Baffles me that they made the decision to go around. I don't see any reason when the landing gear is already out before the bird strike to not just land with 1 engine. Imo that was the deadly decision they made which would have prevented all the other bad decisions afterwards. It's good that runway safety will be discussed after this accident but I see 0 chance that this is not an accident which occurred due to human error. Lets see what the ATC shows and the blackbox.
@@ChristianJosephs A go around still would have been fine anyway by the looks. I think (and psychologist Dr Grande agrees) that they panicked, did something stupid and against all training, and missed a bunch of simple steps in their panic. I mean, I'm not a pilot. But when I fly the simulator, even without a checklist, I look over at that gear lever multiple times during a landing approach. These guys didn't even do that basic thing.
@@tin2001 yeah but still the go around was not necessary per se it seems. Also just a sim player here and no pilot but if I am approaching the airport and I get a bird strike and loose 1 engine I would still just land. Swiss showed the checklist for a birdstrike and while not 100% clear it looked like recommendation is to land. The go around made all worse
According to reports, the birds struck before the first attempt, during which the landing gears did not deploy, so they were sent on a go around. Also read that the flaps didn't go down either. Chances are the birds messed everything up. But it was also mentioned that this plane had landing gear issues prior, so there might have been a preexisting problem that the birds only exacerbated. Maybe a hydraulic leak like a loose screw, or improper materials used for hydraulic lines.
I'm seeing a steeply sloped mound of dirt with a half meter thick reinforced concrete slab on top of the dirt berm. We will know soon. No matter, it should not be built like that. If it wasnt there, i think they'd all still be alive and the plane would have come to rest in the empty field outside the airport. Also the block perimeter wall should be chain link.
DIRT MOUND WAS "LEGAL" BUT building that concrete FOUNDAATION for thr antnnas made it illegal as you can use dirt mounds llike speed trap mechanism by dispersing energy but when you put a CONCRETE BEAM IN 4 m height on top of that mound just shows some young guy projected this and the big bosses signed on it making them directly responsible for unsafe conditions and mybe even forging documents. S Korea has a large number of mass cassulties "accidents" that were always found to be a part of corruption. S Korea is Pakistan?
@@Alexander-dt2eq I'm not sure it would have destroyed the plane on impact by pulverizing it, but it's reasonable to think that at that speed it would have sent the aircraft tumbling. So maybe increased odds, but certainly not a guarantee. Others have mentioned the reason for these berms are typhoons, and damage/floods related to those. Both ends have it and the brick wall, according to google maps street view. Pretty sure they'll rebuilt the localizer array quickly.
Majority of these passengers were just came back vacationing in Bangkok and going to spent New Year with their love ones. My deepest condolences to all the family who lost their loved ones. So sad.
You raise a good point that the concrete wall was not indicated on the chart. If this is a chart that pilots use and rely on then it is possible that the pilots did not know the concrete wall was at the end of the runway and instead thought that an overrun would be a dirt berm (which is likely very survivable).
The pilots KNEW about the wall, as they have landed there before. This is another case of pilots intentionally taking everyone else along to meet their maker. I mean, just look at the speed! That is not a plane trying to stop safely.
Regarding the large concrete block at the end of the runway, historical patterns indicate that Korean projects have often failed to meet safety requirements or even just ignored them while constructing large structures. So if the final report reveals that someone decided to stack concrete blocks to level up the ILS equipment, just because they think it would improve the functionality, then completely ignore the safety area requirements, I wouldn't be surprised.
@@vadwvea7153 One thing that I believe is that maybe these pilots are new to landing at Muan. Since the route has only been open for a few months, it is possible that they did not know about the heap of concrete under the ILS. Had they known, maybe they would have done what they did a little differently. Knowing that the heap was there maybe would have made them realize that such a landing would not be safe enough.This is why we will need better airport engineers and designers in 2025 and beyond.
Yeah, but thats not the problem at all, a 737 can stop at the runway even with 1 engine working and no landing gear. Yeah, the design affected the crash, but its not the problem at all, i think.
I worked in airfield management in the Air Force. I can remember being told many times about stuff like this and how, you might not realize it, but a mistake could cause a tragedy. This is exactly the kind of thing they were talking about. It's shocking that the airfield manager did not have this fixed. If I showed up at this airport in an airfield management/airfield ops position....I would have been raising hell about that berm. That's an accident waiting to happen, and it's quite obvious.
it was a provincial airport, only very recently declared "international". the concrete berm with localizer, short (c)rw, and the concentration of water birds make the international promotion criminal. it is clear that the pilots wanted to land asap. perhaps they taught that 2 engines were faulty, at least based on the info on the dashboard nice to read some military view on this, cos I m sure that these slide incidents are less lethal in the military. (excluding airplane carriers)
There were so many variables though. The birds, the landing gear not deploying (and also reportedly having issues prior to this flight - suggesting a maintenance oversight), traffic control authorizing a landing in the wrong direction. Not far beyond that berm are roads.
@@leigh-on9thimsTrue. Whatever else was wrong, that aircraft was almost fine, just sliding down the runway. If that wall hadn't been there (in the most stupid possible place they could have put it), that plane would have simply just come to a stop, and all in one piece too.
And they had enough power to do a good job around. If both engines failed, that teardrop maneuver would have been impossible. In a Cessna? Perhaps. But in a 737? Absolutely not. Not only did they gain altitude, but they did an entire teardrop maneuver. So a dual engine failure is logical enough to rule out.
@@ferrariguy820 Is it possible that that thrust reverser activated from impact with the birds and remained in that position? I know that at 737-800 the reversers cannot be activated until you touch the wheel track.
@@ferrariguy820is it possible them to lost both engine when they started go around and gain back one toward the end? Or one engine (2) is like on and off half/ malfunction?
Within a span of 1 week, there have been FIVE aircraft incidents: 1. Jeju air crash (B737-800) 2. Azerbaijan crash (E190) 3. Jeju Air 7C 101 landing gear issues (B737-800) 4. Air Canada Express flight 2259 (De Havilland Dash 8-400) 5. KLM 1024 landing gear issues (B737-800) It's a crazy end to 2024 Edit: TURNS OUT THERES MORE im researching about every incident that happened and updating later
Don't forget the emergency landing of a Swiss plane (A220) in Graz due to an engine issue with smoke in the cabin a few days ago. Today a crew member died because of the smoke inhalation.
And the other jeju plane landing gear issues (though not a crash, landing gear issues on the same aircraft of the same airline is concerning)@@pacificnorthwestandsouther703
A Korean here. 1. The dirt hill the plane crashed into has full reinforced concrete wall in it. That is now under fire by everyone and every media in Korea since yesterday. 2. The Muan airport has been almost vacant for years since it opened, and recently - less than a month - began opening for international airliners. It was initially built upon political interest against all controversy on bird concentration area and etc (I still remember many professional said against the new airport in the location on TV at that time), but the political party which has almost 100% support from that area historically forced to build the airport and the party, which is now ruling National Assembly and is impeaching the president, also rushingly opened it as an international airport some weeks ago, WITHOUT proper preparation. Sad example of how politicians ruin (and don't take responsibility of) people's life.
It doesn't matter if it was dirt and then a half a meter reinforced concret on top of it, it make the plane to explode. The dirt was about 6 meter wide
The structure the localizers was placed on was definitely concrete covered with dirt. If you look at the crash photos, you can see the broken block of concrete with steel reinforcements in it. Really don’t understand why they reinforced the localizer structure when it’s supposed to be “fragile” in the event of a runoff.
Apparently they made it so that it would not get damaged in a storm/hurricane or whatever and judging by the data nobody landed or took off facing the wall so i guess it was agreed on that there would only be one way traffic on that runway for the most part.
maybe because they had a brick wall just behind the concrete wall as well. i guess the brick wall would have destroyed the wings as well and set it on fire
idk if you guys noticed, but if you take a look into the video where you can see the plane from the frontal view, (although the quality is pretty bad) you can barely tell that there is exhaust from the second engine, which makes even more sense for the deployment of the second engine reverser. My theory is that the engine did not really fail (since the birds are really quite small), they went around with the first engine, accidentally turned off the first engine, and then continued to fly with the damaged second engine.
That's what makes the most sense to me. They shut off engine #1 AFTER the go-around. But since #2 was working enough to deploy the reverser, why then couldn't they deploy the gear, flaps and slats. I guess we'll find that out here soon.
It was there before the runway was built. Military structure. They were too lazy to move it. They were due to remove it 2025/2026. They knew it was bad. They must be brought to court.
The black box is what will reveal what happened and it's already been recovered. This situation is extremely tragic because every cause you mentioned probably stacked up on top of each other and caused this tragedy.
i think its a combination of bird strike and human error because most planes are designed to be flown with 1 engine operative, besides the 737-800NG has alot of back-up systems (like the APU or the RAM-air turbine. i feel like the crew RUSHED everything due to being exhausted most likely.
@@Cersilaria22 Haha, not feta - that's crumbly cheese - it was one of theese-cheese Emmentaler is the original "Swiss cheese" that most people picture when thinking of cheese with holes, though there are other varieties like Baby Swiss and Jarlsberg that are related types with different hole sizes
The main thing is, Who Tf built a reinforced concrete wall at the end of the runway ??? In fact this isn’t 9/11 and what is it job ? Man, lots of things gone wrong here. We got broken engine,new pilots and a concrete wall ? This was supposed to be a good ending
Thanks for your input - I watched your vid yesterday - I think you have the schematic showing 3-way redundancy to pressurise the hydraulic systems on either engine, don't you? So are you saying that any of the three hydr. press. pumps being alive should allow the reverse thrust mode to be initiated, whether or not the engine is lit?
A crash like this doesn't happen without pilot error. Not an indictment of the pilots, they did their best. But blaming the standard runway or Boeing is crazy given the current evidence
@@kkerbawy every pilot investigation i've seen knows that this airport never met international standards. Overrun area should be clear of any solid objects. If there's a solid object, it should be collapsible when a plane struck it. Reinforced concrete wall isn't collapsible by any means. Pilot error could be one of those causes, but this airport surely one of them. The plane never had a crash landing; it landed perfectly even without landing gears, everyone on board was still alive, before it struck. Think about it.
