does the no gear configuration, as does the no slats. Hydraulic damage would've left electrical for flaps, but those are very slow in deployment and way down on the checklist. I'm suspecting there just wasn't enough time, with literally the worst case scenario occurring just prior to landing at low altitude. We'll know more when the recorders are analyzed, otherwise everyone's just pulling out opinions and "facts" from their collective rectums. I'm decidedly unfond of rectally procured facts.
I can't disagree with either of you (lord Jim and tae5216). But this gonna be a complex investigation and we're early days yet. Still, that berm's positioning seems jaw-droppingly dangerous and ill-conceived!
The only facts he posted are approximately where the bird strike photo was taken and the approximate ground speed, the rest is all supposition, maybe, could be and what if. Wait for the flight data and voice recorders to be analyzed then we will KNOW
@@gomez2724 This has to be one of the stranger accidents and almost all caught on HD. Those poor people. A video like this creates many speculations, hopefully the information on the recorders will be recoverable. It's nice not having any background music.
On the 737-800, there are 3 hydraulic systems for redundancy. The "A" & “B” hydraulic systems use an engine-driven pump and an electric-driven pump on each engine. The 3rd "Standby" system uses an electric-driven pump . If both engines shut down, the spinning fan blades in either engine can still power the electric hydraulic pump. If both engines were shut down and there was no windmilling of the fan blades, the "Standby" system could still function using electrical power from the backup APU generator when it is started. Shutting down the wrong engine wouldn’t, by itself, cause a loss of hydraulics preventing the deployment of flaps and slats. The landing gear doesn’t need hydraulics to deploy either. Other factors must have been in play.
For those interested, PilotBlogDenys explains how even the triple redundancy hydraulics system might have failed to save this Jeju 2216 if both engines lost power for whatever reason (bird strike / engine 1 mistakenly shut down). The APU takes 1 minute to start and pilots simply might not have had enough time to do everything in time by the time they realised what had happened.
@ yes,, it seems like engine #2 (the right engine that had the compressor stall) was still emitting thrust exhaust on the approach to runway 019 in one video. Hence the speculative theory that engine #1 (left engine) might have been shut down mistakenly necessitating a very hurried turnaround to land on runway 019 instead of the usual go around procedure for a plane with adequate power and control. It is the speculation that this very hurried approach to land on runway 019 might have contributed to the lack of deployment of flaps and landing gear.
Some people say the manual gear release is hard to reach for both the captain and fo, maybe they are focusing on the controls and don't want to waste time lowering the gear. (Edit: I'm just guessing, idk what were the pilots thinking)
You can't just say that " Oh no! the manual landing gear switch is hard to reach! I can't waste time just to reach it!". That's so dumb. Ergonomics is good and all but in case of emergencies were poeples lives is at risk, just do it. And I can see reverse thrust on both engines deployed but no gear down. That is a big question mark there. No flaps either.
I think Boeing is most likely at fault here, they designed an aircraft that lose all landing gear and flaps control useless after one freaking bird strike???
In my opinion Brian, this was an absolutely brilliant analytical investigation into this awful incident - very well done you - you clearly know your ‘stuff’!!👏👏👏👏👏👏
There is a litany of errors here. The go around was rushed. They took 7 minutes from the bird strike to the crash. They should have taken more time to check through the landing checklist, but no doubt the pilots were stressed. I suspect they became overwhelmed and simply forgot to extend flaps and gear. Even if the hydraulics failed, they could have manually lowered the gear, and electrically extended flaps. Pilots can fly on one engine. They rushed, or didn't do the go around check list properly. There are three systems available for hydraulics. Plus an electric hydraulic pumps, although 6 times slower than the engines. The pilots had control of the alerions when lining up, so they had hydraulics Also the right engine deployed the thrust reversers ( Air brakes) ; another reason to think they had hydraulics the entire flight. Before the bird strike, they had flaps extended, but retracted them after the go around was started. The landing gear was never deployed. The final error was building the localizer antenna on a 3 meter high berm, with 25 cm. of reinforced concrete, to support thin pipes. Usually the localizer antenna are installed with the concrete even with the ground, and the antenna fairly easily bent down if hit by an aircraft. Why they have cinder block fences around the perimeter is beyond me, but the aircraft could have gone a fair distance even without gear, but tragically a combination of errors and improper localizer support structure, design led to so many preventable deaths. For respect of the Captain, and First officer, who had 6000 flying hours, and perished, I could be wrong.
@@joevann7365 It will probably take a couple of years for the final report to come out but it wouldn't surprise me if this turns out to be a case of lots of bad decisions and errors by the pilots plus bad CRM. Even if the hydraulic gear drop was out of action they should have still been able to gravity drop the gear. I can't see why they would choose to do a controlled belly landing on a runway. Those Russian pilots who landed a A320 with two engines out on a corn field and Sully's Hudson landing both decided to do belly landings but both of those were situations not covered by the textbooks and the reasoning for the belly landings in both cases made sense. Landing on a concrete runway without friction from tyres and some form of braking/spoilers/reversers just seems insane (depending on what functions wer still working, but they clearly had reversers so some things must have still been working). Even if they thought they were going to have to do a high speed landing because of lack of flaps (which can be tricky on the 737 as it has a high landing speed anyway) they should have had time to plan things out and review their options. It does look like the pilot initially flared at a normal height above the runway and they moved the nose up and down a couple more times before touchdown which does make me wonder if they genuinely just forgot to lower the gear.
As a retired aircraft mechanic, your insights must bring a whole new level of understanding to this tragedy. It’s great that the video resonated with you. ✈
His explanation leaves out one important factor. Part of his theory is that the pilots might have shut off the wrong engine. The video from the other side of the plane clearly shows the reverse thrusters operating on the engine on that side. So, they didn't shut down the wrong engine. Spouting figures and statistics without knowing all the facts is futile. As a retired aircraft mechanic I'm sure you know that too.
When I was a pilot in the Army, I had a engine failure in dual engine aircraft. We were less than 10 miles from the airport. My copilot decided to start the emergency procedures and started reaching for the only good engine’s power control lever. I told him to get his cotton picken hands off my good engine and we’ll fight the emergency after we’re on the ground safely. We were able to make a normal landing with the one good engine and dealt with the bad engine on the ground, where it didn’t matter.
This aircraft is designed to remain airborne, fly, maneuver and land with 1 engine only. Pilots do it regularly every year and nobody crashes since pilots spend hours in simulator studying that scenario. There is a bunch of questions coming up: - Maybe they’re not fully in control of the hydraulic due to the engines explosion? - I wonder why there’s no Landing gears or Flaps, which can results in fast speed approach. - I wonder why they didn’t touched down at the begging of the runway? - Did the engine failure distract them and forgot to lower the gear? - Was the computer giving them a bunch of false alarm making pilot think his aircraft was so badly damaged. This landing without landing gear looked so smooth and perfect to me. I feel like the crew is experienced judging by the quality of landing, but this aircraft should never ended in fire everyone should have survived since the hardest thing was done: “To land smoothly”
@@rickorick6290on the original video you cam clearly hear at least one engine spooling down after they hit the wall. So at least one engine was running. The pilots did not have enough time to run a checklist. I believe they panicked and forgot what to do.
@@MA-yl1er but they were experienced pilots with lots of flight hours and training on the simulator. pilots don't panic because of a birds strike..however, these ones rushed the landing before actually getting ready for it. will soon find out the real sequence of events and whether it was avoidable or not.
Six minutes after the go around a second landing was attempted which I believe they hadn’t done the checklist for a new course of action. The extra time to perform the checklists may have saved all passengers and crew. The aircraft can be flown safely with one engine and landed without a scratch.
"Checklist" ? Are you and idiot? I now understand the connection between being late and being stupid. You simply do not get what is 'time' and 'constraint'.
@@dawid1803 do you fly a Boeing? I don’t think so..irrespective of the situation, Boeing has a non normal checklist for all malfunctions associated with its systems.. you wouldn’t understand,because again you don’t fly a Boeing.
In the first place , the plane landed the opposite direction. What actually happened ? Why landing gear not out ? Why atc did not approve of first landing ? Why was there mayday ? The wall is also a problem , but it is the last sequence.
Compare safe emergency landing of polish arlines LOT plane a few years ago on Chopin Airport in Warsaw very similar situation and than come back. This Jeju Air plane wasn't safe emergency landing, landing on halfway of landing site without landing gear on full speed from wrong direction is against safe landing. Stop blaming concrete wall lol
if they landed in the right direction they were fine (they landed in the opposite and came across this barrier). concrete is at the beginning and not end of the runway.
@@Kat-zj5kdthat makes no sense. In fact that wall is at the END of runway 19. Sure it’s at the beginning of 01 but, for whatever reason, they were trying to land on runway 19. That’s still a ‘valid runway’ for landing. In fact the very light wind was favoring runway 19, not 01. Not that it matters - With only 2 kts of wind either runway is perfectly suitable.
