And the cause of the accident. he should have just continued to coast in and land.. rather than rely on potentially compromised engines in a go around.
Bangkok is not South Korea, therefore, it’s not a domestic flight. Third, the landing gear was not malfunctioned, fifth, you have a fantastic analysis.
@@karimgamer7747JEJU airlines is a local S.Korean airline is it not? So, the airline is flown by South Korean pilots which means even if this is an international flight, it is still a local domestic airline. It also means those pilots should have been aware of the wall mound and landed in the right direction and at the beginning of the runway.
@@superman85234All 737 aircrafts landing gears can operate manually even if electrical power is badly affected by bird strikes or, something else entirely.
The video is full of errors: Even before mentioning Jeju, the Lion Air 737 Max did not crash in Ethiopia. One Lion Air Max crashed in Indonesia, and another Ethiopian Airlines Max crashed in Ethiopia. The aircraft did not go around because of a bird strike; it suffered a bird strike during the go-around. The crew lost the second engine for reasons still unknown (possibly due to poor maneuvering or another bird strike). Fearing they might not reach the runway, they deliberately chose not to extend the landing gear and flaps. The embankment on which the LOC antennas are installed is essential for the proper functioning of the airport.
@ D’accord. Mais pourquoi le train n’était pas sorti alors qu’il était prêt à se poser et que tout allait bien ? Est ce que cela pourrait être la cause du mayday initial ?
shouldn't the Muan international airport has "Engineered Materials Arrestor System (EMAS)" in between the runway and LOC antennas . It's designed to safely stop an aircraft that overruns the runway by using specially engineered materials that crush under the aircraft's weight, absorbing the energy and slowing it down. the long-term benefits, such as preventing costly accidents and reducing potential damage to aircraft, often outweigh these expenses for developed country. The Muan international airport within South Korean has not invested in the Engineered Materials Arrestor System due to the country's aviation safety grade of A. they have Overconfidence in their aviation safety can lead to negative outcomes, as seen in the tragic Jeju Air crash in December 2024. While Jeju Air and Muan International Airport had high safety standards, the absence of EMAS may have contributed to the severity of the accident. This incident underscores the importance of continuously evaluating and improving safety measures to prevent such tragedies in the future.
This is poorly researched, as I expected when even the thumbnail is wrong. However I could never have expected anyone, even "AI" narration, to pronounce something as basic as "localizer antenna" as "local izer anne tina"
Gravity deploy procedure takes 5mins. And these pilots were very skilled, which flight time is more than 10000hrs. I think they though don’t have enough time. After declaring mayday, it landing in 2mins.
The flight attendants that were rescued from the aircraft were strapped into rear facing seats with headrests attached to a bulkhead. These seats also have shoulder straps in addition to lap straps. Upon impact these crew would have slammed very hard back into their seats. During this event they would have pulled a huge amount of g. The passenger facing forward, with only lap straps, would have pitch forward and then back. The forces involve would most likely have broken their necks. It is likely that the seats would have been ripped from the floor. For these passengers death would have been instant. The front of the aircraft disintegrated, so the pilots and the flight attendants, in this section, would also have died instantly. The ensuing fire played no part in the accident.
Yes the g forces usually case death, internal organs cannot also take the force, it happened in the 2000 when the ex cricket captain of the South African team died in a plane crash close to George South Africa, when they flew into the mountains,when reaching the wreckage thy found him and two pilots still strapped in the 💺💺 I But all three died on impact, internal organs mostly the heart cannot take that G-Force
As far as we know: 1. Pilot chose to go around - not instructed 2. The gear was not lowered, but we did not know if this was a failure. The 3 minutes from go around, gear retraction required to go around means it’s likely that in a rush it was forgotten. 3. Flaps likely to be same The 737NG had 3 independent hydraulic systems. Although we know there was likely a compression stall in right engine, this should not have prevented the pilot from using gear and brakes. Given the initial landing was stabilised (albeit small deviation) ideally the pilot should have committed to first landing. Go around would have only been done had they had functioning engines.
Yep, I think this is a simple case of pilot error. As much as all the media are being super PC about this whole thing, there's no excuse for the landing gear, flaps, and landing over halfway into the runway. Landing gear has triple redundancy and for flaps not to be up, there would have to be both engines and hydraulics being complete out. As shown by the active thrust reverser on the right engine, this is evidence at the very least one engine was still functioning and running the hydraulics. Pilots simply panicked. They would've been better off landing into the water.
@@SundayAnyasi I feel because the engine didnt have enough power after the go around while landing, so he probably thought the friction will stop the plane soon enough.
The Democratic Party of Korea is only focused on impeaching the president, and is not paying attention to the incidents in their own campaign areas, and there are even suspicions that they intentionally deleted the recordings.
Quite a few inaccuracies in this video, for example, the plane was not over the runway when it struck birds. The plane exploded on collision with localiser mound and the hull did not end up at the other side of it. Runway "nineteen" is referred to in aviation terms as runway one niner. Two surviving crew were facing backwards.
6 mins from bird strike to crash, not a lot of time. They raised the LG to do the go around, "possibly" inducing error when they attempted to restart the engine, therefore no hydraulics and no time to manually lower the gear. Do not second guess these pilots until the full reveal of both the black box data plus the inflight audio are fully analyzed and disclosed, anything else is conjecture.
The landing gears being up is understandable, perhaps they didn't feel they had enough time to lower it prior to landing. No, the more interesting question is why the flaps weren't used, and why they landed so far up the runaway. Doing just one of these two things could've saved more lives, certainly wouldn't hurt. Looks like they were being careful landing it softly and got caught up in the ground effect, which delayed the landing by a few precious seconds.
Assuming that not lowering the landing gear was due to pilot error, that is not even their worst mistake, such as no flaps, no air brakes, and touching down almost halfway down the runway.
@edwardwong654 from how fast it looks. Even if they landed at the start of the runway they were gonna crash into the wall. But probably more than 2 would survive idk.
I was looking to see what we learned from this accident. There are so many bad things here! 1) Location of airport: situated between three bird sanctuaries. 2) Training: They May have been pilots who were good at operating the controls, but it seems to me they didn't know how to turn on emergency power. He didn't but himself any time doing such a tight turnaround. I'm not a pilot myself, but that seems reckless or inexperienced to me. I think the TRAINING is to blame. 3) Why didn't they have an arresting system or just a dirt ramp before that concrete wall? That would have robbed the plane of energy without so much destruction. 4) Airplane design probably contributed to confusion. They possibly turned off the good engine. I'm sure tiny red and green lights on the control handle could have prevented that. The electrical system was turned off 4 minutes prior to the crash. Why didn't some kind of automated backup turn on? Boeing needs to answer! All of these problems lined up to create the accident. Each one of these problems is bad enough!
Good job! However, a few mistakes in the VDO may be corrected by slowing down the release time. No need to always be branded as one of the most responsive channels.
That doesn't seem likely, but absolutely nobody knows exactly what happened yet. It's even entirely possible they had adequate power to fly as long as they wanted. There's definitely nothing to support "crew sealed their fate when they panicked and did the go around." as an absolute statement. Even if they had simply landed much closer to the runway it could've been a much different outcome.
@@DoubleMonoLR The way the plane was skating along the runway, another 500m of runway would have made no difference. The plane had a bird strike disabled left engine and a backfiring right engine that the pilot thought was about to die also, leaving no hydraulics for gear or flaps. Under these circumstances any pilot would try to get the plane on the ground asap. Runways are supposed to have a soft boggy patch at the end of the runway to arrest an overshoot, not a 4m high reinforced concrete plane demolition wall.
@@cyber5515They say that when you are stabilized for landing, you should continue to land , even if you lose an engine. VCR has already been analyzed, FDR is being processed, soon we will know. That land embankment was the killer.
Talk about a series of bad decisions and planning. Airport design: 1) build an airport in the middle of 4 bird sanctuaries! 2) only have 1 runway 3) build a fairly short runway 4) put a concrete wall at the end of that runway Pilot error: 5) lands the plane mid-way on an already short runway when they should have known there was no landing gear (Wouldn't you want the maximum sliding distance?) Airline: 6) Trusting a Boeing plane.
Several flight content youtubers also made the same mistake. I don't know why this guys keep making the same mistake. Were they following a same script from someplace, then expand it?
