I was an engineer at Boeing as an IBMer and worked on the design of the 787. My test 787 plane was eventually done of the first to be delivered to ANA. The 737-800 does NOT have fuel dumping capabilities. Where do you find these people giving off incorrect information? My take is that everything was under control until they needlessly rushed the go-around, and did not have proper landing configs, e.g., landing gear down, flaps, etc. However, if there was smoke in the cockpit, then yes, immediate landing becomes a priority. The vortex effect, especially at initial landing speeds floated the plane to expend about 42% of the runway before touching down. Professor Ron Batsch is wrong,
NO you just need to blame the pilots like most everyone you are wrong they lost both engines and the battery was out of service low voltage is the only explanation for the transponder to stop transmitting and then it resumed transmitting because they were able to restart engine #2 but had no hydraulics at all so no flaps no air brakes and still landed perfectly because the 800 has redundant cables for the flight control surfaces these pilots did everything right
Another 787 pilot said exactly what you said, 'The vortex effect, especially at initial landing speeds floated the plane to expend about 42% of the runway before touching down' . I do think that the landing was strategic and smooth until they hit the wall.
@@stratocasterblueyou are talking total nonsense. They could not have aborted the first approach if they had lost both engines. Low voltage is not the only explanation for loss of transponder signal. If they hit a flock of birds as reported, it is perfectly feasible that the antenna was damaged. I do not know, but I do know that more than one possibility exists.
Concur your point having witnessed as an aircraft engineer a similar teardrop manouevre to void a heavy squall when the airliner hit the beach jNose leg first just ahead of the RW threshold and activted the inertia switches preventeing a power up go-around. It veered off the runway across grass/earth that had a high friction mu and larger aircraft/ground footprint. No casualities of 128 pax and 7 crew.
Shame on The Sun for giving this person air time. It’s not the first air accident he’s been spouting rubbish about. He clearly has little useful technical knowledge of aircraft or airport systems and putting forward theories and conspiracies before the full facts are available is IMHO very disrespectful to the crew and passengers who died. Nobody knows yet what this crew was dealing with in the very short time they had. Arm chair experts need to wait for the facts and stop guessing. I for one will vote with my feet and not visit this channel again.
This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. First off the berm had ILS antennas on it not “lights”. Secondly, the aircraft was a Boeing 737-800. He said it was built in 1994. The 737-800 didn’t go into service until 1998. This is nothing more than a clickbait video.
Yep you're 100% spot on there mate - this 'Julian Bray' fella is absolutely clueless! The longer he rambled, the more apparent his lack of basic aviation knowledge became - _"Aviation Expert"_ my arse! ✈🧠❌ 🤡✅ 😂😂
This guy is presented to us as anaviation expert? He is not even proficient regarding terminology. And he also does not seem to have made any serious efforts to gather the facts that are already in public domain. His sinister speculations regarding an explosion inside the aircraft are baseless and complete and utter BS.
@matthiasarcari1132 You apparently didn't watch the video before you commented. Towards the end he said there's notbing sinister, once it happened (the fireball) it was a quick end. Earlier he said for some reason the crew didn't fly around to spend the fuel, otherwise no fireball.
@@iemranjuffri4827….this Julian Bray is a total sciolist. He already speculated they may have been operating with only one pilot - truly absurd. He thinks the fan blades are made of “carbon steel”. Those two early errors in his commentary immediately marked him out to me as a charlatan. He believes that having the gear up creates “a bubble of air” under the airplane, for some reason. “We worked this one out” - referring to the extreme float during landing. That has been a known result of ground effect since the 1920s, so I’m fairly confident he didn’t help work it. He doesn’t understand it anyway because it isn’t due to a “bubble of air”. If you are tempted to think a bubble of air explains this float, then think on why ground effect works the other way round on a Grand Prix car with its flat bottom. He thinks the ILS localiser antennas are “the locator landing light system”. This is total nonsense. It is neither lights nor a locator (locator being jargon for a low powered NDB beacon and nothing to do with the ILS system). He substitutes “frissible” for the correct term any actual expert would use, namely, frangible. “1994 this one was built”. Wrong. The first 737 NG did not enter service until 1997, as any real expert would remember. This particular airframe dates from 2009. “Normally you try and burn as much fuel as possible”. Not a priority at the end of a long haul flight though. Fuel jettison is for landing weight not mitigation of fire. The question that should come to mind is why didn’t they use the fuel reserve to divert to a longer, safer, runway, not why didn’t they fly round in circles burning it off. This guy has zero insight. He is blowing smoke.
@@tcm4730 as someone with a pilot"s licence i can definitly say that this guy does not know whqt he is talking about. Takes localizer antenna for lights etc.