@@gavtex1065 The difference between the size of the berm on runway 19 vs runway 01 is staggering, almost cockpit high. maps.app.goo.gl/pW5XL5VxsSEoR9bt5
If you look at the still photos of the video (another airplane accident analyst here on RUclips showed them), you can see the co-pilot putting his arm/hand up in front of him, probably from instinct knowing that they were going to crash.
@@bobl703 yes. But prepping for a bumby crash off the end of the runway would justify that plenty. Pretty sure they didn’t know about the wall until too late. But who knows for sure 🤷♂️.
Those buildings and vacation hotels were not “just beyond the wall” as the narrator says, but a considerable distance beyond. That additional distance would likely have been enough for the plane to stop, avoiding the terrible tragedy.
The “wall” you’re talking about is a bit misleading. It’s a berm specifically designed to elevate the localizer antenna. This method of raising the antenna with soil is not the standard. The ICAO standard is to use metal that is collapsible, in case something exactly like this situation occurs. The wall was almost certainly NOT placed there to keep aircraft from hitting people outside the airport perimeter. There is still a lot of land even after the berm and the perimeter wall which was of no consequence and could have been used for runway excursions.
@@hansvonmannschaft9062 The entirety was not constructed of concrete, just a slab on top to hold the antenna. If you view google maps street view, you can see most of it is built up soil.
@@hansvonmannschaft9062 I agree that it had absolutely no place being there and in the form that it was built. The concrete doesn’t appear to be a pylon though. It’s just a slab sitting atop the dirt berm to hold all the localizer antennas at the angles they wanted. It wasn’t like a column. At the end of the day. The hill nor the concrete should have been there the way it was. The fact that it was there is ridiculous.
You know what's crazy? Same exact accident happened to Canada cargo plane in 2004 at Halifax. They had the same berm but got rid of it after the accident. Simply non complaint but ignored by the korean airport.
Airport perimeter wall is located after the berm, so even without the berm, the plane does not survive because it landed too close to the end of the runway and came in hot at 160 knots.
So, I'm just going to "blue sky" this here, if the wall is built to protect structures that house people beyond the runway, maybe don't build structures that house people beyond the runway. Perhaps keep that area should ALWAYS be kept clear and flat. No buildings, or walls. Seems a no-brainer...
the runway is plenty long enough. the way they flew in, they needed another mile. if they had hit water at that speed... it's also like hitting a wall.
Can’t even imagine the terror and horror these precious souls went through before the crash. May they all R.I.P. God Bless each and everyone of them. 😭
Would they have even known until touchdown? Only the surviving stewards will know if they can ever remember. I don't think pilots explain to everyone onboard the reasons for go-arounds, and they definitely don't talk to the cabin while landing. The passengers may not have known the extent until on the ground not slowing down and those in the middle would only know that they weren't decelerating like normal. It was all over though before they could really process anything though and they didn't have pain. Not even the survivors were conscious to feel pain then.
I work in aerospace but am not a pilot. My dad flew and I grew up around airplanes and know more than most non-pilots...I also drove road racing cars for nearly 30 years and learned there are many similarities between driving and flying. First and foremost is to keep a cool head. Adrenaline is your enemy. A person can be technically REALLY good behind the yoke or wheel, but when things go wrong is the measure of true talent. In my opinion, the flight crew rushed this in a panic. The -800 can fly just fine on a single. They failed to take the time to checklist EVERYTHING and freaked out so much that they took a short return. This decent would also increase air speed making their situation worse as evidenced by the touchdown nearly 50% down runway. Again, adrenaline is not your friend in a crisis situation.
@@jimjones9239 - take another look, that wall/ILS berm made of earth and concrete is pretty substantial. Airplanes are built fairly lightweight and are designed to withstand stress from certain activities/directions such as landing, turbulence, lightning strikes, etc. they are not designed to survive a high speed impact with an earthen berm that is nearly vertical, topped with several feet of concrete.
@jimjones9239 those were steel reinforced concrete walls, with no over run material between the runway and the wall. There are not 1000s of people behind it. There was no reason to have that robust of a structure at the end of a runway.
That totally makes sense, it still probably would have been ok if it wasn't for the berm/wall that obliterated them. All the "if only's" in these two crashes over the past few days, it's super heartbreaking!!
It would not have been ok. Impacting anything at the speeds the aircraft was going would have detrimental affects. The pilots landed much too late, and much too fast.
@@jakemensik2842Without that wall there's way more chance of survivability ffs. Check out Garuda GA-200 incident in 2007 for example. Pilot error, overspeed landing, overshoot the runway, break through wire fences, cross over a road, ditch, drags over a rough field and ended up on a rice field. Yes the plane destroyed, but not suddenly disintegrated. And 119 out of 140 occupant came out alive. If there's a concrete wall like this airport, probably there's won't be any survivor out of GA-200.
Condolences to the deceased and their family. Very impressive on your thorough analysis of the crash. Was wondering why they were unable to manually extend the landing gears by gravity with flaps in that emergency, which would help reduce the speed as well as ABS system to be kicked in on the ground. As you said, they might have been short of time to do the emergency procedure due to the both ENGs failure. Hopefully, the Black boxes (CVR, FDR) can help NTSB investigators figure out what had happened exactly.
I've watched another video with the comment of aviation expert Julian Bray who said that the concrete slab at the end of the runway is not allowed. It should be a wall that has communication systems to help the airplanes, but frangible, which upon impact it should collapse, like laying flat. So, in case a plane collides with it, it won't destruct the plane and cause the explosion like it happened in this case. It's my opinion that if they have hotels or other things at the end of the runway, then they should move them or handle that appropriately, so their airport follows international security regulations and not put people in flights in danger. Let's hope the airport will do better in regard to that. This sure was a tragedy... One of the flight attendants suffered several fractures, including on his spine, and is in total paralysis. He's in his early 30s. I feel so sorry for him! I hope the two survivors will recover to the best condition possible and my heart is with all the victim's families.
My condolences to the families of the victims. What you said at 2:34 about past instances of "shut down the wrong engine" is true. In 2006, a C-5 departing Dover AFB suffered a thrust reverser alarm on one engine. They turned around to land, and the crew mistakenly kept a fully functional engine at idle while manipulating the throttle of the shut-down bad engine. Carrying a heavy load and effectively running on only two engines, they were unable to maintain glideslope and crashed short of the runway. Three people were injured, and the plane was written off as a hull loss, with its flight deck salvaged and repurposed for systems software testing.
@@Xfighter000 I don't care what they have to say all you have to do is look at the damn thing before it got hit it's an Earthen berm with an ILS on top of it and the only concrete involved with it is the footing for the ILS which is only about 10 inches thick
Sometimes seeing the raw footage is the only way to truly understand what went wrong. Glad they chose to show the reality, even if it’s hard to watch. 😢
Disagree. The final explosion only adds sensationalism to the general public. If you’re not a professional in charge of depicting all facts for a crash evaluation this scene adds nothing and I truly finds it a disrespect to acquaintances and family members.
Very nice work, well researched and well presented. Obviously, it's too early to make definitive conclusions about any factors but the mis-applications of the wheels and the flaps present huge areas of concern. It's a strange òne.
I'm more concerned about the other 10000 people that unfairly died today far from the eyes and the cameras, how insensitive most people could be out of resignation : here, 179 people died due to a combination of randomness, possibly human error (unintended), and a poor design left unfixed (negligence) ; at no point, anyone meant to harm. On the other hand, elsewhere...
@@davJanko8052 179 people that they never even knew existed before. People HAVE to pretend to be emotionally affected by it, because we live in a world where lies and pretenses are the norm. Only you know whether you really care or not, and I will leave it up to your conscience to acknowledge it to yourself. It is terrible what happened, but it would have made no difference to anyone if it was 179 or 1. Even the victims' families only care about the loss of their own, which means they wouldn't have cared if 179 perished as long as their own survived. I am pointing this out only because no one else bothers to point out the truth while being drowned in a sea of fake thoughts and prayers.
Yea lots of airports have them for noise abatement or to prevent dirt/debris from being blasted from the engines. They also work as good mounting places for the ILS antennas.
@@Brian.Murray NO. That is NOT a "good" way to mount your ILS Localizer antenna. The proper way to get it at an increased height is not to put it on top of a dirt berm, but rather to mount it on taller BREAKAWAY poles. Consider street lamps. The base of these poles have special bolts designed to SHEAR if hit by a car. A hard lesson learned after the thousands of people killed after hitting such poles. This is the exact same principle for such an antenna mount at an airport, particularly an antenna that is required to be so close to the runway. When you see that the berm runs only the length of the antenna, you can readily see that the purpose was not for noise abatement. And it is way too far off the end of the runway to serve the purpose of acting as a blast deflector. There is NO valid reason to mount it on a dirt berm. They did it as a cost saving measure. It's easy and almost no cost to bulldoze dirt rather than to design specialized mounting poles. Overall... *EXCELLENT video.* You have published the best analysis I have seen so far. Juan Browne (Blancolirio) goes in depth into other aspects, such as hydraulic systems and configuration. And why they landed so long with ground effect.