If that embankment hadn't been there, the plane would've skidded off, maybe a few injuries, maybe not, but had majority survived it wouldn't have even made the news as plans skid off all the time
Just imagine being one of the two that got out alive. How sureal would that have been and terrifying smashing into the barrier, the plane exploding, your life flashing before your eyes, but you are alive after all of that.
Bare in mind they would have no idea thered be a barrier, it would been about 3 seconds between impact and being flung out One guy has multiple broken bobes and spine damage, may be paralysed
09:40. Absolutely spot on. Do not go-around. I don't fly the B737 but I do fly the A320 as a First Officer. In a scenario like this, the ECAM (Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring) would display an amber-coloured warning "LAND ASAP". Take it literally when on approach.
I am an aircraft engineer, On a 737-800 the landing gear has a switch, when this switch is activated the reversers can be used, without that switch those engine reversers can't be turned on, I believe the engine was switched off and the drag opened it on the runway. How I see this accident, the engine is designed to ingest a 6-16 kg bird, the engines will not affect hydraulics and even it they did, both the flaps and landing gear can be extended manually, from the go around to landing was 6 minutes, this isn't enough time for the landing checklist, then you have engine failure checklist, emergency checklist, plus they chose to land gear up and no flaps, on a short runway (under 10k feet). If checklists were skipped, and clearly they were, the landing was rushed, things were missed, and, the landing was long, the landing was too fast, no flaps, no brakes, this all adds up to bad piloting, regardless of the airport and localizer, either way they were leaving that airport if not stopped by the localizer.
And why choose to land into a direktion that have a reinforced concret wall at the end? Better then to land in the sea. The pilot didn't know about the wall. But everyone working at the airport did
they maybe landed without gear on propose, since the gear and flaps would make the aircraft descend more rapidly. Maybe the had double engine failure and decided to skid the whole runway diminishing risk, and the concrete barrier was a bad hand of luck
Per the accident video, the plane makes a stable emergency landing while it’s skidding down the runway on its belly. You cannot dispute that all passengers are alive and well at that point. The plane then continues to skid past the runway when it impacts the dirt covered, concrete reinforced embankment, and then explodes into a fireball. The plane probably only needed an additional 100-300 meters of space to come to a stop. The concrete embankment was being used to store the airport’s LOC antenna array. No other modern airport stores their LOC antennas in similar concrete reinforced structures.
Hey dude, news networks should totally interview you! I've seen like thirty-six news reports, and yours is by far the best. They should really learn from you.
how is boeing to blame huh mister brainwashed worm?. the 737-800 has a EMACCULATE SAFETY RECORD because it is a NG (Next gen) NOT A FUCKING MAX. also it was STRUCK by birds, you wanna fucking blame boeing that birds exist? engine are designed to be sturdy enough to withstand birds (people fucking learned from cactus 1549 aka the hudson incident) i dont think the plane is to blame here at all, i feel like its human error. because even with only 1 functional engine, the 737-800NG is MORE then able to be flown. the crew RUSHED the emergency landing and payed the price for it
@@crewmatewillthrowthesehand7600 how if i may ask? the olane hit birds, the crew rushed the landing. seems pretty cut and dry to me (keep in mind almost all dual engined planes are designed to keep flying on 1 engine)
For me it is a series of problems and errors that caused the crash, from the pilots working too hard, hitting the birds and panicking and making mistakes.
@@loooopeytunes Until you point to the specific international standard this runway design violated your are simply contributing damaging misinformation. Chapter and verse right now or please have the decency to delete your misinformed post.
@@void0350 Same thing - Since you are clearly an airport design engineer, please stipulate in exact engineering terms why this airport was "badly built" or please retract your post and apologize for misinformation.
What I think is the most likely theory is that a bird strike damaged one engine-but didn’t cause it to stop working, as the reverse thrust can still be seen working on the engine when the plane is on the ground. The pilots panicked at the relatively minor emergency and forgot crucial things before immediately going back in to land due to stress. They probably messed up the landing as it appears they landed far down the runway, and since they didn’t really prepare the aircraft for landing or dump fuel at all, it obviously overran. The landing gear was probably fine too-maybe the pilots just forgot to lower it, or didn’t notice it wasn’t lowered. Maybe the pilots tried to go around but all they ended up doing was increasing the aircraft’s ground speed as there wasn’t enough time…if the engine did fail, they might have shut down the wrong one, leading to a loss of power and possibly explains why some of the landing configuration stuff wasn’t deployed. The crew could easily have used alternate extension though. Total pilot error, but the airport’s layout is also very dangerous and should be closed.
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i Well, given enough time, it's not complicated. It's a bit of a faff, but it's just lifting a cover and pulling handles... Getting out of the seat is the hard part in the process.
Wow. I am very impressed by the quality of your presentation! Thank you for sharing! The localizers were originally on dirt and they kept getting blown down by the Typhoons in summers so the airport officials decided to mount them on concrete blocks to make them more durable. And there are several other airports in Korea with similar set up. I am certain all of them will be promptly reconstructed to be more forgiving in a crash. I agree with the hypothesis that the pilots panicked and did not resort to all the available procedures to get the landing gear down. They say the lowering of the landing gear is very slow when performed through manual method but they should have still exhausted all available means.
Why did they not just continue with the original landing after the bird strike happened? As Swiss001 pointed out, this is the normal procedure. Bird strike is much more of a concern for departing planes. Knee jerk reaction by the fatigued pilot to go around and then panick to get down.
Getting the ILS antennas blown down in typhoons did not mean an above-ground concrete barrier had to be built. Concrete footing below ground would have served as well, although they might have cost a bit more.
Not an expert even if its a pilot error the fact there is a reinforced concrete wall in that airport is a accident waiting to happend. They could have less casuality without that wall but that walled escalated a situation from a 7 to a 10.
They also landed in the wrong direction. The designers probably never figured that there would be an emergency one day and a plane would need to come the other way, let alone only use half of the runway. It's simply a perfect storm incident. The design and location is dumb, but you can see how the potential of something happening perfectly might be overlooked.
This isn’t the first time something like this happened, in 2008 a Ryanair 737-800 was on approach into an airport in Italy, it experienced a bird strike and attempted a go around, unlike the Jeju incident the aircraft quickly stalled and crashed into the runway, fortunately everyone survived with only a few injuries
its really confusing why the pilots went for a go around. Literally the plane was configured for landing. They still would have been able to land if there was a bird strike. But we still cant tell yet as of 31 Dec 2024. But that combined with the concrete barrier at the end ultimately led to disaster. The concrete barrier was placed too close to the end of the runway. Once again, rest in peace to the pilots and passengers. This os truly a horrible way to end the year. Lets hope next year starts on a better note
Exactly, most are distracted from this most sensible of courses. Everything was set up for the landing, plane was low, slow, configured... whoppteedo if there was a bird strike... just guide it in. Looks like a knee-jerk reaction from fatigued pilots.
I cant understand why have a concrete barrier after the runway for an area that should be clear in situations like this when aircraft overshoot. If the concrete wall wasn't there the aircraft would have just kept going until it came to a stop.... Airports surely should be designed better. So Sad.
The barrier was probably supposed to be the beginning of the runway. Not the end of the runway. The pilot over ran the runway on the first try because of the bird strike. Instead of circling the runway and landing the same direction as the initial attempted landing, the pilot just did a u turn and tried to land the plane going in the opposite direction toward the wall.
@@chiwawa130Even assuming it's the beginning of the runway, sometimes accidents happen that the plane touches down to early/flies too low. In such case a plane would hit the berm before reaching ground.
Shutting down the wrong engine wouldn’t be the first time a 737 has had such a thing happen, that sounds a lot like the Kegworth Air Disaster tbh. Of course that’s speculative, and until we find the data from the black boxes we won’t know for sure what’s happened, but seems a strange crash for sure, and seems like a few things could’ve prevented it from crashing like it did
How I long for the day when people are no longer supplanting real reasoning with idiotic catch-phrases about "swiss cheese" or "rabbit holes" or "agency" or "wrapping their head around" or measures "to make sure nothing like this ever happens again". But I have no illusions - these idiotic vocables will sooner or later go, but we will not even have time to rejoice their departure before they are replaced by equally idiotic analogies....
A combination of factors which the main factors seem to be: Bird strike, airport design and human error, probable caused by panic or/and fatigue. But there are some other factors that are not specifically related to this flight: The high presence of birds, the "not so long" runaway and the barrier after the runway. Considering that birds strikes can be quite common in the region, emergency landings shouldn't be a surprise there. So, a runway in such airport should have a reasonable room for emergencies. Am I wrong? I don't know if that runaway is suitable for any place, but for this specific airport it seems it has the worst design possible.
You are aligned, heading straight to a runway, then you have an engine failure and you decide that the best option is to abort that landing an try to climb?? these guys are in another level
I'm suspecting, given the teardrop turn and other panic-like responses to what are fairly basic emergency events, we're going to discover that budget airlines might not just skip the in flight entertainment, but also the pilot training activities.
I was wondering if the go-around was because the landing gear wasn't coming down. But then somewhere else I heard that it was down, and they retracted it when they went around. And then they shut down #1 instead of #2. Shutting down the wrong engine after engine trouble has happened before. Who knows, guess we'll find out.
@originaljazzgirl Birds don't fly very high compare to airliners, if you are low enough to hit a bird during an approach it is because you already have your flaps and landing gear out and you are just gliding to the runway.
It was a concrete barrier from the footage that we have. It still baffles me that the concrete obstacle was not mentioned on the chart. Condolences to the families for the loss of their loved ones. 2024 has been a bad year for aviation.
I ain't flying to that airport. Who the heck idea was it to build a concrete wall at the end of the runway. Korea should be thinking about if you are letting planes land and allowing tourist to come, and the airport doesn't even meet the safety standards. Thats just like... I don't know what to say..