REASONS for AIRCRAFT CRASHES (1) Weather. e.g. Heavy cloud or fog > Low visibility. Rain. Snow. Hail. High winds. Icing etc. 15/1/1977 Linjeflyg Flight 618, Vickers 838 Viscount during approach to Stockholm Bromma Airport, Sweden. (2) Mechanical Fault: e.g. 25/7/2000 Air France Flight 4590, Concorde. Gonesse, France. (3) Engine Trouble: 9/7/1996 Delta Airlines, McDonnell Douglas Md-88, N927Da on runway 17 at Pensacola Regional Airport in Florida. (4) Oxygen Depletion: 14/8/2005 Helios Airways Flight 522, crashed near Grammatiko, Greece. (5) Fuel Depletion: 2/12/1977 Tupolev Tu-154, near Benghazi, Libya. (b) 23/7/1983 Air Canada Flight 143, commonly known as the “Gimli Glider”, Maintoba, Canada. (6) Impact in the Air: (a) Bird Strike 4/8/1960 Lockheed L-188 Electra, Boston Harbour. (b) Hit a UAV. 10/8/2021 Cessna 172 on approach to Buttonville Municipal Airport. (7) Murder > Suicide by Pilot. e.g. 24/3/2015 Germanwings Flight 9525. (8) Hijacking. Multiple cases. e.g. (a) 7/9/1987 Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 (b) Sep. 11th 2001. (9) Bomb on Board, e.g. 1/11/1955 United Air Lines Flight 629, Weld County, Colorado. (10) Bad Landing or Take Off: e.g. 16/8/ Northwest Airlines Flight 255, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. (11) Pilot Error: 23/3/1994 Aeroflot Flight 593, Kuznetsk Alatau. The pilot let his 15 y.o. son “play” in the cockpit whilst flying at an altitude of 9500 metres! (12) Incorrect Instructions from ATC: 1/7/2002 Überlingen mid-air collision. (13) Hit by a missile: e.g. 18/9/1961 Transair Sweden DC-6 crash, Ndola. Dag Hammarskjöld et al killed. (14) Pilot blinded by a laser from the ground: Rarely results in fatalities. e.g. Pilot Jonathan Fay, Zenith 750 Cruzer Bush Plane. On approach to Arlington Airport, north Seattle. (Landed safely) (15) Impact in the Air, near the ground: Transmission lines or tower. Building etc. 29/9/2024 onte Picayo area of Puçol, Valencia, Spain. Bell 206B JetRanger III helicopter. (16) Pilot in Charge or Co-Pilot suffers a Medical Emergency, e.g. Heart Attack, Massive Cardiac Arrest, e.g. 15/7/2023 Piper PA-46 crash, Martha's Vineyard plus many others... See “Kathryn’s Report”. (17) Other. The detectives at South Korea's version of the NSCB, "The Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board" in Sejong City have already reviewed the Voice Data Recorder and will know what happened in the cockpit in the fifteen minutes before the plane’s destruction at exactly 09.03 local time 29/12/2024. They should make the unedited, raw Cockpit Audio File/Recording from the last 15 minutes of the flight to the time of the crash, available to the Korean public ASAP. “The L-RD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.” - Proverbs 12:22 Prayers for the pilots, crew and passengers of Jeju Air Flight 2216. Adam Neira Founder of World Peace 2050 Founded in April 2000 Paris - Jerusalem - Melbourne P.S. Note: The Global Aviation’s Revenue in 2024 reached nearly USD $900 billion dollars, with a nett profit of close to $100 billion. Including passenger/tourist ticket sales, aircraft sales, maintenance, upkeep etc. The Industry has a very well funded “Reputation Management” team working 24/7/365 to monitor air activity incidents and crashes and the narrative/media around them.
Well skilled pilotes have looked at the timeline and video. In the pilot community they say they most likely shut down the engine. The one that controls the hydraulics for deploying the landing gear. Even a Go Around 30-40 seconds from touchdown wasnt really a good idea. Most pilot do finish their flight at this point, even if both engines were not working. Looking at the engine after the crash it was clear that they most likely did all of theese mistakes.
@@Souleyman88ab Gravity is indeed sufficient to deploy the landing gear if the hydraulic system fails, as the 737 has a manual "free-fall" mechanism for this purpose. However, in an emergency like this, where the crew is dealing with confusion about engine status, high stress, and a rapidly developing situation, it’s possible that the deployment process was overlooked or delayed due to the focus on safely landing the aircraft as quickly as possible. Whether they had enough time would depend on the altitude, speed, and sequence of actions taken during the approach. Emergencies often come with split-second decisions, and while the system allows for gravity deployment relatively quickly, the crew’s ability to execute it in the moment could have been compromised.
Retired pilot here (military helicopters, but anyway) : they truly need to stop putting concrete thingies or steep "ramps" at the end of runways ! There should be only "weak" structures in this plce, so they can let go it a plane rams into them. Also, a crash net, like the ones used on carriers for damaged planes could be a nice way to help civilian planes stop sliding pass the of the runway, buy dissipating their remaining kinetic energy right before they reach the walls at the border of the airport... OAC truly needs to work on this !
The ILS Localizer Structure is compliant with the current ICAO guidelines. It does not require frangible construction because it is outside the safety area.
The EMAS does not work without the undercarriage extended, there is insufficient pressure to break the ceramic tiles. Also it is only effective upto about 70 kts. The aircraft landed without undercarriage, flaps & slats and departed the runway at 150 kts. In this configuration (without spoilers) the wing would still be generating significant lift, reducing the pressure exerted by the aircraft on the runway, reducing friction and hence retardation.
The Phantom F-4 max weight is around 80,000 lbs and the 737-800 about double at 160,000, that is 4 times the energy to dissipate, which is a big ask for a barrier.
What I don't understand is why no one. I haven't seen or heard anyone mention that on the first approach to land the landing gear should have been deployed. When declaring the emergency and started climbing to go around and try another approach I imagine they would have retracted the landing gear to gain altitude. Once on the second descent how come now it didn't work? That's something I haven't heard from anyone discussing
Great video, as always. I noticed in 0:56. How can it be a domestic light, if it starts in Thailand and ends in South Korea? That's not the same country
My theory is that the bird strike took out the electric generator in the right engine, and the pilots accidentally turned off the left engine which turned off the electric generator in that engine. The third electric generator in the tail is normally only turned on when the plane is on the ground. Without any electricity and the right engine still providing thrust, they landed far faster than they should. As for the black boxes losing power, it is likely that the battery backups for the black boxes were not maintained.
But if wheels were deployed it could of slowed down the plane, and maybe turned to either right or left, just saying, but being on its belly it could only go straight
The aircraft hit the ILS Localizer Antenna installation. This has to be on the centerline of the runway for the Instrument Landing System to function. Its construction and location are compliant with the ICAO guidelines. It was designed and built by the US military when the airport was a US airbase, during the 1950's. 70m beyond the antenna installation, is the airport boundary wall, which encircles the whole airport. In addition to the wall there are watchtower, cameras and there is an internal service road. If the antenna structure was absent the aircraft would have hit the wall traveling at 140 kts, with a similar outcome.
@@christopherrobinson7541 There was a USAF Korean War airbase at Muan (K-12), but it appears that the airport was redone starting in 1997 and opening in 2007. It's also my understanding that the localizer structure was built only 2 years ago. I think you're completely correct about the CMU perimeter wall. Same, or very similar outcome.
Nothing new in this video-accept the graphics are wrong. The graphic shows the plane over the runway, halfway down the runway when the Captain executed the missed approach. WRONG!
The position of the localiser for this airport is 18 feet below and 500 feet behind the runway overrun, this aircraft was doing 180 knots (210mph) when it left that runway. That mound was placed to bring the ILS localiser back to level where it must be located. Normal landing speed is about 140-160 knots depending on weight, the aircraft left the runway, dropped to the mound height, and hit the mound, if this mound didn't stop it, the speed may have been enough for the aircraft to leave the boundaries of the airport, and then hit the approach lights, causing almost the same damage. These aircraft are designed to ingest a bird of up to 18 kg, that's a large bird, the engines are designed to take this damage and continue to work, one engine flying is still very safe for a 737-800, now if two engines were out, the APU is started to supply the power needed for all electrical systems, it is very rare for a dual engine failure. That said, from the time they declared a mayday roughly 2 NM from the runway, to the time they hit the mound was 3-5 minutes, this is in no way enough time for the go around and line up to the other end of the runway, then preform a engine shutdown checklist, the APU start checklist, and emergency landing checklist. In my opinion this landing was rushed, checklists were not performed, the APU was not started (10 minutes alone for that) and if they lost electrical power the landing gear couldn't be lowered. (unless manually) I saw all the videos you guys saw, the right engine was running, so electrical was not the issue, I believe this is 100% pilot fault. Also, there is no safe seat on an aircraft, so I will ask your viewers this, which would you prefer? In the back of the aircraft, and survive the crash but be in critical condition, bleeding badly, in extreme pain, and then dying, or in the front and die fast? Current data from all the previous crashes in the last 25 years shows there is no safe seat.