@@AmalKaru-i2f It does seem odd, but I'll give a different perspective. If that plane, doing 160kts, careened off the runway, and killed a bunch of people in those buildings, people would be asking why there wasn't a barrier. It's the trolley problem. Which do we save? Its a hard decision.
1st it is a mistake to build a wall there 2nd but the tower ordered them to go around and did a 360 to land the pilots ignored the order and did a 180, landing on the runway in a reverse direction the wall is actually behind the threshold zone, not the end of runway. the wall is supposed to be behind them when they landed, not in the front. they will never hit the wall if they landed in correct direction 3rd visually u can see the pilots made a lot mistakes too
No. A lot of airports do not have concrete wall berms at the end of their runways. The localizer antennas are collapsible so that when a plane does what this plane did the damage is minimal. The placement of this wall/berm is borderline criminal. Wrong. Airports do not have these.
It looks more like a missed "touch and go" procedure than a landing. I see engines running at full speed, no braking attempts, no gear, no flaps, no speed reduction. It is rather a failed "go around" not landing.
it looks like it is still flying at the final moment. i was watching this on instagram by chance. i thought this was a great approach and then... shocking
As a former B737 captain with over 13,000 hours of Pilot-in-command time in the B737, there's a LOT that doesn't make sense here. Flaps are extendable electrically with hydraulic failure. The gear is deployable mechanically as well as hydraulically. Going around with an engine failure on final is probably not a good idea. The aircraft will land nicely on one engine. I'm speculating a bit but I suspect you will find the crew did not execute all of the checklists and seemed rushed to get on the ground even before the birdstrike. The flight data and cockpit voice recorders will give a non-speculative insight as to what was done or not done. And the concrete wall at the end of the runway is beyond comprehension. Everything on and around the runway should be frangible.
@@SonofIce514 oh no... Did you know that before the plane crashed, my grandfather flew the plane to the airport where from the other pilot flew in it and crashed. M
The only other possibility I can see is if they just dove for the field instead of setting up a stabilized approach. The cockpit recorder and data are going the be the only real answers for what happened in the cockpit.
Thanks for making this I am so sick of those who keep shouting stupid question "Why they dont dump fuel!" "Why there is wall!" "Must be pilot error" "Boeing again!" Without any evidence and study, silly world
DEFINITELY pilot error. The hydraulics must have been completely fine. A simple engine failure lead to panicking and stressed out the inexperienced pilots so much that they forgot basic landing items in their frantic rush to land.
Within 24 hrs, a plane of the same model (Boeing 737-800 ) veered off the run way in a force landing at Oslo Airport, quote unquote, "Hydraulics Failure". If the bump at the end of the runway in South Korea airport is a fatel fiasco, the "Hydraulics Failure" seems to be an intrinsic pitfall. ruclips.net/video/5qmpH98jk5k/видео.html
no, with that speed i doubt they even shut down the wrong engine. look at 2:40 they expected the landing gear to touchdown but they just realized the landing gear are not extended, thus why they didnt shutdown engine immediately because they thought they still can takeoff again. . but because the aircraft are on full load and one engine died, they dont have enough power to takeoff again, thats why they looks like keep speeding up even though they are expected to stop the plane. there is something else happened in cockpit that cause multiple decision by the pilot. . the airport design to not expect overrun emergency landing doesnt help either by placing hard concrete at the end of runway, as if an aircraft is built like solid truck or tank that will stop at hard concrete
It seems a bit of a sloppy set up when an incoming plane is allowed by the control tower to land with landing gear up and without the airport emergency crews lining the length of the runway in preparation for a disaster. Utterly bizzare. Leads me to think the pilot and co-pilot had lost the plot through fatigue.The final report should make for interesting reading. BTW - Great analysis Brian
When you say "lining the length of the runway" do you mean spraying foam on over 2.5km of runway, in the few minutes between the mayday call and the crash?
I am subscribing to this channel because you make much more sense than all the blame I have heard. I also thought about the plane killing more people without that bunker being in place. May their souls rest in peace.
I think that is just how the 737 sits when it is resting on its engines and tail with passengers and bags loaded. The LOT 767 that did a belly landing also ended up with its nose still in the air.
As a retired pilot and flight instructor, when in flight and in an engine emergency (e.g., flame out) we would execute the procedures inherent to the situation and proceed to an emergency landing but with a 50% chance of being very successful in the end, since we still had one engine working and that is a lot.
@@Brian.MurrayI sincerely appreciate how you speak the "truth" based on what information (verifiable) we have so far without forgetting to mention in a way or another that "truth" CAN change depending on new informations. To be correct, you focus on the "most likely" hypothesis, until verified and confirmed by facts (not opinions and estimates); only at that point can it be called "truth". Thank you for that great level of youtube content.
Actually, the first barrier is a concrete platform to raise the ILS equipment, and it has some dirt as cover. The antennas and lights on the platform are designed to shear off near their base (just like light poles by US roads are mounted on bolts that shear off in a car crash, rather than destroy the car and killing all the occupants). Unfortunately, the platform is designed to kill everyone in a crash. It should be put below ground, such as at most other airports. A properly designed airport will stop a runway excursion by having a dirt field or a pit that absorbs the energy of the airplane and traps it, like getting into deep, thick mud. Behind the ILS equipment, there's a retaining wall made of CMU blocks that separate on impact. It's designed to enclose the airport, but not destroy an aircraft and kill everyone.
Even with a loss of both engines, wouldn't the APU be able to give them at least some flaps? Everything I've seen suggests massive crew error following what may have been a bird strike, compounded by questionable runway design.
If both engines failed..only have 2mins mate you reckon you can do everything in 2mins? Shouldve done this shouldve done that it's piss easy to say in front of computer screen. BUT agree with you about the Wall. That wall was lethal.
Even with the loss of thrust in both engines, windmilling hydraulics alone (backed up by left and right electric standby pumps on battery power) should have provided adequate hydraulic pressure 1) to the flight control surfaces allowing the pilots to maneuver the airplane, as you see them doing here, and 2) to extend flaps (at a slower rate than normal), extend the gear, and apply brakes on the runway. Baffling.
@@sshinzo6504 Your point is a solid one. However, (a) they should be prepared for this, (b) checklist exist for a reason, (c) the only suggested reason for both engines being out - so far- is pilot error, and (d) not extending landing gear is always just about the worst mistake one could make.
@@sshinzo6504 Pilots do training for this specific event at least yearly. Yes, 2 mins is way more than enough time. This was 100% a poor response to a very manageable emergency.
Thanks for sharing this video. I can get a quick, excellent analysis here or get next to nothing watching the useless news. Or wait months for the report to come out. This is the first time somone explained the barriers at the end of the runway and how they may have prevented a much higher death toll had the jetliner crashed into a populated area. This video may be a lot of speculation but at least it makes me think of the possibilities.
Generally good analysis, but they certainly had hydraulics since they definitely had full flight surface control during the landing attempt in the video. Also the (or at least an) engine can definitely be heard running during the landing attempt and spooling down after the crash. So they weren't engineless nor hydraulicless. They also must have known they weren't configured for landing as 200 vs 140 is a huge difference in airspeed for landing. The big question is - Why the hurry to put it down rather than take the time to clamly go through all the proper checklists?
The 737 has mechanical cables that allow the ailerons, rudder, and elevators to function even with full hydraulic loss, albeit with much more effort required by the pilots. So the ability to steer the aircraft does not conclusively prove that the hydraulics were operational. And the engines windmill when shut down, so the sound of spooling down does not conclusively prove that the engine was producing power at the time of the crash.
im curious if there was not. a wall there, how much distance will the plain need to cover before it can be stopped? and from the wall, I also wonder the distance to the nearby buildings/commercial or residential areas…
No, thrust reversers were deployed till the last second. Also to keep it in perspective 82m/s is like ~37km/h more or less above the landing speed of the 737-800. They landed too dam fast
@ I couldn’t see in the video if the reverser on the left engine was deployed. I also read that some people say they heard the engines spooling up. Wondering if the pilot realised he landed too long and wasn’t going to stop in time and was attempting to get it back in the air. It’s puzzling in any case and until we get more info, we’ll have to wait for the report.
Okay, thanks for the analysis. There is one possible scenario I am thinking of which could explain why the pilots rushed to do this approach. It would be a second bird strike. Think about it, they are on normal approach and FOD one engine with a bird, then do a normal go around. Then while evaluating things, they suck in a bird to the second engine and it does more catastrophic damage. The first engine wasn't shut down yet, but it isn't working so hot so now they feel they are committed to the approach they did. That's the only scenario I can think of which indeed would justify rushing steps like that. Otherwise it points more to possible pilot error if they intentionally shut down the wrong engine by mistake.
yeah, and i dont understand how this can happen at such an important moment. sure they didnt have much time before their second landing attempt, but this is inexcusable.