Good point, what is this going to do to South Korea's tourist industry. I think most people are going to do what you are doing and avoid flying into any airports that have those barriers. Apparently a lot of airports in South Korea do have them.
I find it bizarre that a single bird strike can take out an entire engine just like that. Supposedly they test for this very scenario when they develop those engines. Wall aside, the pilots made critical mistakes. Also the control tower should have let them know about the wall (assuming they were aware what the pilots where about to attempt) and the pilots should have known about the existence of that wall there (assuming that wasn't their first time at that airport)
There is something I still don't understand: why didn't the air traffic controller warn the pilot that if he landed in that direction, a concrete wall would be waiting for him at the end of the runway? That's not the best place for an emergency landing, and no matter how stressed the pilot was, he would never have tried to land in those conditions.
I can agree with the idea the crew may have been fatigued, Air Canada Flight 759 was a flight landing in San Francisco airport and nearly could’ve been the worst aviation accident in history due to the pilots being fatigued.
Why is no one talking about 'where' the pilot touched down..? People/media presume the pilot touched down normally at the start of the runway. Sadly, that isn't the case. The report states that the Jeju pilot touched down at midpoint of the runway. This was the fatal error as it significantly shortened the stopping distance. Many airports have runways that end within 2000 ft. of highways, buildings, or other objects. O'hare airport in Chicago, for example, have runways that end right next to a highway with automobile traffic. If the plane overshoots the runway there and run into the highway colliding with cars, are we going to blame the highway for being there? The Muan runway is 2.8km and is well within the regulation for the types of plane it lands. The problem is, the pilot landed at mid-point of the runway length and overshot the runway at high speeds. If such an overshot happened in Chicago, the plane would have ran into the highway crashing all cars in its path and possibly ran into a building structure as well.. The problem is not the wall.. It's the situation that led the plane to land in such a way..
I think the pilots didn't know about the wheels and to late found out they weren't out and get panic. It's the second pilots responsible, but if get panic he could have been forgotten it. At that time, it was too late to prevent the accident. They could dip the noose down, but it would be a suicide act, something that never happens in a panic situation. And if they were too tired than these things happen. Thats why there are rules about overtime limitations. Thats not the pilot's fault, but the employees fault. I'm a busdriver and the brain can't be alert longer than 6-8 hours without an hour of sleep. But the employee doesn't care for anything besides economy gain.
Regarding that concrete wall, David Learmount said it best that “it’s at the verge of criminal” to have that wall there. I remember reading somewhere that even without hydraulics, 737 could still drop its landing gear… Baffling
That thing was like 50 feet in front of the actual concrete wall at the end of the airport. And if both were not there, the plane would have slid right out the airport and hit something else. Everybody would have lived another 500 milliseconds longer, before the plane hit a road embankment or something else and then exploded. The plane was sliding on the ground at nearly 200kmh and leaving the airport. Sure it would be nice if the land outside the airport was perfectly flat for hundreds of km in every direction, like the salt lakes in Utah, for the plane to slide on. But this is Korea.
You mentioned a couple of times that you don't have any experience on the B-737. Well, I''ve been flying the B-737 for over 20 years and you got every theory correct and it is all my theories as well. Your video is very precise with correct illustrations. One thing you didn't mention is the amount of warnings, whisles, bells and lights illuminating when the B-737 approaches the ground with Flaps and Landing Gear up. I think fatigue could be a contributing factor and ultimately the main component of this accident is the Korean culture which is still in these days very much power distant where a FO will never challenge a much more senior Captain, as we all saw in the Asian B-777 accident in San Francisco some years ago. Kudos ! Great video!
The pilot flew 24/7 is so crazy. An overworked and exhausted pilot cannot make the right decision during the live and death situation. But I believe the pilots tried their best under extreme stress. Even though high speed belly landing, the plane was still in one piece and passengers were still alive when they landed on the ground. 😢 And then, there's freaking concrete wall waiting for them, omg.. that's the most heartbreaking part. Imagine all those efforts of pilots to land the plane safely on the ground in one piece under extreme stress only to be crashed by a freaking wall..😢 Personally, i don't blame pilots, at least they did what is best they think at the time even though they made mistakes that people said "shouldn't be doing", they tried their best to land successfully, I appreciate their efforts. If there is no that solid wall, there maybe more survivors. RIP flight crews and passengers..
Damn man, I’m loving these videos. You should start making more and more like these. Very informative for both aviation geeks and general public. Great work man!
Your explanation is the most elaborate and what appears to be the most accurate explanation of anybody's documentary, so far. Excellent, excellent job.
honestly what I think happened is, in the rushed to get the plane down, they likely forgot to lower the landing gear, I know they have a checklist, but there has been plane crashes caused by pilots missing something on the checklist.
There are many issues here: 1. Why pull up landing gear back when having this kind of incident, to manage risk, every component of the aircraft must be prepared for an emergency landing. Minimizing the risk of gear-related malfunctions was critical. 2. A gear-up landing demands a shallower approach and a firm touchdown to minimize ground roll. In this instance, even with that technique said, the aircraft touched down well beyond the ideal point on the runway. 3. Reverse thrust should be intentionally avoided during the gear-up landing. The primary concern was to minimize the risk of ground contact with the engines, a potentially catastrophic event.
The rear vertical stabilizer isn't angled in a direction that would imply they were getting asymmetric thrust, although it's definitely weird that they'd attempt to use the reversers if both engines were producing thrust but only one could open the reverser. Definitely looks like pilot error is a big factor here.
Using the reverse thrust nacelle as drag for runway steering is next level clever. Didn't work, buy may have been attempted when they saw that stupid criminal wall.
Was the landing gear not already down when the bird strike occurred? They were like 500 feet off the ground on final so I’m assuming it was already down. Why they didn’t just land as planned is beyond me but they put the gear back up after declaring the emergency and go around. From the first sign of trouble, every decision they made only served to worsen the outcome. They screwed themselves as hard as they possibly could. This is insane to me.
I may have found out why the 737 lost Hydraulics and power resulting in the belly landing : In the footage of the Birdstrike we can see the Right engine being Struck. I speculate that the pilots turned off the Left Engine which may have been the reason for the Loss of hydraulics resulting in the plane doing a belly landing without gears and flaps and the loss of airspeed. More proof as we can see the Right Reversers being activated during the belly landing.. I think we can narrow this down to pilot error? If you think anythings wrong feel free to reply..
Easy for us to say, sitting at home in our sofa, after thinking about it for hours. Not so easy right in the plane, when it was happening. Perhaps training should be extended for bird strikes and loss of both engines because of turning off the wrong one during a landing? What do you do then?
i saw another video that brought up something important , at the time of the landing the left engine was confirmed to be completly shut down as there was no heat coming out behind , you can see it the second clip when the plane is approaching , as for the right engine it could have been damaged partially but we can see heat coming off on the approach so the core is working at least , maybe the fan destroyed itself when applying go around thrust tough .
I only fly gliders, so I’m not necessarily an expert, but: Engine 1 shutdown is totally possible and would explain many of the decisions made. If you see on the hydraulics chart, engine 1 powers the landing gear down line only. This means that the aircraft could take the gear in with the standby system, but not out, because engine 1 would be shut down and took the system A with it. You can also see that the spoilers isn’t deployed at touch down. System A also powers all of the ground spoilers and most of the flight spoilers. This would also reduce the breaking of the aircraft very much. This also means that they had very little flight spoilers on final, which can explain why they landed in such high speeds. They probably couldn’t reduce the speed while decending on final. They would also have issues reducing speed while flaring, therefore landing halfway on the runway. Half of the wheel brakes are also powered by system A. Therefore, the pilots can have decided that without both the spoilers, one reverser and full braking power, it would be better to land with gear up, to skid down the runway, using the friction to stop quicker. I also believe the wall wouldn’t have changed the outcome any drastically. Overrunning 200 meters with probably over 100kts left, would make them slide far. They would probably just end up hitting something else a few meters further away. Sad incident…
@ yeah, and remember. I’m just a glider pilot. I know nothing about how hydralic systems work, I just read the chart, and shared my opinion about the matter. I could be totally mistaken, but this would make some sense at least,
While there are some serious questions regarding this incident which ended in this terrible tragedy, based on the recorded evidence that has so far been presented, we currently don’t know sufficient details and knowledge of other yet unknown factors that may have been instrumental in pilot decision making. We would always have proceeded with the landing in such circumstances where the landing gear was already deployed and some thrust was still available, as it appears. The key words are “as is appears” and we should really wait for the findings of the investigation before making judgements.
dual bird strike -> engines shutdown -> go around -> transponder shuts down because power loss (ADS-B data cuts out due to engine failure) -> hydralulic failure, cant lower gear -> land on rw 19 late -> crash (is what i think happened)
Gear can be manually deployed. Also 3rd electrical system for hydrolics. Flaps not deployed. Mostly pilot error or didn't get to it. too soon for turn around. Didn't dump fuel. Hydrolics will work with air coming into engine. etc. Maybe they panicked. partially.
And yet Sully retained flight controls. ADSB, comms and a full panel with dual bird strike and engines out. My point? Dual engine failure does not lead to what you described in modern airliners regardless of make
@ it has 60 min of back up battery power. My point is dual engine failure in a modern airliners regardless does not cripple its electrical or hydraulic systems. They also had the apu available
We will have to wait for the NTSB and Boeing to do their investigation, which may take months before it is completed, before we know what the causes were of this disaster. In the meanwhile I will provide the NTSB and Boeing with your expert comments made in relation to video and the cause of the crash.
Two short questions: 1. Why don't we have a full conversation with the ATC where the pilots indicate the malfunction on board 2. Why did the tracking suddenly stop ? And assuming the plane only had one engine working, why they didn't it land as written in the book and chose to landing in the middle of the runway?
@@automaton450 wow, that's way higher than I would have expected! I doubt they would have stopped even with the full length of the runway, though the crash would have been slower.