There are a LOT of errors in this video. It was an international not domestic flight. An eyewitness reported the landing gear was down during the approach but retracted along with flaps as the PIC attempted to land, to extend gliding range? But why do a right-hand turn to land rather than left-hand turn? The wall was the problem, should be replaced with Arrestor Material Overrun Surfaces at all runways globally.
The aircraft hit an ILS Localizer Antenna structure, which was built by the US military when the airport was a US airbase. It was constructed during the 1950's. The location and structure are compliant with current ICAO guidelines. 70m beyond the antenna is the airport boundary wall, which encircles the whole airport. It is a security barrier with cameras, watchtowers and has internal service roads. The is a public road just outside of the wall. Google Earth has video of the wall, from the public road. Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) works by the weight of the aircraft crushing ceramic material under the wheels causing additional friction and increasing retardation. Without undercarriage the contact points of the two engine nacelles and the rear of the fuselage would not create sufficient pressure to break through the surface of the ceramic tiles. This system is only effective at low speed (60 kts). In this accident the aircraft left the runway at 150 kts, without any undercarriage, flaps & slats; with this configuration having an EMAS would have afforded little retardation.
No matter what, bird strike, go around, engine power lose, belly landing etc..., that mound with the antenna on top what killed everyone on the plane. No mound, most could've survive the accident. Airports should illuminate or redesign those mounds at the end of runways to avoid this kind of accidents!
This was not a domestic flight as you said in the video..This was in international flight .. Not that it makes any difference to the story but establishing credibility by sharing the correct information is crucial ..
One of the two boxes, either FDR or CVR was sent to Washington DC because a connector was damaged and could not be read out in South Korea. So the guys in Washington must have at least the data from that box. So they can confirm or deny and prove that the FDR/CVR did not stop recording at 4 minutes before the crash.
Not possible to have a landing gear failure because of an engine failure. Each gear is independent and falls down via gravity when the emergency landing gear levers are pulled. Either the bird encounter failed both engines or the pilot shut off the wrong engine rendering this aircraft a glider, which is why it landed only three minutes after going missed at over 200 kn in the clean configuration halfway down the runway….
1. Pilot error. The pilots' mistake was that they decided to go around because there was a problem during the landing procedure on Runway 01. They should have landed on runway 01 instead of going around. 2. Big concrete block at the bottom of the loalizer at Muan Airport. It was a concrete block that shouldn't have been there. If it weren't for that, the plane would have slipped a little further and everyone would have walked away safely ~ Muan Airport is very responsible ~
One thing a lot of people forget with this matter (not excusing the stupid barrier) is that usually at the end of a runway there is a highway, houses, streets, drop offs, etc. etc. death was imminent with how fast they were going. Should it have been less people? Absolutely, but catastrophe was inevitable with that kind of speed with where they were.
It wasn't at the end of the runway, and it wasn't meant to be a "barrier". It was a critical part of the necessary landing equipment, and was there without incident for thousands of flights prior to this. This just happened to be an out of the ordinary incident.
@@AZBCDE Normally a go-around would include a circuit back to the original landing direction. I think the birdstrike affected both engines. The left engine was out and the right engine still running but at reduced thrust. So they had to land quickly, hence the request to land in the opposite direction. They approached with gear and flaps up to extend the glide. That meant they were fast and the plane floated in ground effect until about halfway down the runway. Planes don't slow down quickly without brakes. The mound supporting the localiser was what caused the bad impact. The localiser chould have been safely raised using a frangible metal structure, not concrete and earth. I don't think the crew shutdown the wrong engine or forgot the flaps and gear. They did everything correctly. Many passengers would have survived the accident had it not been for the concrete and earth mound.
If your animation is correct, then the pilot should have known better than to belly-land after skipping about half the runway! For a belly landing with a damaged engine, it is common sense that they need as much runway as possible to stop the aircraft.
During he first landing attempt, the flap and landing gears were done and the plane was in landing configuration. Bird strike the right engine. Pilot called mayday and went around. Video showed the other engine seems off. This time the flap wasn't down means the plane landing about 200 knots higher than normal landing speed of 140 knots. At that time, the hydraulic system was still functioning. Most likely the pilot was in panic without lower flap and landing gear. With flap in cruising position, there won't be landing gear warning. Even with landing gear down, since the plane landing in the middle of the runway, the plane will run over the runway. Unfortunately there's concrete structure at the end of the runway. By the way, the initial landing runway was runway #1, normal go round the plane will still land on runway #1. However, for some emergency most likely losing both engine power, the pilot asked air control tower to land on the shorter #19 runway (the opposite direction of #1). The accident most likely was caused by bad decision making and human error.
This accident still has a lot of questions to be answered but the problem right now is the black box recorder doesn't have data 4 minutes before the crash as said in the news. It is very weird since a lot of people and even experts that the black box recorder has it's own battery to record data of the flight especially in times of accident. So we can hardly say what really happened during that time.
The front of the aircraft back to the break in the fuselage disintegrated when it hit the ILS Localizer Antenna. Most of the wreckage remained in close proximity to that structure, very little continued of the boundary wall. The are numerous other mistakes in this video.
I’ve heard a report that the last few minutes are missing on the flight data recorder, indicating total power loss The surviving flight crew were also facing backwards behind the lavs increasing chance of survival
Nice. Can you confirm that the plane was actually over the runway and about to land [as your video suggests]. If this is the case, a go around was not only unnecessary but crazy.
@@heng69393 It's illogical if they are relying on potentially compromised engines in a go around [the consensus among pilot is to continue to land]. 'It is what it is'. If it was poor decision making then this will help to make sure pilots are better trained/ rested in the future.
They were not over the runway. But they were just seconds from landing. This go around was not a good idea. They could have landed perfectly fine with one engine. Or none even, since they were so close to the airport
@@TheRuben_music Seconds from landing equals practically speaking over the runway. The point is they were so close, they should've never gone around on potentially compromised engines... or potential further strikes etc.
@ 30-40 second is not practically over the runway. It is final approach. That is still 900 ft up in the sky and a mile from touchdown. No I agree they should never have done the GO Around. But I’m pretty sure fatigue played a huge role in this crash. Also, this airline were way behind on maintaining their machines.
There is so much information that is wrong with this video. Please correct and repost video with the correct information. --- My analysis: Pilot Error. 1. Pilot Error 2. Unfortunate luck of the draw (e.g. PF, choice of runway, etc.) = AKA "Swiss Cheese" Theory 3. CONCRETE BARRIER (responsible for the seriousness of the incident) PF = FO Bird strike engine 2. Decide on go around = only done with one engine hit/damaged. If both engines, they would have continued their landing attempt on runway 01. Started checklist and go around ACCIDENTALLY SHUTDOWN ENGINE 1 Asked for immediate landing on runway 19 (NOT ASSIGNED...the pilots asked for immediate landing and asked for runway 19). Why do I think the FO was PF? Because he asked for runway 19 which means he could make the turns while observing the runway. Had the PIC been PF, he would have asked for an immediate second attempt at runway 01 which would simply continue their current bank, and he would be able to visualize the runway at all times. What they did not know was the concrete barrier buried under/behind the bank of soil at the end of runway 19. That was the problem. The sloped dirt barrier isn't ideal, but they had little choice at this point. The pilots may or may not have realized or remembered that runway 01 was being extended. There was plenty of extra room for an excursion on runway 01. Extra point of note = Why did they touch down so far down the runway? Because they were in CLEAN CONFIGURATION (see below)...and that meant excessive speed as well as ground effect when they flared. This burned a lot of runway before they were able to touch down. Flaps 0 and landing gear retracted: the plane was put in CLEAN CONFIGURATION TO GIVE MAXIMUM GLIDE PERFORMANCE. They didn't have much altitude, and they had a LOT of turning to do to get realigned with a(ny) runway for another landing attempt. I do not think they had complete loss of hydraulics. In the video from the port/left of the descending plane, you can see yaw. This yaw can be explained by engine 2 still producing some thrust while engine 1 is shutdown. The PF was able to correct for this. In one angle/video, Engine 2 is also seen to have thrust reversers activated... Could/should they have tried lowering the landing gear during the base leg? Probably not. The only way to lower the landing gear was manually, which is behind the PF/FO. Even if it was pulled, would they have time for it to come down properly? Manual release of the landing gear means using gravity, and being in what was likely a decent bank means that there would be lateral g-forces which might inhibit one of the main landing gears from fully coming down and locking. Could they/should they have hit the speed brakes? Should have if they had hydraulics, but by this point, I think both pilots were pretty saturated.