NTSB is American, and has no jurisdiction is South Korea. Not every country has plenty of land available to have a huge apron of flat land surrounding airports. There are some airports runways that fall off a cliff or into the sea at distances shorter than that concrete wall. If there was no wall and the plane careened off into civilians at the end of the runway, I'm pretty sure people would be whining about why there wasn't a concrete wall to protect civilians on the ground. Focusing on the wall is ignoring that fact that a lot of things went wrong before that wall became a factor, including piloting issues which IMHO are even more critical factors than that wall. if the pilot had brought the plane down earlier onto the runway and had managed the ground effect better or managed their incoming speed better, the wall would have been no factor. Most pilots viewing the footage have the view that this landing, even with a potential bird strike issue, should have been survivable.
@@whisky3k well articulated and evidenced. only aviation fans and experts can understand and accept this perspective because they have the knowledge and experience in the area.
How did the plane only decrease in speed by like 20mph (from just over 200mph) between first touching down on the runway to when it overran (about 180mph)? It's like it's sliding on ice... does concrete to metal contact produce almost zero friction?
It takes about 7 minutes to complete the emergency checklist for that plane. In that checklist is the section about the manual gear extension. There are many other line items they didn’t execute in that checklist before attempting a landing. I’m not entirely convinced human error didn’t contribute to an already bad emergency.
Building a wall at the end of the runway is a true feat of engineering. Luckily the wall was solidly built otherwise the plane would continue to slide. what idiots
The air traffic controllers keep saying it was caused by a "bird strike" 🤦♂🤦♂ Didn't know South Korean airports hire blind people as air traffic controllers.
I can’t believe this needs to be said, but comments made in bad faith will be removed. It’s ok to disagree, but not ok to be a horrible person.
I should have put a Question mark at the end.
Human Lives were lost, Family Members devastated, this IS NOT the place for Hate!!
@@davidfairchild1640 to be brutal they were sacrificed so others past the stop end wouldn’t get an airliner in their home. There are better ways of achieving this, but this I guess will form a significant part of the investigation.
can't even say thoughts and prayers to the victims because I may offend a left1st or a lib
These is useful information with some/more details different and more than on the News outlets can be said .
Why would be anyone can say unnecessary things.
Keep these kind of up to dates .
Blimey!! An interesting factual video spoken by a human with no irritating background music or irrelevant subtitles!
I need to subscribe, such channels are becoming rare!
I agree 100%
There is also the problem of RUclips videos that show video clips that are outdated, irrelevant or misleading.
They make one think that one should just close one's eyes and listen.
White people these days …
Bird strikes do not have nothing to do with the landing gear not being put in place.
Did you listen to the video? He gave a pretty clear evaluation of why the landing gear was not put back down for his final landing attempt.
A lot of things happened and a lot more to be done within a few minutes (which contributed to the mishap), including possibly a few more that were not mentioned, for instance the sunlight glare possibly blinded the pilots...
@bryanmarshall6878 He didn't EXPLAIN anything - he guessed. The bottom line is the pilot was a complete idiot. He did not verify the gear was down. He missed the threshold by HALF a runway. The berm didn't "Save Live" but costed lives. This is poor analysis.
The bottom line is the pilot was a complete idiot. He did not verify the gear was down. He missed the threshold by HALF a runway. The berm didn't "Save Live" but costed lives. This is poor analysis.
@@jtc1964x Him saying that they might have shutdown the only working engine was completely valid. I do admit the pilots rushed things and hence weren't able to make a concrete plan (not a pun) about how to do the landing. If they did shut down the only working engine, it would explain the botched landing and why they rushed things. I think they tried to land but then realized they can't but since their engines were out, they weren't able to pick up speed and hence why it slammed into the mound of concrete wall.
Best explanation I’ve heard, so far. My heart goes out to all the families of the victims of this devastating tragedy 🙏🏽
dito
I still can't believe there was a brick wall at the end of the runway. It's even more unbelievable after seeing it from an aerial view. It should not have been there.
everyone puts emphasis on the localizer berm/wall, but i cant get my head around the fact that the pilot touched down well past halfway down the runway in a flaps up and gear up configuration. given the runaway's 9000 ft length, it should have been able to stop regardless of the landing configuration. the plane can very well stay airborne with one engine running, so i can only assume it was pilot error or both engines failed by coincidence. regardless, a 160 knot overrun is not survivable in any aspect, and regardless of the berm, the aircraft would've ran into other major obstacles (brick wall at the border, fences, light poles, trees), and had the aircraft touched down earlier, it would not have crashed into the berm.
Even if the pilots made 200 more mistakes than we know of right now and even if all onboard systems failed, including the toilet soap dispensers, the plane touched the ground undamaged and everybody on board was in good shape. Seconds later they were all killed by a bunker wall that should never be there.
@lordjim3109 the 12 soap dispensers were flawless.
@ Had the plane overrun, which it did in this case, that statement is more than accurate and I am not denying the fact. However, this emergency landing was clearly botched due to the fast landing speed and extremely late touchdown, and a prime example of a safely executed belly landing already exists - LOT Airlines flight 16. If the pilots could've executed this landing safely, or even diverted to an airport with a longer runway, no overrun may have ever occurred.
@@tae5216 if the #1 engine was lost, they'd not have TOGA capability, they basically performed a U turn, got on approach and without flaps for currently unknowable reasons (they had thrust reversers and control surface control, so the hydraulics were operating) or gear (no time for manual drop?), came in hotter than a two dollar pistol, ground effects kept them aloft far down the field and no manually deploying spoilers and speed brakes played in.
Checklists take time, if they were flameout on both engines, time is precisely what they did not have - potentially, not even enough time for memory items lists to be ran.
What really didn't help though was a berm crested with a goddamned concrete bunker wall, as I saw some footage of the top of that wall and double rebar was shown, that isn't standard concrete or the frangible concrete we use, that essentially was the wall consistent with a bunker, as the only time I've seen double rebar of that size used was in a 10000 pound test reinforced wall that was designed to literally withstand an airplane's impact. Had to cut through similar before, destroyed a fair amount of equipment just getting through it, including diamond saw blades.
The concrete border wall would've broken on impact after substantially longer friction time with the ground, resulting in a much lower velocity impact.
My suspicion, based upon videos and previous reporting, initial go around was due to landing gear deployment issues post bird strike. That they climbed out implies at least one engine still operating, as the compressor stall was apparent in the video for the #2 engine. There is the potential that engine #1 was also damaged and failed as the aircraft was climbing, necessitating the reciprocal course and landing. That'd leave them no thrust, what speed is what you've got, flaps remain a mystery, as does the no gear configuration, as does the no slats. Hydraulic damage would've left electrical for flaps, but those are very slow in deployment and way down on the checklist. I'm suspecting there just wasn't enough time, with literally the worst case scenario occurring just prior to landing at low altitude. We'll know more when the recorders are analyzed, otherwise everyone's just pulling out opinions and "facts" from their collective rectums.
I'm decidedly unfond of rectally procured facts.
I can't disagree with either of you (lord Jim and tae5216).
But this gonna be a complex investigation and we're early days yet.
Still, that berm's positioning seems jaw-droppingly dangerous and ill-conceived!
I'm new to your channel. Great video! No drama. No hyperbole. Just fact-grounded theory. Thank you!
The only facts he posted are approximately where the bird strike photo was taken and the approximate ground speed, the rest is all supposition, maybe, could be and what if. Wait for the flight data and voice recorders to be analyzed then we will KNOW
@@gomez2724
This has to be one of the stranger accidents and almost all caught on HD. Those poor people.
A video like this creates many speculations, hopefully the information on the recorders will be recoverable.
It's nice not having any background music.
On the 737-800, there are 3 hydraulic systems for redundancy. The "A" & “B” hydraulic systems use an engine-driven pump and an electric-driven pump on each engine. The 3rd "Standby" system uses an electric-driven pump . If both engines shut down, the spinning fan blades in either engine can still power the electric hydraulic pump. If both engines were shut down and there was no windmilling of the fan blades, the "Standby" system could still function using electrical power from the backup APU generator when it is started. Shutting down the wrong engine wouldn’t, by itself, cause a loss of hydraulics preventing the deployment of flaps and slats. The landing gear doesn’t need hydraulics to deploy either. Other factors must have been in play.
For those interested, PilotBlogDenys explains how even the triple redundancy hydraulics system might have failed to save this Jeju 2216 if both engines lost power for whatever reason (bird strike / engine 1 mistakenly shut down). The APU takes 1 minute to start and pilots simply might not have had enough time to do everything in time by the time they realised what had happened.
At least one engine was running . You can hear it spool down after the crash.
@@AmalKaru-i2fexactly. They panicked and forgot what to do.
@@Blixey-r9zthis plane had at least one engine running .
@ yes,, it seems like engine #2 (the right engine that had the compressor stall) was still emitting thrust exhaust on the approach to runway 019 in one video. Hence the speculative theory that engine #1 (left engine) might have been shut down mistakenly necessitating a very hurried turnaround to land on runway 019 instead of the usual go around procedure for a plane with adequate power and control. It is the speculation that this very hurried approach to land on runway 019 might have contributed to the lack of deployment of flaps and landing gear.