@@vladimus9749 They probably weren’t max weight as they were at the end of the flight, but max or close to max passengers. They must have known the flaps were up, they kept it above stall speed. Reportedly they contacted the runway at 2100 meters, only 700 meters left to slow down on. I guess they were warned about bird activity on final approach, the only thing pilots can do in that case is abort the approach. If there were enough birds to be a concern, I would expect the runway to be closed until the birds are dispersed or leave on their own.
The pilot did everything they could to save everyone on the plane, but those barriers ultimately killed everyone. The people who made those barriers should be held accountable.
The pilots apparently screwed up nearly everything they could. They are far more responsible than the barriers. The barriers should go for sure though.
Im so glad your informing us, thanks Swiss001 we wouldn't be here without your funny ass streams videos and your Swiss002 channel. Your the hold of the Aviation community and just about every aviation person I know watches you. I hope you reach 1 Million on day. Good day and probably night for you.
Swiss001 is the brand. Swiss001 is the man of the smart people. The people of Swiss001, they are very smart. I love Swiss001, United States of America.
When everyone puts in a bit more effort, mistakes can be mitigated. For example, if a pilot makes an error, but the plane can brake harder than the manual specifies, everything can still turn out fine. If a pilot makes a mistake and the plane is also damaged, the margin becomes smaller, but you can still manage if the runway is long enough. In this case, no one went that extra mile, and it ended in tears. Let this be a lesson for everyone, whether in their job or personal life: always put in that extra 20% effort, and you’ll see that it pays off. Adding a buffer in everything you do makes a tremendous difference-it can even save lives.
No they wouldn't, at the speed they were traveling without that berm/wall they would have exited the airport property and possibly hit the hotels and businesses beyond. Let's be honest, the pilots most likely made the disaster what it was - the localizer structure was just the abrupt ending of a string of poor decisions or an impossible situation.
@@southseasflyinginternational standard mentions there shouldn't be any obstruction after overrun area, whether it's a concrete barrier or buildings. There's no building out there, just a concrete barrier that shouldn't be there. Everyone in charge of building it should be jailed
The bird community surrounding the airport plus the unusual airport design should scare most passengers and pilots flying to/from this airport. RIP to the 179!
Imagine being on a plane back home to your country (in this case South Korea) and when your plane touches the ground you see it skidding along the runway knowing that you’ll die before the new year. Anybody blaming the captains is wrong (in my opinion) The captains tried their hardest to slow the plane down but unfortunately couldn’t stop it. The real culprit is the concrete wall at the end of the runway bcz honestly if it weren’t there the pilots would’ve managed to slow the plane down and save everyone on board. Rest in peace to everyone that lost their lives and their family for losing loved ones🕊️🪦💔
The recent tragic plane crash has raised serious concerns regarding pilot training and safety measures to prevent future incidents. The shocking event highlights the need for immediate action to enhance aviation safety protocols.
In my opinion the crew were panicked by a bird strike / compressor stall. The bird strike alone cannot cause the loss of all three hydraulic systems. They then rushed into an unprepared landing without flaps, slats or landing gear. The botched belly landing I think was followed by an attempt to take off (Go Around) This explains why the nose is always high - pulling back on the yoke - and why the engines are producing massive thrust (very loud) and why the plane is accelerating so fast. They couldn't take off due to the resistance and short runway length remaining, and slammed into that reinforced concrete wall at high speed!! You are one of the few people who have mentioned the engines screaming down the runway. I don't think #2 is in reverse thrust either, otherwise it would be yawing to the right. Probably cowling etc got damaged on runway impact.
Another possible assumption is that there were heavy smoke in the cockpit and/or possibly fire onboard. That would also explained why the pilots opted for an immediate landing just after they made a decision to go around. Smoke in the cockpit is every pilot’s worst nightmare…
@@Nick_the_Gold_Bach cabin air is fed in from a different engine than the cockpit. So usually you either get smoke in the cabin or smoke in the cockpit but not both.
@@HyeL lights will shine through smoke quite easily unless the smoke is extremely thick. Also there is a recently discovered issue with 737 MAX with the leap engine when there is an engine problem, smoke from the engine will be fed directly inside the plane. This is not 737 MAX and the engine is different but it is from the same engine manufacturer and perhaps they haven’t found out about this issue yet? They only found that out like last month when a 737 MAX also had a bird strike and the pilots thought they were going to die due to smoke…
Natural interference + pilot error + runway error. That's it. So many things went wrong in one incident, it baffles me
Baffles me that they made the decision to go around. I don't see any reason when the landing gear is already out before the bird strike to not just land with 1 engine. Imo that was the deadly decision they made which would have prevented all the other bad decisions afterwards. It's good that runway safety will be discussed after this accident but I see 0 chance that this is not an accident which occurred due to human error. Lets see what the ATC shows and the blackbox.
@@ChristianJosephs
A go around still would have been fine anyway by the looks. I think (and psychologist Dr Grande agrees) that they panicked, did something stupid and against all training, and missed a bunch of simple steps in their panic.
I mean, I'm not a pilot. But when I fly the simulator, even without a checklist, I look over at that gear lever multiple times during a landing approach. These guys didn't even do that basic thing.
@@tin2001 yeah but still the go around was not necessary per se it seems. Also just a sim player here and no pilot but if I am approaching the airport and I get a bird strike and loose 1 engine I would still just land. Swiss showed the checklist for a birdstrike and while not 100% clear it looked like recommendation is to land. The go around made all worse
Or look at the wall on approach. Why? @@tin2001
According to reports, the birds struck before the first attempt, during which the landing gears did not deploy, so they were sent on a go around. Also read that the flaps didn't go down either. Chances are the birds messed everything up. But it was also mentioned that this plane had landing gear issues prior, so there might have been a preexisting problem that the birds only exacerbated. Maybe a hydraulic leak like a loose screw, or improper materials used for hydraulic lines.
It wasn't dirt, it was a concrete barrier. Crash photos show chunks of reinforced concrete in the wreckage.
I'm seeing a steeply sloped mound of dirt with a half meter thick reinforced concrete slab on top of the dirt berm. We will know soon. No matter, it should not be built like that. If it wasnt there, i think they'd all still be alive and the plane would have come to rest in the empty field outside the airport. Also the block perimeter wall should be chain link.
DIRT MOUND WAS "LEGAL" BUT building that concrete FOUNDAATION for thr antnnas made it illegal as you can use dirt mounds llike speed trap mechanism by dispersing energy but when you put a CONCRETE BEAM IN 4 m height on top of that mound just shows some young guy projected this and the big bosses signed on it making them directly responsible for unsafe conditions and mybe even forging documents.
S Korea has a large number of mass cassulties "accidents" that were always found to be a part of corruption. S Korea is Pakistan?
it was reinforced concrete covered by dirt, so both...
and you think that the brick wall the plane would have hit 1 second later could not have destroyed the plane or at least set the fuel on fire?
@@Alexander-dt2eq I'm not sure it would have destroyed the plane on impact by pulverizing it, but it's reasonable to think that at that speed it would have sent the aircraft tumbling. So maybe increased odds, but certainly not a guarantee.
Others have mentioned the reason for these berms are typhoons, and damage/floods related to those. Both ends have it and the brick wall, according to google maps street view. Pretty sure they'll rebuilt the localizer array quickly.
Majority of these passengers were just came back vacationing in Bangkok and going to spent New Year with their love ones. My deepest condolences to all the family who lost their loved ones. So sad.
You raise a good point that the concrete wall was not indicated on the chart. If this is a chart that pilots use and rely on then it is possible that the pilots did not know the concrete wall was at the end of the runway and instead thought that an overrun would be a dirt berm (which is likely very survivable).
this would be really tragic
Chart shows birds, but not a concrete wall. Terrible. They planned to remove the wall next year or 2, so they knew it was bad..
The pilots KNEW about the wall, as they have landed there before. This is another case of pilots intentionally taking everyone else along to meet their maker.
I mean, just look at the speed! That is not a plane trying to stop safely.
I think assuming they would have even checked the chart for this is being generous.
@@BannedUser-m8r I think it's worse than that, it was just blind panic and they forgot to configure for landing again after the go-around.
Regarding the large concrete block at the end of the runway, historical patterns indicate that Korean projects have often failed to meet safety requirements or even just ignored them while constructing large structures.
So if the final report reveals that someone decided to stack concrete blocks to level up the ILS equipment, just because they think it would improve the functionality, then completely ignore the safety area requirements, I wouldn't be surprised.
thats the only explanation for why theres a massive wall at the end of a runway
@@vadwvea7153 One thing that I believe is that maybe these pilots are new to landing at Muan. Since the route has only been open for a few months, it is possible that they did not know about the heap of concrete under the ILS. Had they known, maybe they would have done what they did a little differently. Knowing that the heap was there maybe would have made them realize that such a landing would not be safe enough.This is why we will need better airport engineers and designers in 2025 and beyond.
Maybe it’s why Hyundai, Kia and Ssang Yong cars will never be as good as Japanese cars
Don’t buy Korean cars
Looks to me like this is the perimeter fence with barbed wire on the top from the street views apparently they landed facing the departure side.
Can’t believe we got the deadliest air crash in 2024 a couple days before the end of 2024.
yes
And all of that before GTA 6.
@@Antodyplease get off the internet.
@@Antody wow it's almost like gta 6 is set to be released in 2025
@@Antodybro its not a game
Putting a wall at the end of the runway is absolutely insane.
fr. brainless design
Look the Google,every Korea airport have a concrete wall!!!check it!!!!
Someone said it’s designed to keep the North Korean Army out.
Yeah, but thats not the problem at all, a 737 can stop at the runway even with 1 engine working and no landing gear. Yeah, the design affected the crash, but its not the problem at all, i think.
Just opinion of mine
I worked in airfield management in the Air Force.
I can remember being told many times about stuff like this and how, you might not realize it, but a mistake could cause a tragedy.
This is exactly the kind of thing they were talking about. It's shocking that the airfield manager did not have this fixed.
If I showed up at this airport in an airfield management/airfield ops position....I would have been raising hell about that berm. That's an accident waiting to happen, and it's quite obvious.