I’m agree with samshare. Some information will found after FDR decryption. there is so many difficult to understand. In this situation, we should not demand every responsibility to pilot and needs some time. Aviation is always slow and conservative.
The localizer should have never been on a fixed raised concrete barrier. Internationally this is not done due to safety. For example the FAA in the US permitted localiser in this arrangement but the raised section can only be on a section no greater than 7cm in height (2.8 inches) and must be on frangible bolts to ensure that this type of incident is impossible.
Why did the pilot land in tbe middle of the runway? He came around, then he should have belly landed at the beginning of the runway? He is responsible?
because, South Korea's international airport did not invest in an Engineered Materials Arrestor System because the country's aviation safety grade was A. So, why install the concrete wall there to save money at expense of the safety of the passenger? answer: even though plane accident get a lot of attention news, they are extremely rare. they have Overconfidence in their aviation safety can lead to negative outcomes, as seen in the tragic Jeju Air crash in December 2024.
i just went on my first plane ride back in June i was sad bc i got the very last seat against the wall but im glad to know that was one of the safest seats.
Love your videos …. But sometimes they end a little odd… like you ran out of credits on a video game . I do love your content and thorough explanation… just nit the abrupt endings some times:) Thanks
till end no more than 20% of the plan was touching the ground to generate friction. The way it was going, it could have travelled 1.5 km more before it hit the wall
Lack of damage to left engine fan blades with dirt buildup at the 6 o'clock position shows that the left engine was not running when it hit the ILS embankment. Did the pilot shut down the wrong engine leaving him insufficient time to lower the flaps and gear, forcing an immediate landing on runway 1?
The right No 2 engine was running when the aircraft touched down, but probably only at low power, essentially they had a double engine failure, hence no hydraulic power. Without the APU running they had no 3 phase 115V electrical power which could have provided back-up hydraulics. So the crew could not configure the aircraft for landing. The No 2 right engine appears to have had a bird strike resulting in a go around; during this procedure the u/c was retracted and flaps and slats were stowed. A short while after something happened to the No 1 left engine. This could have been weakened by a bird strike at the same time as the No 2 right engine failing when full power was commanded, or another bird strike after the start of the go around, or even the crew shutting down the wrong engine. The only way to regain the 3 phase 115V AC would be to start the APU, which would require several minutes to run up to speed, be put on line and then used to pressurise the hydraulic systems and then to configure the aircraft for landing. There was only 3 minutes between the MAYDAY call and the aircraft touching down, the crew did not have the time required for all the necessary actions.
Pretty good but you don't say if, at the first landing, in front of the North, the landing gear was correctly deployed or not. It's very important to know it.❤
There are 3 ways to extend/deploy the Landing Gear including Manual/Gravity. Multiple ways to extend Flaps and Slats also. Both enable MUCH slower landing speed. BRAKES also have multiple back-ups that could have stopped acft IF the crew would have lowered the Landing Gear... PILOTS possibly shut WRONG engine down too! Also if the crew had performed a STANDARD 1 ENGINE GO-AROUND and landed in correct direction, they would NOT have plowed into the localizer berm that shredded acft. There was NO-WAY the Pilots had time to complete EMERGENCY CHECKLISTS either! Airport also had NO speed reducing Over-run Traps to slow/stop acft... EVERYTHING WAS DONE WRONG by PILOTS AND AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION!
They already called mayday but why is it that there were no emergency firefighters around???? Just asking, did the pilot unable to see the concrete wall or perhaps the pilot panicked???
Made in Blender( Free Software)
Please Subscribe
OMG blender is so cool but so advanced and hard for me to learn lol. taking a while. another impressive video AiTelly thankyou
Excellent video!
Do you know the names of the pilots?
Thank you!
I want to learn
@@brianhillier7052 Impressively unaccurate video.. full of false informations.
So much wrong info. Get your facts straight first man.
Pretty sure if the world ends AiTelly will have a video ready for the next day telling how the nukes dropped
😅
He would be wondering why his views dropped to zero, then he would look out the window notice the damage from the asteroid strike 🤣!
@Akna6901 👌👌👌😀
I trust Ai telly have such a video😄
too real💀💀
0:20 The pilot was NOT instructed to make a go-around. He made a go-around on his own will.
And the cause of the accident. he should have just continued to coast in and land.. rather than rely on potentially compromised engines in a go around.
@@davethewave7248 I don't think we asked for your opinion
Yeah, it clearly pilot mistake when i watched the video.
@@zuzelstein yes we did, we didn't ask for yours.
Pilot error.. unnecessary go around, shutdowm wromg engine..
Bangkok is not South Korea, therefore, it’s not a domestic flight. Third, the landing gear was not malfunctioned, fifth, you have a fantastic analysis.
This is the second video I found that said a domestic flight. Y'all from America are you??
@@karimgamer7747 "Name two countries!"
American: "Europe and Asia."
landing gear was in fact malfunctioned cuz the both of engines were gone. Hydraulic system was totally gone by that time it was landing.
@@karimgamer7747JEJU airlines is a local S.Korean airline is it not? So, the airline is flown by South Korean pilots which means even if this is an international flight, it is still a local domestic airline. It also means those pilots should have been aware of the wall mound and landed in the right direction and at the beginning of the runway.
@@superman85234All 737 aircrafts landing gears can operate manually even if electrical power is badly affected by bird strikes or, something else entirely.
The video is full of errors:
Even before mentioning Jeju, the Lion Air 737 Max did not crash in Ethiopia. One Lion Air Max crashed in Indonesia, and another Ethiopian Airlines Max crashed in Ethiopia.
The aircraft did not go around because of a bird strike; it suffered a bird strike during the go-around.
The crew lost the second engine for reasons still unknown (possibly due to poor maneuvering or another bird strike).
Fearing they might not reach the runway, they deliberately chose not to extend the landing gear and flaps.
The embankment on which the LOC antennas are installed is essential for the proper functioning of the airport.
AGREED
Also, not a domestic flight as stated in the video?
@ D’accord. Mais pourquoi le train n’était pas sorti alors qu’il était prêt à se poser et que tout allait bien ? Est ce que cela pourrait être la cause du mayday initial ?
also Jeju was pronounced incorrectly. The E sounds more like E in the Ember (like how you say E in spanish), not like E in Eagle.
shouldn't the Muan international airport has "Engineered Materials Arrestor System (EMAS)" in between the runway and LOC antennas . It's designed to safely stop an aircraft that overruns the runway by using specially engineered materials that crush under the aircraft's weight, absorbing the energy and slowing it down. the long-term benefits, such as preventing costly accidents and reducing potential damage to aircraft, often outweigh these expenses for developed country. The Muan international airport within South Korean has not invested in the Engineered Materials Arrestor System due to the country's aviation safety grade of A. they have Overconfidence in their aviation safety can lead to negative outcomes, as seen in the tragic Jeju Air crash in December 2024. While Jeju Air and Muan International Airport had high safety standards, the absence of EMAS may have contributed to the severity of the accident. This incident underscores the importance of continuously evaluating and improving safety measures to prevent such tragedies in the future.
This is poorly researched, as I expected when even the thumbnail is wrong.
However I could never have expected anyone, even "AI" narration, to pronounce something as basic as "localizer antenna" as "local izer anne tina"
And I love how they called it a "domestic flight"
What does a bird strike have to do with landing gear not getting deployed? Landing gear can be deployed manually by gravity in those aircrafts
Check Boeing's DEI program.
@@AkiraNakamoto Conservative loser using newly learned buzzwords again. Keep that garbage on twitter little boy.
they probably punctured the tyres with their beaks.
Boeing whistleblowers warned about these things. Factory’s using faulty pieces will not last. It’s bound to happen. Goosebumps.
Gravity deploy procedure takes 5mins. And these pilots were very skilled, which flight time is more than 10000hrs. I think they though don’t have enough time. After declaring mayday, it landing in 2mins.
So a flight from Thailand to South Korea is considered as domestic? (Great video)
@@sarbaazchabahar is it?
@@MRLUDDYMONKEY08 no
no it's not
Asian ,all look the Same 😂😂
@@MRLUDDYMONKEY08 domestic means in the same country, Thailand and south Korea are not the same country
The flight attendants that were rescued from the aircraft were strapped into rear facing seats with headrests attached to a bulkhead. These seats also have shoulder straps in addition to lap straps. Upon impact these crew would have slammed very hard back into their seats. During this event they would have pulled a huge amount of g.