Pilot must have some serious panic attack to forget that he can manually put the gear down.
Still that damn wall was such a huge fuckup.
Some people say the manual gear release is hard to reach for both the captain and fo, maybe they are focusing on the controls and don't want to waste time lowering the gear.
(Edit: I'm just guessing, idk what were the pilots thinking)
You can't just say that " Oh no! the manual landing gear switch is hard to reach! I can't waste time just to reach it!". That's so dumb. Ergonomics is good and all but in case of emergencies were poeples lives is at risk, just do it. And I can see reverse thrust on both engines deployed but no gear down. That is a big question mark there. No flaps either.
I think Boeing is most likely at fault here, they designed an aircraft that lose all landing gear and flaps control useless after one freaking bird strike???
@@AmalKaru-i2f So you have flown with them, huh? You're an aviation expert...
has to be the best review of this tragedy I've seen yet. brief, accurate, concise, and well researched! hitting the subscribe button now....
In my opinion Brian, this was an absolutely brilliant analytical investigation into this awful incident - very well done you - you clearly know your ‘stuff’!!👏👏👏👏👏👏
There is a litany of errors here. The go around was rushed. They took 7 minutes from the bird strike to the crash. They should have taken more time to check through the landing checklist, but no doubt the pilots were stressed. I suspect they became overwhelmed and simply forgot to extend flaps and gear. Even if the hydraulics failed, they could have manually lowered the gear, and electrically extended flaps. Pilots can fly on one engine. They rushed, or didn't do the go around check list properly. There are three systems available for hydraulics. Plus an electric hydraulic pumps, although 6 times slower than the engines. The pilots had control of the alerions when lining up, so they had hydraulics Also the right engine deployed the thrust reversers ( Air brakes) ; another reason to think they had hydraulics the entire flight. Before the bird strike, they had flaps extended, but retracted them after the go around was started. The landing gear was never deployed. The final error was building the localizer antenna on a 3 meter high berm, with 25 cm. of reinforced concrete, to support thin pipes. Usually the localizer antenna are installed with the concrete even with the ground, and the antenna fairly easily bent down if hit by an aircraft. Why they have cinder block fences around the perimeter is beyond me, but the aircraft could have gone a fair distance even without gear, but tragically a combination of errors and improper localizer support structure, design led to so many preventable deaths. For respect of the Captain, and First officer, who had 6000 flying hours, and perished, I could be wrong.
Didn't the commentator claim that the pilots disengaged the wrong engine though? The pilots probably thought both engines were out at that point.
100% a lot of errors .... They had relatively small problem in comparison with other airplane which crashed recently.
Couldn't agree more
@@joevann7365 It will probably take a couple of years for the final report to come out but it wouldn't surprise me if this turns out to be a case of lots of bad decisions and errors by the pilots plus bad CRM. Even if the hydraulic gear drop was out of action they should have still been able to gravity drop the gear. I can't see why they would choose to do a controlled belly landing on a runway. Those Russian pilots who landed a A320 with two engines out on a corn field and Sully's Hudson landing both decided to do belly landings but both of those were situations not covered by the textbooks and the reasoning for the belly landings in both cases made sense. Landing on a concrete runway without friction from tyres and some form of braking/spoilers/reversers just seems insane (depending on what functions wer still working, but they clearly had reversers so some things must have still been working). Even if they thought they were going to have to do a high speed landing because of lack of flaps (which can be tricky on the 737 as it has a high landing speed anyway) they should have had time to plan things out and review their options. It does look like the pilot initially flared at a normal height above the runway and they moved the nose up and down a couple more times before touchdown which does make me wonder if they genuinely just forgot to lower the gear.
Panic...Thanks for Your Comment...Final Report..Quite a Loss..
Thank you! As a retired aircraft mechanic, your video and explanation is the only one that makes common sense.
Except it didn't make a conclusion
As a retired aircraft mechanic, your insights must bring a whole new level of understanding to this tragedy. It’s great that the video resonated with you. ✈
His explanation leaves out one important factor. Part of his theory is that the pilots might have shut off the wrong engine. The video from the other side of the plane clearly shows the reverse thrusters operating on the engine on that side. So, they didn't shut down the wrong engine. Spouting figures and statistics without knowing all the facts is futile. As a retired aircraft mechanic I'm sure you know that too.
Only makes sense if he shut down the wrong engine. He could have flown on one.
Crew skipped and botched procedure.
Congratulations on your work.
We need people like you in the media.
Man, thanks to you and RUclips, we've gone from knowing nothing for months to knowing everything in days!
incredible amount of information packed into a 3 and a half minute video. Thanks for the analysis.
he speeded up the video so people slow it down and he gets more minutes..it is called cheating on you tube
Great video……Very concise and Easy to follow explanation……Thanks Brian Murray!
When I was a pilot in the Army, I had a engine failure in dual engine aircraft. We were less than 10 miles from the airport. My copilot decided to start the emergency procedures and started reaching for the only good engine’s power control lever. I told him to get his cotton picken hands off my good engine and we’ll fight the emergency after we’re on the ground safely. We were able to make a normal landing with the one good engine and dealt with the bad engine on the ground, where it didn’t matter.
Engine out checklists are for losers, you had the “right stuff” !
lmao cotton pickin hands
This aircraft is designed to remain airborne, fly, maneuver and land with 1 engine only. Pilots do it regularly every year and nobody crashes since pilots spend hours in simulator studying that scenario.
There is a bunch of questions coming up:
- Maybe they’re not fully in control of the hydraulic due to the engines explosion?
- I wonder why there’s no Landing gears or Flaps, which can results in fast speed approach.
- I wonder why they didn’t touched down at the begging of the runway?
- Did the engine failure distract them and forgot to lower the gear?
- Was the computer giving them a bunch of false alarm making pilot think his aircraft was so badly damaged.
This landing without landing gear looked so smooth and perfect to me. I feel like the crew is experienced judging by the quality of landing, but this aircraft should never ended in fire everyone should have survived since the hardest thing was done: “To land smoothly”
"cotton picking hands" LMAO. You rock Robin!!
U able to handle that situation cuz was trained about that case
This is the best analysis I’ve seen to date.
Agreed. I couldn't wrap my head around total hydraulics failure until the probability the wrong engine was shut down was brought up.
I agree-this analysis really helps break things down clearly. Hopefully, lessons from this can lead to safer practices in the future. 🙏
Except at least one engine was running when they hit the wall. You can clearly hear an engine spooling down after the crash .
@@rickorick6290on the original video you cam clearly hear at least one engine spooling down after they hit the wall. So at least one engine was running. The pilots did not have enough time to run a checklist. I believe they panicked and forgot what to do.
@@MA-yl1er but they were experienced pilots with lots of flight hours and training on the simulator. pilots don't panic because of a birds strike..however, these ones rushed the landing before actually getting ready for it. will soon find out the real sequence of events and whether it was avoidable or not.
A measured an informative revue of the incidents that led to this tragic accident without sensationalism. Well done👏
Six minutes after the go around a second landing was attempted which I believe they hadn’t done the checklist for a new course of action. The extra time to perform the checklists may have saved all passengers and crew. The aircraft can be flown safely with one engine and landed without a scratch.
True, but what if they shut down the wrong engine? This would have been a terrible pilot mistake.
"Checklist" ? Are you and idiot? I now understand the connection between being late and being stupid. You simply do not get what is 'time' and 'constraint'.
They must have had some technical issues due to which they were forced to land. Once black box is found we will know.
@@dawid1803 do you fly a Boeing? I don’t think so..irrespective of the situation, Boeing has a non normal checklist for all malfunctions associated with its systems.. you wouldn’t understand,because again you don’t fly a Boeing.
@@Ro77cky Is it non normal in a way that it stops time or gravity? 'World stop please. Ro77cky is talking about his checklist'. Lol.
That concrete wall killed 180 people. Does it make sense to land well and then hit the wall and kill everyone?
In the first place , the plane landed the opposite direction.
What actually happened ?
Why landing gear not out ?
Why atc did not approve of first landing ?
Why was there mayday ?
The wall is also a problem , but it is the last sequence.
@@주인공은나야나1퍼 Yes, it makes perfect sense.
@@rnegoro1 Okay, question: As of Today, if it was up to you, would you get rid of the wall or leave it?
😂 é foda né friend
Compare safe emergency landing of polish arlines LOT plane a few years ago on Chopin Airport in Warsaw very similar situation and than come back.
This Jeju Air plane wasn't safe emergency landing, landing on halfway of landing site without landing gear on full speed from wrong direction is against safe landing.
Stop blaming concrete wall lol
Best Analysis I've seen so far on this.
Imagine thinking you made it and a reinforced wall just shows up.
if they landed in the right direction they were fine (they landed in the opposite and came across this barrier). concrete is at the beginning and not end of the runway.
@@Kat-zj5kdthat makes no sense. In fact that wall is at the END of runway 19. Sure it’s at the beginning of 01 but, for whatever reason, they were trying to land on runway 19. That’s still a ‘valid runway’ for landing. In fact the very light wind was favoring runway 19, not 01. Not that it matters -
With only 2 kts of wind either runway is perfectly suitable.