True..accidents can happen anytime anywhere,but that wall sealed the fate of the plane and people on board.
LOL, i misread "worked" as "I woke up"
it was a provincial airport, only very recently declared "international".
the concrete berm with localizer, short (c)rw, and the concentration of water birds make the international promotion criminal.
it is clear that the pilots wanted to land asap.
perhaps they taught that 2 engines were faulty, at least based on the info on the dashboard
nice to read some military view on this, cos I m sure that these slide incidents are less lethal in the military. (excluding airplane carriers)
There were so many variables though. The birds, the landing gear not deploying (and also reportedly having issues prior to this flight - suggesting a maintenance oversight), traffic control authorizing a landing in the wrong direction. Not far beyond that berm are roads.
@@leigh-on9thimsTrue. Whatever else was wrong, that aircraft was almost fine, just sliding down the runway. If that wall hadn't been there (in the most stupid possible place they could have put it), that plane would have simply just come to a stop, and all in one piece too.
A dual engine failure would explain the emergency landing, but the engine didn’t seem like it failed in the footage.
Exactly!
And they had enough power to do a good job around. If both engines failed, that teardrop maneuver would have been impossible. In a Cessna? Perhaps. But in a 737? Absolutely not. Not only did they gain altitude, but they did an entire teardrop maneuver. So a dual engine failure is logical enough to rule out.
I forgot to mention the reverse thrusters. There was reverse thrust in at least one of the engines. So that also could rule out dual engine failure.
@@ferrariguy820 Is it possible that that thrust reverser activated from impact with the birds and remained in that position? I know that at 737-800 the reversers cannot be activated until you touch the wheel track.
@@ferrariguy820is it possible them to lost both engine when they started go around and gain back one toward the end? Or one engine (2) is like on and off half/ malfunction?
Within a span of 1 week, there have been FIVE aircraft incidents:
1. Jeju air crash (B737-800)
2. Azerbaijan crash (E190)
3. Jeju Air 7C 101 landing gear issues (B737-800)
4. Air Canada Express flight 2259 (De Havilland Dash 8-400)
5. KLM 1024 landing gear issues (B737-800)
It's a crazy end to 2024
Edit: TURNS OUT THERES MORE
im researching about every incident that happened and updating later
Don't forget the emergency landing of a Swiss plane (A220) in Graz due to an engine issue with smoke in the cabin a few days ago. Today a crew member died because of the smoke inhalation.
DHL crash and Norwegian runway incursion in molde
Thought the klm flight was due to hydraulics
brazil private plane also
Crash in Brazil and Swiss one
3 crashes in a week is wild man…
4’ Azerbaijani Airways, this, Air Canada Dash 8, and the Oslo belly landing.
@jklb610 and klm
@@pacificnorthwestandsouther703 klm was the oslo belly landing
And the other jeju plane landing gear issues (though not a crash, landing gear issues on the same aircraft of the same airline is concerning)@@pacificnorthwestandsouther703
@jklb610 when did the air canada thing happen?
A Korean here.
1. The dirt hill the plane crashed into has full reinforced concrete wall in it. That is now under fire by everyone and every media in Korea since yesterday.
2. The Muan airport has been almost vacant for years since it opened, and recently - less than a month - began opening for international airliners. It was initially built upon political interest against all controversy on bird concentration area and etc (I still remember many professional said against the new airport in the location on TV at that time), but the political party which has almost 100% support from that area historically forced to build the airport and the party, which is now ruling National Assembly and is impeaching the president, also rushingly opened it as an international airport some weeks ago, WITHOUT proper preparation. Sad example of how politicians ruin (and don't take responsibility of) people's life.
Now 3 crashes in about 8 odd days is insane and so sad
4 crashes
@@Thefunguy_18 when was there a 4th, i didn't see that
i know about jeju air and azerbjain crash, what's the other 2?
Landing gear collapse in Canada and overrun in Norway@@forgotten57.1
@@forgotten57.1a KLM 737 runway had an accident and a Dash-8
It's not just a dirt mound. According to the crash photos, it housed a thick, reinforced concrete wall. WTF?
It doesn't matter if it was dirt and then a half a meter reinforced concret on top of it, it make the plane to explode.
The dirt was about 6 meter wide
@@Alla.Hmohammed Yeah I agree. A dirt mound that thick would have done the same thing. Should have been no mound at all
The structure the localizers was placed on was definitely concrete covered with dirt. If you look at the crash photos, you can see the broken block of concrete with steel reinforcements in it. Really don’t understand why they reinforced the localizer structure when it’s supposed to be “fragile” in the event of a runoff.
Some idiot engineer thought that the localizers should be protected at all costs 😂
@ yeah, as if they needed to withstand an earthquake or something 😂
Apparently they made it so that it would not get damaged in a storm/hurricane or whatever and judging by the data nobody landed or took off facing the wall so i guess it was agreed on that there would only be one way traffic on that runway for the most part.
maybe because they had a brick wall just behind the concrete wall as well. i guess the brick wall would have destroyed the wings as well and set it on fire
so it is confirmed it was because hooman error, I am not talking about the pilot but who designed and approved that concrete of death.
This is gonna be an absolutely crazy final report. I can not even get close to actually wrapping my head around everything here
idk if you guys noticed, but if you take a look into the video where you can see the plane from the frontal view, (although the quality is pretty bad) you can barely tell that there is exhaust from the second engine, which makes even more sense for the deployment of the second engine reverser. My theory is that the engine did not really fail (since the birds are really quite small), they went around with the first engine, accidentally turned off the first engine, and then continued to fly with the damaged second engine.
That is a devastating mistake and quite possibly what happened. Horrible and I hope not.
That's what makes the most sense to me. They shut off engine #1 AFTER the go-around. But since #2 was working enough to deploy the reverser, why then couldn't they deploy the gear, flaps and slats. I guess we'll find that out here soon.
@@originaljazzgirl In other words in spite of everything, this plane would have made a normal landing like any other
Great video, regardless of who or what is at fault, let's not build massive concrete barriers on the end of runways.
It was there before the runway was built.
Military structure. They were too lazy to move it. They were due to remove it 2025/2026. They knew it was bad. They must be brought to court.
The black box is what will reveal what happened and it's already been recovered. This situation is extremely tragic because every cause you mentioned probably stacked up on top of each other and caused this tragedy.
i think its a combination of bird strike and human error because most planes are designed to be flown with 1 engine operative, besides the 737-800NG has alot of back-up systems (like the APU or the RAM-air turbine. i feel like the crew RUSHED everything due to being exhausted most likely.
Like feta cheese
@@Cersilaria22 Haha, not feta - that's crumbly cheese - it was one of theese-cheese
Emmentaler is the original "Swiss cheese" that most people picture when thinking of cheese with holes, though there are other varieties like Baby Swiss and Jarlsberg that are related types with different hole sizes
@ oh great thank you as you can tell I’m not up on my cheeses 😂😂❤️❤️
wtf has cheese to do with this?
The main thing is, Who Tf built a reinforced concrete wall at the end of the runway ??? In fact this isn’t 9/11 and what is it job ? Man, lots of things gone wrong here. We got broken engine,new pilots and a concrete wall ? This was supposed to be a good ending
Trust reversers are also powered by STBY hyd system
Thanks for your input - I watched your vid yesterday - I think you have the schematic showing 3-way redundancy to pressurise the hydraulic systems on either engine, don't you?
So are you saying that any of the three hydr. press. pumps being alive should allow the reverse thrust mode to be initiated, whether or not the engine is lit?
Thx Pilot Blog.
Seems like a case of the wrong place at the wrong time. And the airport design was a disaster waiting to happen. Just a horrible situation all around.
Sampoong mall
Galaxy note 7
Muan airport
Three disasters because of poor design.
A crash like this doesn't happen without pilot error. Not an indictment of the pilots, they did their best. But blaming the standard runway or Boeing is crazy given the current evidence
@@kkerbawy every pilot investigation i've seen knows that this airport never met international standards. Overrun area should be clear of any solid objects. If there's a solid object, it should be collapsible when a plane struck it. Reinforced concrete wall isn't collapsible by any means.
Pilot error could be one of those causes, but this airport surely one of them.
The plane never had a crash landing; it landed perfectly even without landing gears, everyone on board was still alive, before it struck. Think about it.
@@kkerbawy the concrete-mounted ILS is what sealed the plane's fate.
If that embankment hadn't been there, the plane would've skidded off, maybe a few injuries, maybe not, but had majority survived it wouldn't have even made the news as plans skid off all the time
Probably, bird strike + pilot error + concrete wall = crash. [pilot error = panic + exhaustion + lack of training]
We will find out later who was landing that plane. Was it the young guy, or the chief pilot with thousands of hours of flight hours.
I found some information said the pilot had 6000+ hours flight and co-pilot had 1000+ hours flight
Just imagine being one of the two that got out alive. How sureal would that have been and terrifying smashing into the barrier, the plane exploding, your life flashing before your eyes, but you are alive after all of that.
I don't think they walked out, they was carried
@@Alla.Hmohammed Yeah I know, got out alive meaning they were carried out.
Bare in mind they would have no idea thered be a barrier, it would been about 3 seconds between impact and being flung out
One guy has multiple broken bobes and spine damage, may be paralysed
Possible may have been lost conciousness due to the impact. Appear to have no recollection in the split second hitting the wall.
A formula for life long PTSD and nightmares😢
09:40. Absolutely spot on. Do not go-around. I don't fly the B737 but I do fly the A320 as a First Officer. In a scenario like this, the ECAM (Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring) would display an amber-coloured warning "LAND ASAP". Take it literally when on approach.
Yep, why did they just not continue to land when the bird strike hit... evrything was lined up. Knee jerk reaction to go around?
@@martinsims1273 Hence no need to have done the 'go around'.
Yes, as an ILS technician I would have to agree that Muan Airport ILS antenna construction is anomalous.
According to another comment here it is common in Korea.