The passenger facing forward, with only lap straps, would have pitch forward and then back. The forces involve would most likely have broken their necks. It is likely that the seats would have been ripped from the floor. For these passengers death would have been instant.
The front of the aircraft disintegrated, so the pilots and the flight attendants, in this section, would also have died instantly.
The ensuing fire played no part in the accident.
Yes the g forces usually case death, internal organs cannot also take the force, it happened in the 2000 when the ex cricket captain of the South African team died in a plane crash close to George South Africa, when they flew into the mountains,when reaching the wreckage thy found him and two pilots still strapped in the 💺💺 I
But all three died on impact, internal organs mostly the heart cannot take that G-Force
As far as we know:
1. Pilot chose to go around - not instructed
2. The gear was not lowered, but we did not know if this was a failure. The 3 minutes from go around, gear retraction required to go around means it’s likely that in a rush it was forgotten.
3. Flaps likely to be same
The 737NG had 3 independent hydraulic systems. Although we know there was likely a compression stall in right engine, this should not have prevented the pilot from using gear and brakes.
Given the initial landing was stabilised (albeit small deviation) ideally the pilot should have committed to first landing.
Go around would have only been done had they had functioning engines.
the pilot chooses what he thinks is more convenient
If the plane had landed at the very beginning of the runway, it would have been long enough to stop.
Yep, I think this is a simple case of pilot error. As much as all the media are being super PC about this whole thing, there's no excuse for the landing gear, flaps, and landing over halfway into the runway. Landing gear has triple redundancy and for flaps not to be up, there would have to be both engines and hydraulics being complete out. As shown by the active thrust reverser on the right engine, this is evidence at the very least one engine was still functioning and running the hydraulics. Pilots simply panicked. They would've been better off landing into the water.
@@anthonyng3014 ... Same thought i had... Why didn't he go for the water..
Pilot error is one thing but keeping thick concrete wall barrier to runway's end is outragerous. Runway overshoots are a thing in aviation history.
@@SundayAnyasi I feel because the engine didnt have enough power after the go around while landing, so he probably thought the friction will stop the plane soon enough.
Remember, that concrete wall is hide, even another korean pilot didnt know about that concrete wall
probably no one knew about that until this accident
The Democratic Party of Korea is only focused on impeaching the president, and is not paying attention to the incidents in their own campaign areas, and there are even suspicions that they intentionally deleted the recordings.
You mean thye didn't saw that hidden wall ?
@@desanta6541 its like they saw that wall, but they think that only pile of soft earth, not concrete wall…hope you can undersatnd my broken english
@@siyuzhu5717 yes you are right
Quite a few inaccuracies in this video, for example, the plane was not over the runway when it struck birds. The plane exploded on collision with localiser mound and the hull did not end up at the other side of it. Runway "nineteen" is referred to in aviation terms as runway one niner. Two surviving crew were facing backwards.
Its pilot error, there is no excuse not to lower the landing gear.
6 mins from bird strike to crash, not a lot of time. They raised the LG to do the go around, "possibly" inducing error when they attempted to restart the engine, therefore no hydraulics and no time to manually lower the gear. Do not second guess these pilots until the full reveal of both the black box data plus the inflight audio are fully analyzed and disclosed, anything else is conjecture.
The landing gears being up is understandable, perhaps they didn't feel they had enough time to lower it prior to landing.
No, the more interesting question is why the flaps weren't used, and why they landed so far up the runaway. Doing just one of these two things could've saved more lives, certainly wouldn't hurt. Looks like they were being careful landing it softly and got caught up in the ground effect, which delayed the landing by a few precious seconds.
Assuming that not lowering the landing gear was due to pilot error, that is not even their worst mistake, such as no flaps, no air brakes, and touching down almost halfway down the runway.
@edwardwong654 from how fast it looks. Even if they landed at the start of the runway they were gonna crash into the wall. But probably more than 2 would survive idk.
Panic causes one to do stupid things or not do anything
I was looking to see what we learned from this accident. There are so many bad things here!
1) Location of airport: situated between three bird sanctuaries.
2) Training: They May have been pilots who were good at operating the controls, but it seems to me they didn't know how to turn on emergency power. He didn't but himself any time doing such a tight turnaround. I'm not a pilot myself, but that seems reckless or inexperienced to me. I think the TRAINING is to blame.
3) Why didn't they have an arresting system or just a dirt ramp before that concrete wall? That would have robbed the plane of energy without so much destruction.
4) Airplane design probably contributed to confusion. They possibly turned off the good engine. I'm sure tiny red and green lights on the control handle could have prevented that. The electrical system was turned off 4 minutes prior to the crash. Why didn't some kind of automated backup turn on? Boeing needs to answer!
All of these problems lined up to create the accident. Each one of these problems is bad enough!
This issue can’t be solved can’t be reversed RIP to those affected by this tragedy 😢
Good job! However, a few mistakes in the VDO may be corrected by slowing down the release time. No need to always be branded as one of the most responsive channels.
Nobody knows exactly how it happened until an investigation is completed. Don't ever make assumptions, please.
The crew sealed their fate when they panicked and did the go around.
That doesn't seem likely, but absolutely nobody knows exactly what happened yet. It's even entirely possible they had adequate power to fly as long as they wanted.
There's definitely nothing to support "crew sealed their fate when they panicked and did the go around." as an absolute statement.
Even if they had simply landed much closer to the runway it could've been a much different outcome.
@@DoubleMonoLR The way the plane was skating along the runway, another 500m of runway would have made no difference. The plane had a bird strike disabled left engine and a backfiring right engine that the pilot thought was about to die also, leaving no hydraulics for gear or flaps. Under these circumstances any pilot would try to get the plane on the ground asap. Runways are supposed to have a soft boggy patch at the end of the runway to arrest an overshoot, not a 4m high reinforced concrete plane demolition wall.
@@cyber5515They say that when you are stabilized for landing, you should continue to land , even if you lose an engine.
VCR has already been analyzed, FDR is being processed, soon we will know.
That land embankment was the killer.
Talk about a series of bad decisions and planning.
Airport design:
1) build an airport in the middle of 4 bird sanctuaries!
2) only have 1 runway
3) build a fairly short runway
4) put a concrete wall at the end of that runway
Pilot error:
5) lands the plane mid-way on an already short runway when they should have known there was no landing gear
(Wouldn't you want the maximum sliding distance?)
Airline:
6) Trusting a Boeing plane.
just saying about the point five literally it was trying to approuch the ground but it just couldnt its not like if he didnt want to
Why is 2 a problem? Lots of airports around the world operate on one runway.
@ those places are probably small cities. Maybe cause accidents?? Like this one??
DID HE SAY ROUTINE DOMESTIC FLIGHT, THOUGH ITS A INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT !!
@@mikehenson2208 that's why we should not rely on vloggers 😁, they just wanna earn money for the views, they don't care if it's accurate or not
An international
Several flight content youtubers also made the same mistake. I don't know why this guys keep making the same mistake. Were they following a same script from someplace, then expand it?
@@MonangGirsang they are RUclipsrs, and they didn't care if it's correct or not 😁, they're just after for views, monetary in nature 😁
It was an international flight from Bangkok. This video is full of errors, rushed out for clicks.
makes me wonder how bad his other videos are..
REASONS for AIRCRAFT CRASHES
(1) Weather. e.g. Heavy cloud or fog > Low visibility. Rain. Snow. Hail. High winds. Icing etc. 15/1/1977 Linjeflyg Flight 618, Vickers 838 Viscount during approach to Stockholm Bromma Airport, Sweden.
(2) Mechanical Fault: e.g. 25/7/2000 Air France Flight 4590, Concorde. Gonesse, France.
(3) Engine Trouble: 9/7/1996 Delta Airlines, McDonnell Douglas Md-88, N927Da on runway 17 at Pensacola Regional Airport in Florida.
(4) Oxygen Depletion: 14/8/2005 Helios Airways Flight 522, crashed near Grammatiko, Greece.
(5) Fuel Depletion: 2/12/1977 Tupolev Tu-154, near Benghazi, Libya. (b) 23/7/1983 Air Canada Flight 143, commonly known as the “Gimli Glider”, Maintoba, Canada.
(6) Impact in the Air: (a) Bird Strike 4/8/1960 Lockheed L-188 Electra, Boston Harbour. (b) Hit a UAV. 10/8/2021 Cessna 172 on approach to Buttonville Municipal Airport.