@@gavtex1065 The difference between the size of the berm on runway 19 vs runway 01 is staggering, almost cockpit high. maps.app.goo.gl/pW5XL5VxsSEoR9bt5
If you look at the still photos of the video (another airplane accident analyst here on RUclips showed them), you can see the co-pilot putting his arm/hand up in front of him, probably from instinct knowing that they were going to crash.
@@bobl703 yes. But prepping for a bumby crash off the end of the runway would justify that plenty. Pretty sure they didn’t know about the wall until too late. But who knows for sure 🤷♂️.
Those buildings and vacation hotels were not “just beyond the wall” as the narrator says, but a considerable distance beyond. That additional
distance would likely have been enough for the plane to stop, avoiding the terrible tragedy.
The “wall” you’re talking about is a bit misleading. It’s a berm specifically designed to elevate the localizer antenna. This method of raising the antenna with soil is not the standard. The ICAO standard is to use metal that is collapsible, in case something exactly like this situation occurs. The wall was almost certainly NOT placed there to keep aircraft from hitting people outside the airport perimeter. There is still a lot of land even after the berm and the perimeter wall which was of no consequence and could have been used for runway excursions.
@@hansvonmannschaft9062 The entirety was not constructed of concrete, just a slab on top to hold the antenna. If you view google maps street view, you can see most of it is built up soil.
@@hansvonmannschaft9062 I agree that it had absolutely no place being there and in the form that it was built. The concrete doesn’t appear to be a pylon though. It’s just a slab sitting atop the dirt berm to hold all the localizer antennas at the angles they wanted. It wasn’t like a column.
At the end of the day. The hill nor the concrete should have been there the way it was. The fact that it was there is ridiculous.
@@VictoryAviation It's so sad, it's hard to admit the wall shouldn't have been there.
You know what's crazy? Same exact accident happened to Canada cargo plane in 2004 at Halifax. They had the same berm but got rid of it after the accident. Simply non complaint but ignored by the korean airport.
Airport perimeter wall is located after the berm, so even without the berm, the plane does not survive because it landed too close to the end of the runway and came in hot at 160 knots.
So, I'm just going to "blue sky" this here, if the wall is built to protect structures that house people beyond the runway, maybe don't build structures that house people beyond the runway. Perhaps keep that area should ALWAYS be kept clear and flat. No buildings, or walls. Seems a no-brainer...
the runway is plenty long enough. the way they flew in, they needed another mile. if they had hit water at that speed... it's also like hitting a wall.
Can’t even imagine the terror and horror these precious souls went through before the crash.
May they all R.I.P. God Bless each and everyone of them. 😭
Your words capture what so many of us feel. Thinking of the victims and their families-it’s a pain no one should have to endure. 😔
once the plane was on the ground, they probably thought they were home free
Would they have even known until touchdown? Only the surviving stewards will know if they can ever remember. I don't think pilots explain to everyone onboard the reasons for go-arounds, and they definitely don't talk to the cabin while landing. The passengers may not have known the extent until on the ground not slowing down and those in the middle would only know that they weren't decelerating like normal. It was all over though before they could really process anything though and they didn't have pain. Not even the survivors were conscious to feel pain then.
They most likely didn't know about anything. Probably saw fire for a milisecond or two and then died instantly.
@nathanhosea489 you dont think they felt the plane hitting the pavement and skidding across the runway?
Wow. So much information gathered in a short time. Thanks for sharing.
I work in aerospace but am not a pilot. My dad flew and I grew up around airplanes and know more than most non-pilots...I also drove road racing cars for nearly 30 years and learned there are many similarities between driving and flying. First and foremost is to keep a cool head. Adrenaline is your enemy. A person can be technically REALLY good behind the yoke or wheel, but when things go wrong is the measure of true talent. In my opinion, the flight crew rushed this in a panic. The -800 can fly just fine on a single. They failed to take the time to checklist EVERYTHING and freaked out so much that they took a short return. This decent would also increase air speed making their situation worse as evidenced by the touchdown nearly 50% down runway. Again, adrenaline is not your friend in a crisis situation.
who builds a robust wall at the end of a runway?? It only held the localizer...
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i Prove it.
People that want to protect the 1000s of people behind it, in case shit like this happens
That was not a robust wall. Multiple layers of concrete is a robust wall.
@@jimjones9239 - take another look, that wall/ILS berm made of earth and concrete is pretty substantial.
Airplanes are built fairly lightweight and are designed to withstand stress from certain activities/directions such as landing, turbulence, lightning strikes, etc. they are not designed to survive a high speed impact with an earthen berm that is nearly vertical, topped with several feet of concrete.
@jimjones9239 those were steel reinforced concrete walls, with no over run material between the runway and the wall. There are not 1000s of people behind it. There was no reason to have that robust of a structure at the end of a runway.
Prayers to the family and friends of the victims.
Still think the Wall was an awful solution, many others also agree.
Why not a net to stop sliding plane
Wall is not the main issue here. If you come in super fast even a small tiny object is deadly.
@@Fear.of.the.Dark. you right in thus Case. but: whats the reason building a Wall at the end of a runway? I dont unterstand this
@@JuliaWeber-o7q Because dirt works just fine.
@@JuliaWeber-o7q That would be a hell of a net to catch a plane at that speed AND keep it intact.
That was a higher level of forensics from the video than I expected. Nicely done. You should see if Hoover can use your services for his breakdowns.
Finally, a superb channel that us straight to the point!
Excellent work on this video!!!
That totally makes sense, it still probably would have been ok if it wasn't for the berm/wall that obliterated them. All the "if only's" in these two crashes over the past few days, it's super heartbreaking!!
The Swiss cheese model. It’s not being kind to aviation lately.
150mph it would not have been alright.
It wouldn't have been okay. If the wall wasn't there, the plane would have crashed into the hotel buildings.
It would not have been ok. Impacting anything at the speeds the aircraft was going would have detrimental affects. The pilots landed much too late, and much too fast.
@@jakemensik2842Without that wall there's way more chance of survivability ffs.
Check out Garuda GA-200 incident in 2007 for example. Pilot error, overspeed landing, overshoot the runway, break through wire fences, cross over a road, ditch, drags over a rough field and ended up on a rice field. Yes the plane destroyed, but not suddenly disintegrated. And 119 out of 140 occupant came out alive. If there's a concrete wall like this airport, probably there's won't be any survivor out of GA-200.
Condolences to the deceased and their family. Very impressive on your thorough analysis of the crash. Was wondering why they were unable to manually extend the landing gears by gravity with flaps in that emergency, which would help reduce the speed as well as ABS system to be kicked in on the ground. As you said, they might have been short of time to do the emergency procedure due to the both ENGs failure. Hopefully, the Black boxes (CVR, FDR) can help NTSB investigators figure out what had happened exactly.
Hopefully, someone can send your video to the Korean investigators
I've watched another video with the comment of aviation expert Julian Bray who said that the concrete slab at the end of the runway is not allowed. It should be a wall that has communication systems to help the airplanes, but frangible, which upon impact it should collapse, like laying flat. So, in case a plane collides with it, it won't destruct the plane and cause the explosion like it happened in this case. It's my opinion that if they have hotels or other things at the end of the runway, then they should move them or handle that appropriately, so their airport follows international security regulations and not put people in flights in danger. Let's hope the airport will do better in regard to that. This sure was a tragedy... One of the flight attendants suffered several fractures, including on his spine, and is in total paralysis. He's in his early 30s. I feel so sorry for him! I hope the two survivors will recover to the best condition possible and my heart is with all the victim's families.
My condolences to the families of the victims. What you said at 2:34 about past instances of "shut down the wrong engine" is true. In 2006, a C-5 departing Dover AFB suffered a thrust reverser alarm on one engine. They turned around to land, and the crew mistakenly kept a fully functional engine at idle while manipulating the throttle of the shut-down bad engine. Carrying a heavy load and effectively running on only two engines, they were unable to maintain glideslope and crashed short of the runway. Three people were injured, and the plane was written off as a hull loss, with its flight deck salvaged and repurposed for systems software testing.
Thank you for sharing this with us. You seem to have a good understanding of this event.
Wow, new subscriber due to how well you made this video- thanks.
i dont think a concrete wall needed there still, plus those building pretty far away that chunky land good enough to slower this plane
100%
Where do you guys keep coming up with that it was made out of concrete it's made out of dirt
@@deannelson9565 They literally say even in the slow Korean news that it is made of concrete...
@@Xfighter000 I don't care what they have to say all you have to do is look at the damn thing before it got hit it's an Earthen berm with an ILS on top of it and the only concrete involved with it is the footing for the ILS which is only about 10 inches thick
@@deannelson9565 Because it's made of reinforced concrete.
I’m slo glad they showed the actual crash, because the live news thought it was too sensitive.