I am an aircraft engineer, On a 737-800 the landing gear has a switch, when this switch is activated the reversers can be used, without that switch those engine reversers can't be turned on, I believe the engine was switched off and the drag opened it on the runway.
How I see this accident, the engine is designed to ingest a 6-16 kg bird, the engines will not affect hydraulics and even it they did, both the flaps and landing gear can be extended manually, from the go around to landing was 6 minutes, this isn't enough time for the landing checklist, then you have engine failure checklist, emergency checklist, plus they chose to land gear up and no flaps, on a short runway (under 10k feet).
If checklists were skipped, and clearly they were, the landing was rushed, things were missed, and, the landing was long, the landing was too fast, no flaps, no brakes, this all adds up to bad piloting, regardless of the airport and localizer, either way they were leaving that airport if not stopped by the localizer.
Radar altimeter reading below 10 feet will allow thrust reverser deployment regardless of gear position.
@@da40flyer Maybe on other aircraft but not the NG models.
And why choose to land into a direktion that have a reinforced concret wall at the end?
Better then to land in the sea.
The pilot didn't know about the wall.
But everyone working at the airport did
they maybe landed without gear on propose, since the gear and flaps would make the aircraft descend more rapidly. Maybe the had double engine failure and decided to skid the whole runway diminishing risk, and the concrete barrier was a bad hand of luck
Per the accident video, the plane makes a stable emergency landing while it’s skidding down the runway on its belly. You cannot
dispute that all passengers are alive and well at that point. The plane then continues to skid past the runway when it impacts the dirt covered, concrete reinforced embankment, and then explodes into a fireball. The plane probably only needed an additional 100-300 meters of space to come to a stop. The concrete embankment was being used to store the airport’s LOC antenna array. No other modern airport stores their LOC antennas in similar concrete reinforced structures.
Hey dude, news networks should totally interview you! I've seen like thirty-six news reports, and yours is by far the best. They should really learn from you.
very easy to blame Boeing without find out exact cause of crash, this is very honest reporting so far.
Recent years Beoing has been having a lot of malfunction parts in planes. So they are held accountable.
@@vena936 holding them accountable does not entail blaming them for everything despite not having all of the details.
how is boeing to blame huh mister brainwashed worm?. the 737-800 has a EMACCULATE SAFETY RECORD because it is a NG (Next gen) NOT A FUCKING MAX. also it was STRUCK by birds, you wanna fucking blame boeing that birds exist? engine are designed to be sturdy enough to withstand birds (people fucking learned from cactus 1549 aka the hudson incident) i dont think the plane is to blame here at all, i feel like its human error. because even with only 1 functional engine, the 737-800NG is MORE then able to be flown. the crew RUSHED the emergency landing and payed the price for it
They aren’t to blame for the devastation but the structural integrity of the plane should still be in question
@@crewmatewillthrowthesehand7600 how if i may ask? the olane hit birds, the crew rushed the landing. seems pretty cut and dry to me (keep in mind almost all dual engined planes are designed to keep flying on 1 engine)
Thank you for reporting about the birds feeding area. Funny how it wasn't mentioned in mainstream news.
Because it's speculative that bird strikes were the cause, they can only report on what is currently known.
Korean news has reported on the prevalence of bird roosting areas around Muan airport
Aviation this year has been so tragic
Not at all compared to previous years
@ still there has still been some tragic accidents.
nice pfp bro
I do hope next year will be less tragic
Wasn't there a DEI thing going on that could speak for this?
For me it is a series of problems and errors that caused the crash, from the pilots working too hard, hitting the birds and panicking and making mistakes.
The runway also didn't meet international standards. The concrete barrier shouldn't be there. Everyone was still alive before hitting that death trap
thats why you have to build airports with the highest margins of error. This airport is badly build.
@@loooopeytunes Everyone is always alive before they land or hit the ground. There are a million ways for a crash to happen......
@@loooopeytunes Until you point to the specific international standard this runway design violated your are simply contributing damaging misinformation.
Chapter and verse right now or please have the decency to delete your misinformed post.
@@void0350 Same thing - Since you are clearly an airport design engineer, please stipulate in exact engineering terms why this airport was "badly built" or please retract your post and apologize for misinformation.
What I think is the most likely theory is that a bird strike damaged one engine-but didn’t cause it to stop working, as the reverse thrust can still be seen working on the engine when the plane is on the ground. The pilots panicked at the relatively minor emergency and forgot crucial things before immediately going back in to land due to stress. They probably messed up the landing as it appears they landed far down the runway, and since they didn’t really prepare the aircraft for landing or dump fuel at all, it obviously overran. The landing gear was probably fine too-maybe the pilots just forgot to lower it, or didn’t notice it wasn’t lowered. Maybe the pilots tried to go around but all they ended up doing was increasing the aircraft’s ground speed as there wasn’t enough time…if the engine did fail, they might have shut down the wrong one, leading to a loss of power and possibly explains why some of the landing configuration stuff wasn’t deployed. The crew could easily have used alternate extension though. Total pilot error, but the airport’s layout is also very dangerous and should be closed.
some say they shut down the wrong engine and thus lost both engines
"easily"
Liar
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i
Well, given enough time, it's not complicated. It's a bit of a faff, but it's just lifting a cover and pulling handles... Getting out of the seat is the hard part in the process.
Why not just continue to land as they were lined up, flaps and gear deployed, right speed altitude etc.
@@davethewave7248 im not sure the had the gear down just flaps at that stage
Wow. I am very impressed by the quality of your presentation! Thank you for sharing!
The localizers were originally on dirt and they kept getting blown down by the Typhoons in summers so the airport officials decided to mount them on concrete blocks to make them more durable.
And there are several other airports in Korea with similar set up.
I am certain all of them will be promptly reconstructed to be more forgiving in a crash.
I agree with the hypothesis that the pilots panicked and did not resort to all the available procedures to get the landing gear down. They say the lowering of the landing gear is very slow when performed through manual method but they should have still exhausted all available means.
Why did they not just continue with the original landing after the bird strike happened? As Swiss001 pointed out, this is the normal procedure. Bird strike is much more of a concern for departing planes. Knee jerk reaction by the fatigued pilot to go around and then panick to get down.
Getting the ILS antennas blown down in typhoons did not mean an above-ground concrete barrier had to be built. Concrete footing below ground would have served as well, although they might have cost a bit more.
Swiss001 crash investigators
And seriously, why tf was there a concrete wall there? That’s asking for disaster.
Not an expert even if its a pilot error the fact there is a reinforced concrete wall in that airport is a accident waiting to happend. They could have less casuality without that wall but that walled escalated a situation from a 7 to a 10.
It was there before the modern runway was built. Old military structure. Too lazy to remove it.
They also landed in the wrong direction. The designers probably never figured that there would be an emergency one day and a plane would need to come the other way, let alone only use half of the runway. It's simply a perfect storm incident. The design and location is dumb, but you can see how the potential of something happening perfectly might be overlooked.
It seems like every time they design an airport. They put like a hotel or like a gas station right at the end of the runway for the planes to hit.
We would all love runways to go on forever. But in reality, airports end at some point.
Didn't the Concorde crash into a hotel
concorde hit hotel that was 5 miles away
Land at the end of a runway is like to be very cheap.
Muan airport's design reminds me of that airport in Sao Paulo with a gas station at the end of the runway
They must have used the same 'safety consultants'
San Diego’s airport in California also has one of its runways ending by a gas station…
They should change runway design to be more safer.
A gas station? That's sounds ever crazier.
This isn’t the first time something like this happened, in 2008 a Ryanair 737-800 was on approach into an airport in Italy, it experienced a bird strike and attempted a go around, unlike the Jeju incident the aircraft quickly stalled and crashed into the runway, fortunately everyone survived with only a few injuries
A 737 can go around on one engine, so that was probably pilot error in haste - the smoking gun in this case looking likely too
Smoking gun is apt, i suspect a lot of smoke coming in from the engine led to calls of "fire", which would cause an immediate landing to be performed.
That wasn't a crash. It was a standard Ryanair landing.
Someone had to say it.
What went wrong? A brain dead engineer decided to build a bunker wall at the end of a runway.
its really confusing why the pilots went for a go around. Literally the plane was configured for landing. They still would have been able to land if there was a bird strike. But we still cant tell yet as of 31 Dec 2024. But that combined with the concrete barrier at the end ultimately led to disaster. The concrete barrier was placed too close to the end of the runway.
Once again, rest in peace to the pilots and passengers. This os truly a horrible way to end the year.
Lets hope next year starts on a better note
Exactly, most are distracted from this most sensible of courses. Everything was set up for the landing, plane was low, slow, configured... whoppteedo if there was a bird strike... just guide it in. Looks like a knee-jerk reaction from fatigued pilots.
I cant understand why have a concrete barrier after the runway for an area that should be clear in situations like this when aircraft overshoot. If the concrete wall wasn't there the aircraft would have just kept going until it came to a stop....
Airports surely should be designed better. So Sad.
RIP all the souls who passed and RIP to the birds as well ❤🪦
That barrier is responsible for death of 179 lives.
Exactly. Anything else is deflection of gross negligence.
yes.
The people behind the concrete barrier are responsible.
The barrier was probably supposed to be the beginning of the runway. Not the end of the runway. The pilot over ran the runway on the first try because of the bird strike. Instead of circling the runway and landing the same direction as the initial attempted landing, the pilot just did a u turn and tried to land the plane going in the opposite direction toward the wall.
@@chiwawa130Even assuming it's the beginning of the runway, sometimes accidents happen that the plane touches down to early/flies too low. In such case a plane would hit the berm before reaching ground.
Pilot error and the airport's mistake in placing a wall at the end of the runway caused the plane to explode and result in death.