(7) Murder > Suicide by Pilot. e.g. 24/3/2015 Germanwings Flight 9525.
(8) Hijacking. Multiple cases. e.g. (a) 7/9/1987 Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 (b) Sep. 11th 2001.
(9) Bomb on Board, e.g. 1/11/1955 United Air Lines Flight 629, Weld County, Colorado.
(10) Bad Landing or Take Off: e.g. 16/8/ Northwest Airlines Flight 255, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport.
(11) Pilot Error: 23/3/1994 Aeroflot Flight 593, Kuznetsk Alatau. The pilot let his 15 y.o. son “play” in the cockpit whilst flying at an altitude of 9500 metres!
(12) Incorrect Instructions from ATC: 1/7/2002 Überlingen mid-air collision.
(13) Hit by a missile: e.g. 18/9/1961 Transair Sweden DC-6 crash, Ndola. Dag Hammarskjöld et al killed.
(14) Pilot blinded by a laser from the ground: Rarely results in fatalities. e.g. Pilot Jonathan Fay, Zenith 750 Cruzer Bush Plane. On approach to Arlington Airport, north Seattle. (Landed safely)
(15) Impact in the Air, near the ground: Transmission lines or tower. Building etc. 29/9/2024 onte Picayo area of Puçol, Valencia, Spain. Bell 206B JetRanger III helicopter.
(16) Pilot in Charge or Co-Pilot suffers a Medical Emergency, e.g. Heart Attack, Massive Cardiac Arrest, e.g. 15/7/2023 Piper PA-46 crash, Martha's Vineyard plus many others... See “Kathryn’s Report”.
(17) Other.
The detectives at South Korea's version of the NSCB, "The Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board" in Sejong City have already reviewed the Voice Data Recorder and will know what happened in the cockpit in the fifteen minutes before the plane’s destruction at exactly 09.03 local time 29/12/2024. They should make the unedited, raw Cockpit Audio File/Recording from the last 15 minutes of the flight to the time of the crash, available to the Korean public ASAP.
“The L-RD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.” - Proverbs 12:22
Prayers for the pilots, crew and passengers of Jeju Air Flight 2216.
Adam Neira
Founder of World Peace 2050
Founded in April 2000
Paris - Jerusalem - Melbourne
P.S. Note: The Global Aviation’s Revenue in 2024 reached nearly USD $900 billion dollars, with a nett profit of close to $100 billion. Including passenger/tourist ticket sales, aircraft sales, maintenance, upkeep etc. The Industry has a very well funded “Reputation Management” team working 24/7/365 to monitor air activity incidents and crashes and the narrative/media around them.
There was NO CONCRETE WALL, it was a dirt berm with a concrete footer laid upon the top. It was 6 inches thick and had break away lights on top.
Those antennas killed them.
Makes me wonder if all the other videos on this channel are full of inaccuracies as well.
Landing gears were retracted to gain speed but for unknown reason it didn't deploy later.
Well skilled pilotes have looked at the timeline and video. In the pilot community they say they most likely shut down the engine. The one that controls the hydraulics for deploying the landing gear. Even a Go Around 30-40 seconds from touchdown wasnt really a good idea. Most pilot do finish their flight at this point, even if both engines were not working. Looking at the engine after the crash it was clear that they most likely did all of theese mistakes.
Or in the panic forgot to deploy again
@@TheRuben_music to deploy the gear they don't need hydraulic. Gravity is enough. Did they have enough time?
@@Souleyman88ab Gravity is indeed sufficient to deploy the landing gear if the hydraulic system fails, as the 737 has a manual "free-fall" mechanism for this purpose. However, in an emergency like this, where the crew is dealing with confusion about engine status, high stress, and a rapidly developing situation, it’s possible that the deployment process was overlooked or delayed due to the focus on safely landing the aircraft as quickly as possible.
Whether they had enough time would depend on the altitude, speed, and sequence of actions taken during the approach. Emergencies often come with split-second decisions, and while the system allows for gravity deployment relatively quickly, the crew’s ability to execute it in the moment could have been compromised.
Why the localizer antenna was concrete?? Isn't it supposed to be fragile?
Retired pilot here (military helicopters, but anyway) : they truly need to stop putting concrete thingies or steep "ramps" at the end of runways ! There should be only "weak" structures in this plce, so they can let go it a plane rams into them. Also, a crash net, like the ones used on carriers for damaged planes could be a nice way to help civilian planes stop sliding pass the of the runway, buy dissipating their remaining kinetic energy right before they reach the walls at the border of the airport... OAC truly needs to work on this !
Agreed, like the Engineered Materials Arresting System ideally.
The ILS Localizer Structure is compliant with the current ICAO guidelines. It does not require frangible construction because it is outside the safety area.
The EMAS does not work without the undercarriage extended, there is insufficient pressure to break the ceramic tiles. Also it is only effective upto about 70 kts. The aircraft landed without undercarriage, flaps & slats and departed the runway at 150 kts. In this configuration (without spoilers) the wing would still be generating significant lift, reducing the pressure exerted by the aircraft on the runway, reducing friction and hence retardation.
@@christopherrobinson7541 Guidelines are changed all the time because of lessons learned.
The Phantom F-4 max weight is around 80,000 lbs and the 737-800 about double at 160,000, that is 4 times the energy to dissipate, which is a big ask for a barrier.
Mistake: Belly landed in the middle of airfield with no room for momentum slide allowance and so it hit the concrete wall.
Nice vid!
Thanks
It’s not a domestic flight if it’s between nations.
Would they have stopped sooner (without landing gear) if they landed on the grass instead of the runway?
AiTelly is a Chinese-owned channel. Look at the bottom of the channel description.
What I don't understand is why no one. I haven't seen or heard anyone mention that on the first approach to land the landing gear should have been deployed. When declaring the emergency and started climbing to go around and try another approach I imagine they would have retracted the landing gear to gain altitude. Once on the second descent how come now it didn't work? That's something I haven't heard from anyone discussing
Great video, as always. I noticed in 0:56. How can it be a domestic light, if it starts in Thailand and ends in South Korea? That's not the same country
Yes I made that mistake in writing the Script.
THanks for the Feedback
My theory is that the bird strike took out the electric generator in the right engine, and the pilots accidentally turned off the left engine which turned off the electric generator in that engine. The third electric generator in the tail is normally only turned on when the plane is on the ground. Without any electricity and the right engine still providing thrust, they landed far faster than they should. As for the black boxes losing power, it is likely that the battery backups for the black boxes were not maintained.
Very informative. Thanks.
What if the airplane over run and hit that wall? Is it a same scenario? Concrete wall SHOULD NOT BE PLACED AT END OF RUNWAY AT ANY REASON.
But if wheels were deployed it could of slowed down the plane, and maybe turned to either right or left, just saying, but being on its belly it could only go straight
The aircraft hit the ILS Localizer Antenna installation. This has to be on the centerline of the runway for the Instrument Landing System to function. Its construction and location are compliant with the ICAO guidelines.
It was designed and built by the US military when the airport was a US airbase, during the 1950's.
70m beyond the antenna installation, is the airport boundary wall, which encircles the whole airport. In addition to the wall there are watchtower, cameras and there is an internal service road.
If the antenna structure was absent the aircraft would have hit the wall traveling at 140 kts, with a similar outcome.
@@christopherrobinson7541 There was a USAF Korean War airbase at Muan (K-12), but it appears that the airport was redone starting in 1997 and opening in 2007. It's also my understanding that the localizer structure was built only 2 years ago. I think you're completely correct about the CMU perimeter wall. Same, or very similar outcome.
@@Palmstreet-u7x the wheels dont slow down and the accidents are a series of mistakes
Nothing new in this video-accept the graphics are wrong. The graphic shows the plane over the runway, halfway down the runway when the Captain executed the missed approach. WRONG!
Small error: Lion Air crash was into the Java sea, Ethiopian Airlines crash took play in Ethiopia. (But as always a good video)
Fact check everyone! The localizer was positioned at the front of the runway not the end!
How did a flight from one country to another become a "routine domestic flight"?
What happened to the landing gear???
I like your graphics.
Thanks! Glad it was helpful! Just released another Video How California Air Tankers Fight Fire? ruclips.net/video/jMdMcbFXxHs/видео.html
Im getting different answers. Did they land going the wrong way on the runway?
1:29 Ethiopian Airlines Crash was in Ethiopia, The Lion air was another crash with the same Plane model
The position of the localiser for this airport is 18 feet below and 500 feet behind the runway overrun, this aircraft was doing 180 knots (210mph) when it left that runway. That mound was placed to bring the ILS localiser back to level where it must be located.