Sometimes seeing the raw footage is the only way to truly understand what went wrong. Glad they chose to show the reality, even if it’s hard to watch. 😢
It is one of the most horrific commercial accidents I've seen, not often you seen over one hundred people die instantly - not easy to forget 🙏
The fact you can see 2 bodies flying through the sky on impact is probably why they don’t show it anymore.
@@givethedogadrone good eye. I watched it in slow motion and still can’t spot the bodies.
Disagree. The final explosion only adds sensationalism to the general public. If you’re not a professional in charge of depicting all facts for a crash evaluation this scene adds nothing and I truly finds it a disrespect to acquaintances and family members.
Very nice work, well researched and well presented. Obviously, it's too early to make definitive conclusions about any factors but the mis-applications of the wheels and the flaps present huge areas of concern. It's a strange òne.
So concise, pure facts and logic, great video. Actually the best of this kind I saw.
The world has watched 179 people die right before their eyes. So unbelievable.
+45,000
I'm more concerned about the other 10000 people that unfairly died today far from the eyes and the cameras, how insensitive most people could be out of resignation : here, 179 people died due to a combination of randomness, possibly human error (unintended), and a poor design left unfixed (negligence) ; at no point, anyone meant to harm. On the other hand, elsewhere...
@@davJanko8052 179 people that they never even knew existed before. People HAVE to pretend to be emotionally affected by it, because we live in a world where lies and pretenses are the norm.
Only you know whether you really care or not, and I will leave it up to your conscience to acknowledge it to yourself.
It is terrible what happened, but it would have made no difference to anyone if it was 179 or 1. Even the victims' families only care about the loss of their own, which means they wouldn't have cared if 179 perished as long as their own survived.
I am pointing this out only because no one else bothers to point out the truth while being drowned in a sea of fake thoughts and prayers.
The first thing I thought of was why there was a wall at the end of the runway. I've never heard of that before.
Yea lots of airports have them for noise abatement or to prevent dirt/debris from being blasted from the engines. They also work as good mounting places for the ILS antennas.
@@Brian.Murray NO. That is NOT a "good" way to mount your ILS Localizer antenna.
The proper way to get it at an increased height is not to put it on top of a dirt berm, but rather to mount it on taller BREAKAWAY poles.
Consider street lamps. The base of these poles have special bolts designed to SHEAR if hit by a car. A hard lesson learned after the thousands of people killed after hitting such poles. This is the exact same principle for such an antenna mount at an airport, particularly an antenna that is required to be so close to the runway.
When you see that the berm runs only the length of the antenna, you can readily see that the purpose was not for noise abatement. And it is way too far off the end of the runway to serve the purpose of acting as a blast deflector.
There is NO valid reason to mount it on a dirt berm.
They did it as a cost saving measure. It's easy and almost no cost to bulldoze dirt rather than to design specialized mounting poles.
Overall...
*EXCELLENT video.* You have published the best analysis I have seen so far.
Juan Browne (Blancolirio) goes in depth into other aspects, such as hydraulic systems and configuration. And why they landed so long with ground effect.
@@AmalKaru-i2f It does seem odd, but I'll give a different perspective. If that plane, doing 160kts, careened off the runway, and killed a bunch of people in those buildings, people would be asking why there wasn't a barrier. It's the trolley problem. Which do we save? Its a hard decision.
1st it is a mistake to build a wall there
2nd but the tower ordered them to go around and did a 360 to land
the pilots ignored the order and did a 180, landing on the runway in a reverse direction
the wall is actually behind the threshold zone, not the end of runway.
the wall is supposed to be behind them when they landed, not in the front.
they will never hit the wall if they landed in correct direction
3rd visually u can see the pilots made a lot mistakes too
No. A lot of airports do not have concrete wall berms at the end of their runways. The localizer antennas are collapsible so that when a plane does what this plane did the damage is minimal. The placement of this wall/berm is borderline criminal. Wrong. Airports do not have these.
It looks more like a missed "touch and go" procedure than a landing. I see engines running at full speed, no braking attempts, no gear, no flaps, no speed reduction. It is rather a failed "go around" not landing.
it looks like it is still flying at the final moment. i was watching this on instagram by chance. i thought this was a great approach and then... shocking
Thats what I thought. TOGA and then something didn't go according to plan.
It looks to me like you're another one of those people that has no idea what the hell they're talking about
@엔삭 where do you people keep coming up with it being made out of concrete it's made out of dirt
@@deannelson9565 You can see the remains of the wall in some pictures. And those remains clearly show reinforced concrete.
As a former B737 captain with over 13,000 hours of Pilot-in-command time in the B737, there's a LOT that doesn't make sense here. Flaps are extendable electrically with hydraulic failure. The gear is deployable mechanically as well as hydraulically. Going around with an engine failure on final is probably not a good idea. The aircraft will land nicely on one engine.
I'm speculating a bit but I suspect you will find the crew did not execute all of the checklists and seemed rushed to get on the ground even before the birdstrike. The flight data and cockpit voice recorders will give a non-speculative insight as to what was done or not done.
And the concrete wall at the end of the runway is beyond comprehension. Everything on and around the runway should be frangible.
I once lost a loved one in a plane crash in Islamabad, my heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims. Rest in peace poor souls😢
Really? Inna lilahi wa Inna allahi rajiuun, what happened to them?
@KhizarAtif-h9m yes Air blue plane crash in 2010 a flight from KHI-ISB
@@SonofIce514 oh no... Did you know that before the plane crashed, my grandfather flew the plane to the airport where from the other pilot flew in it and crashed. M
@@KhizarAtif-h9m 😮
The best analysis so far.thats also i believed in pilot error
Top notch video and analysis.
Was the gear and flaps down of 1st landing atempt? Why not land then ?
Best question yet👍🏾
Great video. It sounds like the pilots had panicked which led to catastrophic failures. 😢
One of the best analysis so far.
0:14〜0:22
It looks like the captain was trying to make a normal landing rather than a belly landing.
I agree with the botched go around and emergency procedure, it’s the only way I can see an engine failure result in a hydro issue
The only other possibility I can see is if they just dove for the field instead of setting up a stabilized approach. The cockpit recorder and data are going the be the only real answers for what happened in the cockpit.
Can the speed of the plane withstand a buffer against a well-performing obstacle? In front of it is a private house where ordinary people live
@@Brian.Murray It's rather a missesd touch down tragedy
@Metromotivator Not sure..it can be more sound than thrust from that engine.
Thanks for making this
I am so sick of those who keep shouting stupid question
"Why they dont dump fuel!"
"Why there is wall!"
"Must be pilot error"
"Boeing again!"
Without any evidence and study, silly world
Why there is wall is not a stupid question. We all know the wall was there. As to all the other factors we can only speculate.
Great analysis. Thank you very much.
So sad ... but the video is informative and the hypothesis are well reasoned: excellent job.
This one is breaking my heart.
Mine too.
DEFINITELY pilot error. The hydraulics must have been completely fine. A simple engine failure lead to panicking and stressed out the inexperienced pilots so much that they forgot basic landing items in their frantic rush to land.
Within 24 hrs, a plane of the same model (Boeing 737-800 ) veered off the run way in a force landing at Oslo Airport, quote unquote, "Hydraulics Failure".
If the bump at the end of the runway in South Korea airport is a fatel fiasco, the "Hydraulics Failure" seems to be an intrinsic pitfall.
ruclips.net/video/5qmpH98jk5k/видео.html
@@Zack-mp6ys Well, this plane suffered from tire explosion.
Inexperienced pilot?
He got 6800+ hours braindead
lol the "inexperienced" pilots with 6800+ hours and 1650+ hours of flight time. seriosouly who do you think you are
@@HappB5 You clearly under estimate the power of stress over the brain
no, with that speed i doubt they even shut down the wrong engine. look at 2:40 they expected the landing gear to touchdown but they just realized the landing gear are not extended, thus why they didnt shutdown engine immediately because they thought they still can takeoff again.
.
but because the aircraft are on full load and one engine died, they dont have enough power to takeoff again, thats why they looks like keep speeding up even though they are expected to stop the plane. there is something else happened in cockpit that cause multiple decision by the pilot.
.
the airport design to not expect overrun emergency landing doesnt help either by placing hard concrete at the end of runway, as if an aircraft is built like solid truck or tank that will stop at hard concrete
It seems a bit of a sloppy set up when an incoming plane is allowed by the control tower to land with landing gear up and without the airport emergency crews lining the length of the runway in preparation for a disaster. Utterly bizzare. Leads me to think the pilot and co-pilot had lost the plot through fatigue.The final report should make for interesting reading. BTW - Great analysis Brian
When you say "lining the length of the runway" do you mean spraying foam on over 2.5km of runway, in the few minutes between the mayday call and the crash?
I am subscribing to this channel because you make much more sense than all the blame I have heard. I also thought about the plane killing more people without that bunker being in place. May their souls rest in peace.
One thing to note, if one engine was inoperable, why is there no rudder being applied? The rudder is straight
pilot came in so hot that the nose didn't even touch down.!!!!!!!!!!!