Shutting down the wrong engine wouldn’t be the first time a 737 has had such a thing happen, that sounds a lot like the Kegworth Air Disaster tbh. Of course that’s speculative, and until we find the data from the black boxes we won’t know for sure what’s happened, but seems a strange crash for sure, and seems like a few things could’ve prevented it from crashing like it did
and also seems like that one Transasia crash in taiwan or smth
If we use the Swiss cheese model analogy, that concrete barrier is simply an entire slice of cheese missing
How I long for the day when people are no longer supplanting real reasoning with idiotic catch-phrases about "swiss cheese" or "rabbit holes" or "agency" or "wrapping their head around" or measures "to make sure nothing like this ever happens again".
But I have no illusions - these idiotic vocables will sooner or later go, but we will not even have time to rejoice their departure before they are replaced by equally idiotic analogies....
@ so mentourpilot is an idiot? Ok
unfortunately it took a disaster for action to be taken, families of victims should be compensated by the airport.
100%
A combination of factors which the main factors seem to be: Bird strike, airport design and human error, probable caused by panic or/and fatigue. But there are some other factors that are not specifically related to this flight: The high presence of birds, the "not so long" runaway and the barrier after the runway. Considering that birds strikes can be quite common in the region, emergency landings shouldn't be a surprise there. So, a runway in such airport should have a reasonable room for emergencies. Am I wrong? I don't know if that runaway is suitable for any place, but for this specific airport it seems it has the worst design possible.
You are aligned, heading straight to a runway, then you have an engine failure and you decide that the best option is to abort that landing an try to climb?? these guys are in another level
Specially if you fly through the flock of birds(presumably). If I go through a flock of birds, I am landing without a doubt.
I'm suspecting, given the teardrop turn and other panic-like responses to what are fairly basic emergency events, we're going to discover that budget airlines might not just skip the in flight entertainment, but also the pilot training activities.
@@tin2001- YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD !
I was wondering if the go-around was because the landing gear wasn't coming down. But then somewhere else I heard that it was down, and they retracted it when they went around. And then they shut down #1 instead of #2. Shutting down the wrong engine after engine trouble has happened before. Who knows, guess we'll find out.
@originaljazzgirl Birds don't fly very high compare to airliners, if you are low enough to hit a bird during an approach it is because you already have your flaps and landing gear out and you are just gliding to the runway.
It was a concrete barrier from the footage that we have. It still baffles me that the concrete obstacle was not mentioned on the chart. Condolences to the families for the loss of their loved ones. 2024 has been a bad year for aviation.
I ain't flying to that airport. Who the heck idea was it to build a concrete wall at the end of the runway. Korea should be thinking about if you are letting planes land and allowing tourist to come, and the airport doesn't even meet the safety standards. Thats just like... I don't know what to say..
ontop of building the airport around heavy bird activity and doing nothing about it
@@iminmymumscar-d6j FR
@@iminmymumscar-d6j Ngl Shame on korea
Good point, what is this going to do to South Korea's tourist industry. I think most people are going to do what you are doing and avoid flying into any airports that have those barriers. Apparently a lot of airports in South Korea do have them.
I find it bizarre that a single bird strike can take out an entire engine just like that. Supposedly they test for this very scenario when they develop those engines. Wall aside, the pilots made critical mistakes. Also the control tower should have let them know about the wall (assuming they were aware what the pilots where about to attempt) and the pilots should have known about the existence of that wall there (assuming that wasn't their first time at that airport)
There is something I still don't understand: why didn't the air traffic controller warn the pilot that if he landed in that direction, a concrete wall would be waiting for him at the end of the runway? That's not the best place for an emergency landing, and no matter how stressed the pilot was, he would never have tried to land in those conditions.
I can agree with the idea the crew may have been fatigued, Air Canada Flight 759 was a flight landing in San Francisco airport and nearly could’ve been the worst aviation accident in history due to the pilots being fatigued.
This is the best coverage of this accident, thank you for making this video Swiss
The pilots panicking and forgeting to put down the landing gear is the most plausible explanation.
It still doesn't explain why the came down mid-runway.
A 737 will issue a verbal warning if the plane descends below a certain altitude with the gear up.
The South Korea Govt is famous for inefficiency/ lack of accountability & blaming one another - a national DISGRACE
In short.. Korea sucks...
Why is no one talking about 'where' the pilot touched down..?
People/media presume the pilot touched down normally at the start of the runway. Sadly, that isn't the case.
The report states that the Jeju pilot touched down at midpoint of the runway.
This was the fatal error as it significantly shortened the stopping distance.
Many airports have runways that end within 2000 ft. of highways, buildings, or other objects. O'hare airport in Chicago, for example, have runways that end right next to a highway with automobile traffic.
If the plane overshoots the runway there and run into the highway colliding with cars, are we going to blame the highway for being there?
The Muan runway is 2.8km and is well within the regulation for the types of plane it lands.
The problem is, the pilot landed at mid-point of the runway length and overshot the runway at high speeds. If such an overshot happened in Chicago, the plane would have ran into the highway crashing all cars in its path and possibly ran into a building structure as well..
The problem is not the wall..
It's the situation that led the plane to land in such a way..
Estimated to have contacted the runway with only 700M left.
Very good video swiss!
I think the pilots didn't know about the wheels and to late found out they weren't out and get panic. It's the second pilots responsible, but if get panic he could have been forgotten it. At that time, it was too late to prevent the accident. They could dip the noose down, but it would be a suicide act, something that never happens in a panic situation.
And if they were too tired than these things happen. Thats why there are rules about overtime limitations. Thats not the pilot's fault, but the employees fault. I'm a busdriver and the brain can't be alert longer than 6-8 hours without an hour of sleep. But the employee doesn't care for anything besides economy gain.
Regarding that concrete wall, David Learmount said it best that “it’s at the verge of criminal” to have that wall there.
I remember reading somewhere that even without hydraulics, 737 could still drop its landing gear… Baffling
Everyone on board was still alive before hitting that death trap, think about it.
That thing was like 50 feet in front of the actual concrete wall at the end of the airport. And if both were not there, the plane would have slid right out the airport and hit something else. Everybody would have lived another 500 milliseconds longer, before the plane hit a road embankment or something else and then exploded. The plane was sliding on the ground at nearly 200kmh and leaving the airport.
Sure it would be nice if the land outside the airport was perfectly flat for hundreds of km in every direction, like the salt lakes in Utah, for the plane to slide on. But this is Korea.
You mentioned a couple of times that you don't have any experience on the B-737. Well, I''ve been flying the B-737 for over 20 years and you got every theory correct and it is all my theories as well. Your video is very precise with correct illustrations. One thing you didn't mention is the amount of warnings, whisles, bells and lights illuminating when the B-737 approaches the ground with Flaps and Landing Gear up. I think fatigue could be a contributing factor and ultimately the main component of this accident is the Korean culture which is still in these days very much power distant where a FO will never challenge a much more senior Captain, as we all saw in the Asian B-777 accident in San Francisco some years ago. Kudos ! Great video!
The A/C flew 18 trips in 48 hours before the accident, will be interesting to find out how many of those the accident pilots had flown.
The pilot flew 24/7 is so crazy. An overworked and exhausted pilot cannot make the right decision during the live and death situation.
But I believe the pilots tried their best under extreme stress. Even though high speed belly landing, the plane was still in one piece and passengers were still alive when they landed on the ground. 😢
And then, there's freaking concrete wall waiting for them, omg.. that's the most heartbreaking part.
Imagine all those efforts of pilots to land the plane safely on the ground in one piece under extreme stress only to be crashed by a freaking wall..😢
Personally, i don't blame pilots, at least they did what is best they think at the time even though they made mistakes that people said "shouldn't be doing", they tried their best to land successfully, I appreciate their efforts. If there is no that solid wall, there maybe more survivors.
RIP flight crews and passengers..
Reportedly the accident aircraft flew 18 trips in the 48 hours before the accident. Wonder how many of those the accident pilots had flown?
Damn man, I’m loving these videos. You should start making more and more like these. Very informative for both aviation geeks and general public. Great work man!
Wow this is an incredible analysis. Thank you
Your explanation is the most elaborate and what appears to be the most accurate explanation of anybody's documentary, so far. Excellent, excellent job.
honestly what I think happened is, in the rushed to get the plane down, they likely forgot to lower the landing gear, I know they have a checklist, but there has been plane crashes caused by pilots missing something on the checklist.
There are many issues here:
1. Why pull up landing gear back when having this kind of incident, to manage risk, every component of the aircraft must be prepared for an emergency landing. Minimizing the risk of gear-related malfunctions was critical.
2. A gear-up landing demands a shallower approach and a firm touchdown to minimize ground roll. In this instance, even with that technique said, the aircraft touched down well beyond the ideal point on the runway.
3. Reverse thrust should be intentionally avoided during the gear-up landing. The primary concern was to minimize the risk of ground contact with the engines, a potentially catastrophic event.
The rear vertical stabilizer isn't angled in a direction that would imply they were getting asymmetric thrust, although it's definitely weird that they'd attempt to use the reversers if both engines were producing thrust but only one could open the reverser. Definitely looks like pilot error is a big factor here.
Using the reverse thrust nacelle as drag for runway steering is next level clever.
Didn't work, buy may have been attempted when they saw that stupid criminal wall.
Was the landing gear not already down when the bird strike occurred? They were like 500 feet off the ground on final so I’m assuming it was already down. Why they didn’t just land as planned is beyond me but they put the gear back up after declaring the emergency and go around. From the first sign of trouble, every decision they made only served to worsen the outcome. They screwed themselves as hard as they possibly could. This is insane to me.
I may have found out why the 737 lost Hydraulics and power resulting in the belly landing :
In the footage of the Birdstrike we can see the Right engine being Struck.
I speculate that the pilots turned off the Left Engine which may have been the reason for the Loss of hydraulics resulting in the plane doing a belly landing without gears and flaps and the loss of airspeed.
More proof as we can see the Right Reversers being activated during the belly landing..
I think we can narrow this down to pilot error?
If you think anythings wrong feel free to reply..
This has already been speculated but this is definitely something that investigators need to think about along with the data recorder
@HERD599 Yes This 'May' be the reason, I'm like 97% sure..