Normal landing speed is about 140-160 knots depending on weight, the aircraft left the runway, dropped to the mound height, and hit the mound, if this mound didn't stop it, the speed may have been enough for the aircraft to leave the boundaries of the airport, and then hit the approach lights, causing almost the same damage.
These aircraft are designed to ingest a bird of up to 18 kg, that's a large bird, the engines are designed to take this damage and continue to work, one engine flying is still very safe for a 737-800, now if two engines were out, the APU is started to supply the power needed for all electrical systems, it is very rare for a dual engine failure.
That said, from the time they declared a mayday roughly 2 NM from the runway, to the time they hit the mound was 3-5 minutes, this is in no way enough time for the go around and line up to the other end of the runway, then preform a engine shutdown checklist, the APU start checklist, and emergency landing checklist.
In my opinion this landing was rushed, checklists were not performed, the APU was not started (10 minutes alone for that) and if they lost electrical power the landing gear couldn't be lowered. (unless manually) I saw all the videos you guys saw, the right engine was running, so electrical was not the issue, I believe this is 100% pilot fault.
Also, there is no safe seat on an aircraft, so I will ask your viewers this, which would you prefer? In the back of the aircraft, and survive the crash but be in critical condition, bleeding badly, in extreme pain, and then dying, or in the front and die fast?
Current data from all the previous crashes in the last 25 years shows there is no safe seat.
would it be possible to just land in water than belly landing
Thanks AiTelly...watching you from somalia❤
0:51 Domestic flight? I think it's an international flight!
Asians, they look the Same 😂😂
There are a LOT of errors in this video. It was an international not domestic flight. An eyewitness reported the landing gear was down during the approach but retracted along with flaps as the PIC attempted to land, to extend gliding range? But why do a right-hand turn to land rather than left-hand turn?
The wall was the problem, should be replaced with Arrestor Material Overrun Surfaces at all runways globally.
The aircraft hit an ILS Localizer Antenna structure, which was built by the US military when the airport was a US airbase. It was constructed during the 1950's.
The location and structure are compliant with current ICAO guidelines.
70m beyond the antenna is the airport boundary wall, which encircles the whole airport. It is a security barrier with cameras, watchtowers and has internal service roads. The is a public road just outside of the wall. Google Earth has video of the wall, from the public road.
Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) works by the weight of the aircraft crushing ceramic material under the wheels causing additional friction and increasing retardation. Without undercarriage the contact points of the two engine nacelles and the rear of the fuselage would not create sufficient pressure to break through the surface of the ceramic tiles. This system is only effective at low speed (60 kts).
In this accident the aircraft left the runway at 150 kts, without any undercarriage, flaps & slats; with this configuration having an EMAS would have afforded little retardation.
So many people leaving remarks here
Believe me panic panic causes one to either forget protocol or following the rules, your brain 🧠💪 shut down mostly
"... should be replaced with Arrestor Material Overrun Surfaces at all runways globally." Lol. Never happen in a million years.
No matter what, bird strike, go around, engine power lose, belly landing etc..., that mound with the antenna on top what killed everyone on the plane.
No mound, most could've survive the accident.
Airports should illuminate or redesign those mounds at the end of runways to avoid this kind of accidents!
This was not a domestic flight as you said in the video..This was in international flight .. Not that it makes any difference to the story but establishing credibility by sharing the correct information is crucial ..
One of the two boxes, either FDR or CVR was sent to Washington DC because a connector was damaged and could not be read out in South Korea. So the guys in Washington must have at least the data from that box. So they can confirm or deny and prove that the FDR/CVR did not stop recording at 4 minutes before the crash.
Jeju air 2216 crashed at the exact same time United airlines 175 impacted the south tower of the WTC nearly 24 years ago…
9:03am..
this is explanation and ilustration i'm waiting for. Thanks
Not possible to have a landing gear failure because of an engine failure. Each gear is independent and falls down via gravity when the emergency landing gear levers are pulled. Either the bird encounter failed both engines or the pilot shut off the wrong engine rendering this aircraft a glider, which is why it landed only three minutes after going missed at over 200 kn in the clean configuration halfway down the runway….
Boeing makes the impossible possible
@ stupid people make comments like this possible
Most say it could of used gravity to drop it
1. Pilot error. The pilots' mistake was that they decided to go around because there was a problem during the landing procedure on Runway 01. They should have landed on runway 01 instead of going around.
2. Big concrete block at the bottom of the loalizer at Muan Airport.
It was a concrete block that shouldn't have been there. If it weren't for that, the plane would have slipped a little further and everyone would have walked away safely ~ Muan Airport is very responsible ~
In the first place it never should have happened because you don't put a barrier at the end of the runway
Except that its common to have this on a runway, check other airports, except this one was a lot closer than usual
One thing a lot of people forget with this matter (not excusing the stupid barrier) is that usually at the end of a runway there is a highway, houses, streets, drop offs, etc. etc. death was imminent with how fast they were going. Should it have been less people? Absolutely, but catastrophe was inevitable with that kind of speed with where they were.
It wasn't at the end of the runway, and it wasn't meant to be a "barrier". It was a critical part of the necessary landing equipment, and was there without incident for thousands of flights prior to this. This just happened to be an out of the ordinary incident.
It’s would of have not been at the end of the runway had the pilot not landed on the opposite side of the runway
@@AZBCDE Normally a go-around would include a circuit back to the original landing direction. I think the birdstrike affected both engines. The left engine was out and the right engine still running but at reduced thrust. So they had to land quickly, hence the request to land in the opposite direction. They approached with gear and flaps up to extend the glide. That meant they were fast and the plane floated in ground effect until about halfway down the runway. Planes don't slow down quickly without brakes. The mound supporting the localiser was what caused the bad impact. The localiser chould have been safely raised using a frangible metal structure, not concrete and earth.
I don't think the crew shutdown the wrong engine or forgot the flaps and gear. They did everything correctly. Many passengers would have survived the accident had it not been for the concrete and earth mound.
If your animation is correct, then the pilot should have known better than to belly-land after skipping about half the runway! For a belly landing with a damaged engine, it is common sense that they need as much runway as possible to stop the aircraft.
This was a big disaster, which maybe could of been avoided if different approach was taken
WOW
You guys are fast making videos 😅
And giving us all the wrong facts hehe
What you mean by a domestic flight? The flight was from Bangkok. Am i wrong?
Thanks nice info n video
Glad it was helpful! Just released another Video How California Air Tankers Fight Fire? ruclips.net/video/jMdMcbFXxHs/видео.html
During he first landing attempt, the flap and landing gears were done and the plane was in landing configuration. Bird strike the right engine. Pilot called mayday and went around. Video showed the other engine seems off. This time the flap wasn't down means the plane landing about 200 knots higher than normal landing speed of 140 knots. At that time, the hydraulic system was still functioning. Most likely the pilot was in panic without lower flap and landing gear. With flap in cruising position, there won't be landing gear warning. Even with landing gear down, since the plane landing in the middle of the runway, the plane will run over the runway. Unfortunately there's concrete structure at the end of the runway.
By the way, the initial landing runway was runway #1, normal go round the plane will still land on runway #1. However, for some emergency most likely losing both engine power, the pilot asked air control tower to land on the shorter #19 runway (the opposite direction of #1).
The accident most likely was caused by bad decision making and human error.
after bird strike why landing gears arent down? is that normal fuction?
Would landing in the nearby ocean have been safer? Especially if it's a bay with calm waters? Just curious
@@nicobenji0248 probably, that’s what Captain sully did
It's amazing that you always this software, as a fellow Blender user thanks dude and your team.
It crashed...but was it an accident? Last 4 mins of BOTH voice and data recorders missing, both recorders were turned off.
You have to admit that the concrete barrier saved...
... the ILS antennas
No, it didn't.
The wall did not look like that as they changed it to a reinforced concrete wall due to previous weather damaging the antennas.
This video is top-notch! Thank you kindly! 🌈
Well full of wrong facts
AI complimenting AI
This accident still has a lot of questions to be answered but the problem right now is the black box recorder doesn't have data 4 minutes before the crash as said in the news. It is very weird since a lot of people and even experts that the black box recorder has it's own battery to record data of the flight especially in times of accident. So we can hardly say what really happened during that time.
it smells like a cover up to me, this the first time I have ever heard of a black box that quit recording
Landing on the middle of runaway guaranteed not enough room. Wondered if the pilot took a risk or not realizing it under stress
Why the landing gears were not deployed while landing...why belly landing?