Or he changed his mind in the last second before touching the ground and try to climb again
@@kikirykiit did feel that way. The belly landing came as a surprise, and the second he realized he would spontaneously climb up.
I think that is just how the 737 sits when it is resting on its engines and tail with passengers and bags loaded. The LOT 767 that did a belly landing also ended up with its nose still in the air.
@@kikiryki i was thinking that too...
google "weight distribution"
Really sad. Many airports are very unforgiving before and after the runway.
Nice analysis of the video, and great presentation of it!
As a retired pilot and flight instructor, when in flight and in an engine emergency (e.g., flame out) we would execute the procedures inherent to the situation and proceed to an emergency landing but with a 50% chance of being very successful in the end, since we still had one engine working and that is a lot.
this can't explain why they have to make a second shot only in 4 minutes. I think there were some kind of emergency in cabin / hydro
They said the flight was originally redirected to another airport because of passenger issue. Might have something to do with that?
The engines were clearly running during the landing. You could hear them.
I feel this will be another case of pilots panicking and crashing a perfectly serviceable aircraft... 😔
I fear that this may be the case. A second bird strike is always possible but it is looking like pilot error.
100% pilot error
both pilots and airport error
@@Brian.MurrayI sincerely appreciate how you speak the "truth" based on what information (verifiable) we have so far without forgetting to mention in a way or another that "truth" CAN change depending on new informations. To be correct, you focus on the "most likely" hypothesis, until verified and confirmed by facts (not opinions and estimates); only at that point can it be called "truth".
Thank you for that great level of youtube content.
100% boeing error
Thanks for a thoughtful and interesting post on this tragedy.
Very well done brief and very informative video. You gave critical, quick analysis.
Apart from landing gears, the flaps were not deployed as it should, led too a higher approaching speed, what went so wrong?
I find that odd as well. The plane was still under control, but without flaps and reverse thrusters ?
Following bird struck engine failure, US Airways 1549 landed safely in the Hudson River in 2009.
instead of some speed reducing/arresting installation at the end of runway, their genius designer put A damn concrete wall to catch the plane!
Excellent detail and clarity of this sad event, thx!
Nice knowledgeable inital analysis - thanks. Better than any of the hysteria on the popular news sites
wtf were they thinking? landing a plane gear up with well over 300 km/h with only 1600 meters of runway left??
What is certain is that the wall has shown its effectiveness in stopping airplanes. Whoever created that wall must be proud.
Actually, the first barrier is a concrete platform to raise the ILS equipment, and it has some dirt as cover. The antennas and lights on the platform are designed to shear off near their base (just like light poles by US roads are mounted on bolts that shear off in a car crash, rather than destroy the car and killing all the occupants). Unfortunately, the platform is designed to kill everyone in a crash. It should be put below ground, such as at most other airports. A properly designed airport will stop a runway excursion by having a dirt field or a pit that absorbs the energy of the airplane and traps it, like getting into deep, thick mud.
Behind the ILS equipment, there's a retaining wall made of CMU blocks that separate on impact. It's designed to enclose the airport, but not destroy an aircraft and kill everyone.
Even with a loss of both engines, wouldn't the APU be able to give them at least some flaps? Everything I've seen suggests massive crew error following what may have been a bird strike, compounded by questionable runway design.
The APU would, yes. But the APU isn’t running in flight under normal circumstances and takes a bit to start.
If both engines failed..only have 2mins mate you reckon you can do everything in 2mins? Shouldve done this shouldve done that it's piss easy to say in front of computer screen. BUT agree with you about the Wall. That wall was lethal.
Even with the loss of thrust in both engines, windmilling hydraulics alone (backed up by left and right electric standby pumps on battery power) should have provided adequate hydraulic pressure 1) to the flight control surfaces allowing the pilots to maneuver the airplane, as you see them doing here, and 2) to extend flaps (at a slower rate than normal), extend the gear, and apply brakes on the runway. Baffling.
@@sshinzo6504 Your point is a solid one. However, (a) they should be prepared for this, (b) checklist exist for a reason, (c) the only suggested reason for both engines being out - so far- is pilot error, and (d) not extending landing gear is always just about the worst mistake one could make.
@@sshinzo6504 Pilots do training for this specific event at least yearly. Yes, 2 mins is way more than enough time. This was 100% a poor response to a very manageable emergency.
Better reporting than the drive by media. 👍
Thanks for sharing this video. I can get a quick, excellent analysis here or get next to nothing watching the useless news. Or wait months for the report to come out. This is the first time somone explained the barriers at the end of the runway and how they may have prevented a much higher death toll had the jetliner crashed into a populated area. This video may be a lot of speculation but at least it makes me think of the possibilities.
Generally good analysis, but they certainly had hydraulics since they definitely had full flight surface control during the landing attempt in the video. Also the (or at least an) engine can definitely be heard running during the landing attempt and spooling down after the crash. So they weren't engineless nor hydraulicless.
They also must have known they weren't configured for landing as 200 vs 140 is a huge difference in airspeed for landing.
The big question is - Why the hurry to put it down rather than take the time to clamly go through all the proper checklists?
100% right question..not even the gear, not the wall , not the birds, not the weather...
The 737 has mechanical cables that allow the ailerons, rudder, and elevators to function even with full hydraulic loss, albeit with much more effort required by the pilots. So the ability to steer the aircraft does not conclusively prove that the hydraulics were operational. And the engines windmill when shut down, so the sound of spooling down does not conclusively prove that the engine was producing power at the time of the crash.
im curious if there was not. a wall there, how much distance will the plain need to cover before it can be stopped? and from the wall, I also wonder the distance to the nearby buildings/commercial or residential areas…
Was he trying to take off again?
No, thrust reversers were deployed till the last second.
Also to keep it in perspective 82m/s is like ~37km/h more or less above the landing speed of the 737-800.
They landed too dam fast
@ I couldn’t see in the video if the reverser on the left engine was deployed. I also read that some people say they heard the engines spooling up. Wondering if the pilot realised he landed too long and wasn’t going to stop in time and was attempting to get it back in the air. It’s puzzling in any case and until we get more info, we’ll have to wait for the report.
@@tiagooliveira95those reversers aren't actually deployed
@@56WagonWheel gotcha, didn't know about that
Okay, thanks for the analysis. There is one possible scenario I am thinking of which could explain why the pilots rushed to do this approach. It would be a second bird strike.
Think about it, they are on normal approach and FOD one engine with a bird, then do a normal go around. Then while evaluating things, they suck in a bird to the second engine and it does more catastrophic damage. The first engine wasn't shut down yet, but it isn't working so hot so now they feel they are committed to the approach they did.
That's the only scenario I can think of which indeed would justify rushing steps like that. Otherwise it points more to possible pilot error if they intentionally shut down the wrong engine by mistake.
Good analysis and no AI!!! Thank you.
Forgot to lower the gear?
yep
No, it's Boeing so the landing gear isn't ergonomic and he was engineless
yeah, and i dont understand how this can happen at such an important moment. sure they didnt have much time before their second landing attempt, but this is inexcusable.
Never a good idea to construct a heavy concrete wall at the end of any runway! NTSB should have known his?
NTSB is American, and has no jurisdiction is South Korea. Not every country has plenty of land available to have a huge apron of flat land surrounding airports. There are some airports runways that fall off a cliff or into the sea at distances shorter than that concrete wall. If there was no wall and the plane careened off into civilians at the end of the runway, I'm pretty sure people would be whining about why there wasn't a concrete wall to protect civilians on the ground.
Focusing on the wall is ignoring that fact that a lot of things went wrong before that wall became a factor, including piloting issues which IMHO are even more critical factors than that wall. if the pilot had brought the plane down earlier onto the runway and had managed the ground effect better or managed their incoming speed better, the wall would have been no factor.
Most pilots viewing the footage have the view that this landing, even with a potential bird strike issue, should have been survivable.
@@whisky3k well articulated and evidenced. only aviation fans and experts can understand and accept this perspective because they have the knowledge and experience in the area.
Poor piloting skills, he panicked instead of performing a holding pattern until all checks were made
How did the plane only decrease in speed by like 20mph (from just over 200mph) between first touching down on the runway to when it overran (about 180mph)? It's like it's sliding on ice... does concrete to metal contact produce almost zero friction?
It takes about 7 minutes to complete the emergency checklist for that plane. In that checklist is the section about the manual gear extension. There are many other line items they didn’t execute in that checklist before attempting a landing. I’m not entirely convinced human error didn’t contribute to an already bad emergency.
Building a wall at the end of the runway is a true feat of engineering.
Luckily the wall was solidly built otherwise the plane would continue to slide. what idiots
The idiots are the ones at boeing who built a crappy plane is the root issue. What happened after is a poor execution of damage control.
The air traffic controllers keep saying it was caused by a "bird strike" 🤦♂🤦♂ Didn't know South Korean airports hire blind people as air traffic controllers.
Bird strike is a codeword for Russian surface to air missile
If if there wasn't wall ?? May be few more lives could have been safe
Impressive detailed analysis.
Best analysis I have seen.