Easy for us to say, sitting at home in our sofa, after thinking about it for hours. Not so easy right in the plane, when it was happening. Perhaps training should be extended for bird strikes and loss of both engines because of turning off the wrong one during a landing? What do you do then?
It remains an issue that they did a fly around rather than just putting it down.
@@danielch6662 well good thing is all 737s are being inspected in south korea
i saw another video that brought up something important , at the time of the landing the left engine was confirmed to be completly shut down as there was no heat coming out behind , you can see it the second clip when the plane is approaching , as for the right engine it could have been damaged partially but we can see heat coming off on the approach so the core is working at least , maybe the fan destroyed itself when applying go around thrust tough .
I only fly gliders, so I’m not necessarily an expert, but: Engine 1 shutdown is totally possible and would explain many of the decisions made. If you see on the hydraulics chart, engine 1 powers the landing gear down line only. This means that the aircraft could take the gear in with the standby system, but not out, because engine 1 would be shut down and took the system A with it. You can also see that the spoilers isn’t deployed at touch down. System A also powers all of the ground spoilers and most of the flight spoilers. This would also reduce the breaking of the aircraft very much. This also means that they had very little flight spoilers on final, which can explain why they landed in such high speeds. They probably couldn’t reduce the speed while decending on final. They would also have issues reducing speed while flaring, therefore landing halfway on the runway. Half of the wheel brakes are also powered by system A. Therefore, the pilots can have decided that without both the spoilers, one reverser and full braking power, it would be better to land with gear up, to skid down the runway, using the friction to stop quicker. I also believe the wall wouldn’t have changed the outcome any drastically. Overrunning 200 meters with probably over 100kts left, would make them slide far. They would probably just end up hitting something else a few meters further away. Sad incident…
Very interesting thoughts.
@ yeah, and remember. I’m just a glider pilot. I know nothing about how hydralic systems work, I just read the chart, and shared my opinion about the matter. I could be totally mistaken, but this would make some sense at least,
While there are some serious questions regarding this incident which ended in this terrible tragedy, based on the recorded evidence that has so far been presented, we currently don’t know sufficient details and knowledge of other yet unknown factors that may have been instrumental in pilot decision making. We would always have proceeded with the landing in such circumstances where the landing gear was already deployed and some thrust was still available, as it appears. The key words are “as is appears” and we should really wait for the findings of the investigation before making judgements.
From having the first crash 2 days into 2024 to the last crash 3 days before 2024 ends is absurd
dual bird strike -> engines shutdown -> go around -> transponder shuts down because power loss (ADS-B data cuts out due to engine failure) -> hydralulic failure, cant lower gear -> land on rw 19 late -> crash (is what i think happened)
Gear can be manually deployed. Also 3rd electrical system for hydrolics. Flaps not deployed. Mostly pilot error or didn't get to it. too soon for turn around. Didn't dump fuel. Hydrolics will work with air coming into engine. etc. Maybe they panicked. partially.
They didn't even attempt a manual gear deployment. Flaps weren't deployed either.
And yet Sully retained flight controls. ADSB, comms and a full panel with dual bird strike and engines out. My point? Dual engine failure does not lead to what you described in modern airliners regardless of make
@@CobraEuphoria that was a airbus a320, not a boeing 737-800, which does not have a RAT (Ram Air Turbine)
@ it has 60 min of back up battery power. My point is dual engine failure in a modern airliners regardless does not cripple its electrical or hydraulic systems. They also had the apu available
Thank you for the level of detail and effort you put into the research for this video, really interesting stuff
We will have to wait for the NTSB and Boeing to do their investigation, which may take months before it is completed, before we know what the causes were of this disaster. In the meanwhile I will provide the NTSB and Boeing with your expert comments made in relation to video and the cause of the crash.
I wasn’t expecting 2 crashes in 1 week
Two short questions: 1. Why don't we have a full conversation with the ATC where the pilots indicate the malfunction on board 2. Why did the tracking suddenly stop ?
And assuming the plane only had one engine working, why they didn't it land as written in the book and chose to landing in the middle of the runway?
No flaps meant they came in faster and suffered much more ground effect than they likely anticipated
@@vladimus9749 Max weight 737-800 145 knots full flaps, 200 knots no flap landing speed!
@@automaton450 wow, that's way higher than I would have expected! I doubt they would have stopped even with the full length of the runway, though the crash would have been slower.
@@vladimus9749 They probably weren’t max weight as they were at the end of the flight, but max or close to max passengers. They must have known the flaps were up, they kept it above stall speed. Reportedly they contacted the runway at 2100 meters, only 700 meters left to slow down on. I guess they were warned about bird activity on final approach, the only thing pilots can do in that case is abort the approach. If there were enough birds to be a concern, I would expect the runway to be closed until the birds are dispersed or leave on their own.
Congrats Swiss001 on an unbiased and extremely well detailed interim analysis...... wish there were more people like you.
The pilot did everything they could to save everyone on the plane, but those barriers ultimately killed everyone. The people who made those barriers should be held accountable.
The pilots apparently screwed up nearly everything they could. They are far more responsible than the barriers. The barriers should go for sure though.
Best analysis i've seen. Thank you
KLM overrun: Am i A JoKe tO YoU
That was overran ,this flight had a WALL at the end of the runway
Im so glad your informing us, thanks Swiss001 we wouldn't be here without your funny ass streams videos and your Swiss002 channel. Your the hold of the Aviation community and just about every aviation person I know watches you. I hope you reach 1 Million on day. Good day and probably night for you.
Swiss001 is the brand. Swiss001 is the man of the smart people. The people of Swiss001, they are very smart. I love Swiss001, United States of America.
Tf 😭😭😭?
TARQAL TARQAL
@@Smoozlits a guy from insta reels
lmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaao
@@SmoozlIt's a meme
I literally comented “waiting for the second video” thanks!
Pilot was probably panicking
When everyone puts in a bit more effort, mistakes can be mitigated. For example, if a pilot makes an error, but the plane can brake harder than the manual specifies, everything can still turn out fine. If a pilot makes a mistake and the plane is also damaged, the margin becomes smaller, but you can still manage if the runway is long enough. In this case, no one went that extra mile, and it ended in tears.
Let this be a lesson for everyone, whether in their job or personal life: always put in that extra 20% effort, and you’ll see that it pays off. Adding a buffer in everything you do makes a tremendous difference-it can even save lives.
Pareto principle: 20% effort=80% results
Swiss001 be using formal language and fancy words this week 😂
But seriously very informative and RIP to all the deaths that happened this week
Some 30 years ago, Sampoong Mall collapse due to similar shortsightedness mistake. It shows that some South Koreans never learned from these mistakes.
The landing was perfect. Pilots would have been hailed as heros, but the barrier is what made this successful landing a catastrophic disaster.
No they wouldn't, at the speed they were traveling without that berm/wall they would have exited the airport property and possibly hit the hotels and businesses beyond. Let's be honest, the pilots most likely made the disaster what it was - the localizer structure was just the abrupt ending of a string of poor decisions or an impossible situation.
IDIOT
🤡
@@southseasflying nearest building is 1km long,
@@southseasflyinginternational standard mentions there shouldn't be any obstruction after overrun area, whether it's a concrete barrier or buildings. There's no building out there, just a concrete barrier that shouldn't be there. Everyone in charge of building it should be jailed
good work you did your homework on this case.
The bird community surrounding the airport plus the unusual airport design should scare most passengers and pilots flying to/from this airport. RIP to the 179!
Imagine being on a plane back home to your country (in this case South Korea) and when your plane touches the ground you see it skidding along the runway knowing that you’ll die before the new year. Anybody blaming the captains is wrong (in my opinion) The captains tried their hardest to slow the plane down but unfortunately couldn’t stop it. The real culprit is the concrete wall at the end of the runway bcz honestly if it weren’t there the pilots would’ve managed to slow the plane down and save everyone on board. Rest in peace to everyone that lost their lives and their family for losing loved ones🕊️🪦💔
The recent tragic plane crash has raised serious concerns regarding pilot training and safety measures to prevent future incidents. The shocking event highlights the need for immediate action to enhance aviation safety protocols.
The best video airplane crash analysis that I have ever seen. Hope Korean government may see your video.
Strangest dual engine failure i've ever witnessed, especially when listening to the raw sound of the crash, jet engines screaming at full throttle
In my opinion the crew were panicked by a bird strike / compressor stall. The bird strike alone cannot cause the loss of all three hydraulic systems.
They then rushed into an unprepared landing without flaps, slats or landing gear. The botched belly landing I think was followed by an attempt to take off (Go Around)
This explains why the nose is always high - pulling back on the yoke - and why the engines are producing massive thrust (very loud) and why the plane is accelerating so fast.
They couldn't take off due to the resistance and short runway length remaining, and slammed into that reinforced concrete wall at high speed!!
You are one of the few people who have mentioned the engines screaming down the runway. I don't think #2 is in reverse thrust either, otherwise it would be yawing to the right. Probably cowling etc got damaged on runway impact.
Excellent reporting better than news outlets
Really well-done. I just subscribed. Very well-articulated as to the issues based on what we know right now.
Another possible assumption is that there were heavy smoke in the cockpit and/or possibly fire onboard.
That would also explained why the pilots opted for an immediate landing just after they made a decision to go around.
Smoke in the cockpit is every pilot’s worst nightmare…
This is a very real possibility
In the landing video there are a few frames where you can see through the cockpit windows seeing an arm up holding and the view is clear no smoke.
One survivor account did not mention in-cabin smoke.
@@Nick_the_Gold_Bach cabin air is fed in from a different engine than the cockpit. So usually you either get smoke in the cabin or smoke in the cockpit but not both.
@@HyeL lights will shine through smoke quite easily unless the smoke is extremely thick.
Also there is a recently discovered issue with 737 MAX with the leap engine when there is an engine problem, smoke from the engine will be fed directly inside the plane.
This is not 737 MAX and the engine is different but it is from the same engine manufacturer and perhaps they haven’t found out about this issue yet?
They only found that out like last month when a 737 MAX also had a bird strike and the pilots thought they were going to die due to smoke…