How do you know they were told to go around? And the gear will deploy
If the pilot had approached from the south as instructed he could’ve avoided the barrier and tragedy.
The front of the aircraft back to the break in the fuselage disintegrated when it hit the ILS Localizer Antenna. Most of the wreckage remained in close proximity to that structure, very little continued of the boundary wall.
The are numerous other mistakes in this video.
I’ve heard a report that the last few minutes are missing on the flight data recorder, indicating total power loss
The surviving flight crew were also facing backwards behind the lavs increasing chance of survival
the black boxes have their own power supply, so a power failure of the plane would not affect them
Nice. Can you confirm that the plane was actually over the runway and about to land [as your video suggests]. If this is the case, a go around was not only unnecessary but crazy.
pilots may just wanted to buy some times to think and make a better decision. btw, it is what it is.
@@heng69393 It's illogical if they are relying on potentially compromised engines in a go around [the consensus among pilot is to continue to land]. 'It is what it is'. If it was poor decision making then this will help to make sure pilots are better trained/ rested in the future.
They were not over the runway. But they were just seconds from landing. This go around was not a good idea. They could have landed perfectly fine with one engine. Or none even, since they were so close to the airport
@@TheRuben_music Seconds from landing equals practically speaking over the runway. The point is they were so close, they should've never gone around on potentially compromised engines... or potential further strikes etc.
@ 30-40 second is not practically over the runway. It is final approach. That is still 900 ft up in the sky and a mile from touchdown. No I agree they should never have done the GO Around. But I’m pretty sure fatigue played a huge role in this crash. Also, this airline were way behind on maintaining their machines.
There is so much information that is wrong with this video.
Please correct and repost video with the correct information.
---
My analysis:
Pilot Error.
1. Pilot Error
2. Unfortunate luck of the draw (e.g. PF, choice of runway, etc.) = AKA "Swiss Cheese" Theory
3. CONCRETE BARRIER (responsible for the seriousness of the incident)
PF = FO
Bird strike engine 2.
Decide on go around = only done with one engine hit/damaged. If both engines, they would have continued their landing attempt on runway 01.
Started checklist and go around
ACCIDENTALLY SHUTDOWN ENGINE 1
Asked for immediate landing on runway 19 (NOT ASSIGNED...the pilots asked for immediate landing and asked for runway 19).
Why do I think the FO was PF? Because he asked for runway 19 which means he could make the turns while observing the runway. Had the PIC been PF, he would have asked for an immediate second attempt at runway 01 which would simply continue their current bank, and he would be able to visualize the runway at all times.
What they did not know was the concrete barrier buried under/behind the bank of soil at the end of runway 19.
That was the problem. The sloped dirt barrier isn't ideal, but they had little choice at this point.
The pilots may or may not have realized or remembered that runway 01 was being extended. There was plenty of extra room for an excursion on runway 01.
Extra point of note =
Why did they touch down so far down the runway? Because they were in CLEAN CONFIGURATION (see below)...and that meant excessive speed as well as ground effect when they flared. This burned a lot of runway before they were able to touch down.
Flaps 0 and landing gear retracted: the plane was put in CLEAN CONFIGURATION TO GIVE MAXIMUM GLIDE PERFORMANCE. They didn't have much altitude, and they had a LOT of turning to do to get realigned with a(ny) runway for another landing attempt. I do not think they had complete loss of hydraulics. In the video from the port/left of the descending plane, you can see yaw. This yaw can be explained by engine 2 still producing some thrust while engine 1 is shutdown. The PF was able to correct for this. In one angle/video, Engine 2 is also seen to have thrust reversers activated...
Could/should they have tried lowering the landing gear during the base leg? Probably not. The only way to lower the landing gear was manually, which is behind the PF/FO. Even if it was pulled, would they have time for it to come down properly? Manual release of the landing gear means using gravity, and being in what was likely a decent bank means that there would be lateral g-forces which might inhibit one of the main landing gears from fully coming down and locking.
Could they/should they have hit the speed brakes? Should have if they had hydraulics, but by this point, I think both pilots were pretty saturated.
I’m agree with samshare. Some information will found after FDR decryption. there is so many difficult to understand. In this situation, we should not demand every responsibility to pilot and needs some time. Aviation is always slow and conservative.
lion air did not land on etiopian, this video is trash upload by trash
The localizer should have never been on a fixed raised concrete barrier.
Internationally this is not done due to safety.
For example the FAA in the US permitted localiser in this arrangement but the raised section can only be on a section no greater than 7cm in height (2.8 inches) and must be on frangible bolts to ensure that this type of incident is impossible.
Why did the pilot land in tbe middle of the runway? He came around, then he should have belly landed at the beginning of the runway? He is responsible?
i have a feeling that the last seconds of the video demonitized the whole video. Why did you show the impact to the concrete wall?
because, South Korea's international airport did not invest in an Engineered Materials Arrestor System because the country's aviation safety grade was A. So, why install the concrete wall there to save money at expense of the safety of the passenger? answer: even though plane accident get a lot of attention news, they are extremely rare. they have Overconfidence in their aviation safety can lead to negative outcomes, as seen in the tragic Jeju Air crash in December 2024.
If the plane touched down at the very start of the runway, they could have slowed down enough to not crash or crash that hard against the barrier
why was the landing gear not deployed?
Double engine failure, so no hydraulics.
i just went on my first plane ride back in June i was sad bc i got the very last seat against the wall but im glad to know that was one of the safest seats.
Love your videos …. But sometimes they end a little odd… like you ran out of credits on a video game .
I do love your content and thorough explanation… just nit the abrupt endings some times:)
Thanks
till end no more than 20% of the plan was touching the ground to generate friction. The way it was going, it could have travelled 1.5 km more before it hit the wall
Lack of damage to left engine fan blades with dirt buildup at the 6 o'clock position shows that the left engine was not running when it hit the ILS embankment. Did the pilot shut down the wrong engine leaving him insufficient time to lower the flaps and gear, forcing an immediate landing on runway 1?
The right No 2 engine was running when the aircraft touched down, but probably only at low power, essentially they had a double engine failure, hence no hydraulic power. Without the APU running they had no 3 phase 115V electrical power which could have provided back-up hydraulics. So the crew could not configure the aircraft for landing.
The No 2 right engine appears to have had a bird strike resulting in a go around; during this procedure the u/c was retracted and flaps and slats were stowed. A short while after something happened to the No 1 left engine. This could have been weakened by a bird strike at the same time as the No 2 right engine failing when full power was commanded, or another bird strike after the start of the go around, or even the crew shutting down the wrong engine.
The only way to regain the 3 phase 115V AC would be to start the APU, which would require several minutes to run up to speed, be put on line and then used to pressurise the hydraulic systems and then to configure the aircraft for landing.
There was only 3 minutes between the MAYDAY call and the aircraft touching down, the crew did not have the time required for all the necessary actions.
You guys should make a video about the C-17 and C-5 Galaxy airplanes. ✈️
IMO there was nothing “criminal” about the localisers as they mentioned.
Looking on the map of the airport, If the pilots landed on the normal side of the runway they would of not hit a concrete wall
How is Bangkok (Thailand) to Jeju (Korea) a domestic flight?
Why is your channel called AItelly? Is AI involved in your video making process? If so, what parts?
Because it's al generated
Pretty good but you don't say if, at the first landing,
in front of the North, the landing gear was correctly deployed or not. It's very important to know it.❤
There are 3 ways to extend/deploy the Landing Gear including Manual/Gravity. Multiple ways to extend Flaps and Slats also. Both enable MUCH slower landing speed. BRAKES also have multiple back-ups that could have stopped acft IF the crew would have lowered the Landing Gear... PILOTS possibly shut WRONG engine down too! Also if the crew had performed a STANDARD 1 ENGINE GO-AROUND and landed in correct direction, they would NOT have plowed into the localizer berm that shredded acft. There was NO-WAY the Pilots had time to complete EMERGENCY CHECKLISTS either! Airport also had NO speed reducing Over-run Traps to slow/stop acft... EVERYTHING WAS DONE WRONG by PILOTS AND AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION!
If LDG fail to deploy, why didnt use manual gravity drop lever
If it had landed from south to north would there have been less casualties?
The aircraft was too far away to land on runway 01.
The rear crew jump seats have 4 point harnesses, face the REAR and back onto a bulkhead.
They already called mayday but why is it that there were no emergency firefighters around???? Just asking, did the pilot unable to see the concrete wall or perhaps the pilot panicked???