I hope the guy who ordered the concrete wall is still around just so he can see what a dumb clueless idea that was . Infact he needs to be put in prison for rest of his life
Definitely that is the sinister part. It was possibly designed for that exact purpose. There is no reason from an engineering standpoint for the antenna to be on a 4m reinforced concrete berm you can just mount them on breakaway mounts. There are resorts located 1250ft from the berm. If the plane overruns into the resorts there is an even bigger legal mess. Someone made these decisions...
Not just who ordered it but anyone who had a say in the matter and let it happen. Basically if it was known for the ATC and they didnt at least warn the crew they too should be held accountable. Was this in the "flight charts" (or whatever they are called) that any emergency landing should only be taken to the direction away from the berm? If not, whoever put together that flight chart should be considered one of those potentially guilty of this.
The berm was within regulation. It was noted that it might have been build due to flooding. Salt water and metal don’t exactly play nice together. In hindsight was it in the worst spot in this situation, well yes. There are other airports that have far worst obstacles at the ends of their runways.
@@kevintrabert1922 they are grasping for reasons to justify the existence of the berm. There is no justification. It was designed to be a plane exploder. It worked exactly as designed. If saltwater is a concern you reinforce the mounts with concrete on the outside to prevent exposure. This would be similar to bridge foundations over a saltwater body. These mounts can be concrete and designed to breakaway. You do not need a concrete reinforced 2-4m berm to hold up antenna. Something being within regulation or having an "official" reason does not mean there are "unofficial" reasons like protecting resorts. That plane would have traveled the 1200ft and hit the resorts instead it was a self contained explosion in the airport.
I saw smoke puff out of both engines. A video of plane almost above a person filming it….if you look closely, before right engine smoke, left engine gave a puff of smoke also!
If the engine is unstable and the Pilot moves the thrust lever, that to can cause a compressor stall and puff of smoke. So this video could be moments AFTER the bird strike, we will find out soon enough.
Others noticed that too. It's possible there were multiple bird strikes. Plan A was to go around. If the second engine also had issues that might explain their change in plan. Some 737 pilots also conjectured that if they wanted to land as soon as possible (as might be the case if both engines were impaired) they might also be concerned about being able to reach the runway. They were already low and a 180 turn would lose more height. That might be a reason not to lower the gear or flaps as that would seriously impact their glide slope. Meaning they might not reach the runway. Without gear and flaps might make it difficult, with gear and flaps might make it impossible. There are hundreds of possibilities and some pretty bizarre 'theories'. I'm surprised aliens hasn't been suggested more often (yet). The most useful speculation I've seen is from 737 pilots but they are wise enough to know what they don't know and point out it's just that, speculation. We will know once the investigation is complete. Meanwhile we'll have 10% informed speculation and 90% internet foolishness.
If there was a proper run off zone with sand or gravel without any obstructions I’m sure most passengers would have survived. Anyone that watches motor racing will know that on dangerous high speed bends there are run off zones for driver safety.
There was a 200 metre runoff area. Also, the runway was a good 50% more than need for a 737. It was a regional airport until December 8th with plans to extend the runway.
That Julian Bray is no expert, not even close. It is astonishing that The Sun keeps wheeling him out, but that is tabloid journalism for you. More clicks if you find a willing MxExpert whose speculation is not constrained by professional knowledge of aeronautics.
Pretty much the case. It's silly speculation based on nothing I can fathom. I think the pilots panicked and shut down the number one engine by mistake. It was the number 2 that took the bird strike and it was still delivering some power on landing because it had the thrust reverser engaged. The other thing is that it floated in ground effect for ages, made worse by the undercarriage not being extended.
@grahamstevenson1740 Yes, you can see on the video that it floated belly landing I've seen on the left side of the plane smokes hard, almost catching on fire when approaching at the end close to the concrete
@@user-vb8kq4xt8t The landing gear not being deployed meant it stayed in ground effect longer than otherwise, also because of the no flaps landing speed would have been higher too. Just everything here made it worse than it needed to have been.
There are plenty of unexplained annomalies before reaching the concrete wall... - Why were there not any further comms between the plane and ATC? - If they lost control and power, for bird-strike or whatever other reason to make them "Go around", how did they manage to make a 180º degrees turn and land in record time...? - If they had no hydraulics, how they managed to align the airplane with the runway? - If they were to land with head-wind, why chosing to land with tail-wind that would extend miserably the distance until full stop? - If they HAD hydraulics, why did they not had landing gear/flaps/slats/spoilers? - Would it not have been better to land on water, that they had a few hundred meters away, with no limitations of distance? - What ACTUALLY HAPPENED?????
I can answer your questions, #1 comms between the plane and ATC stopped probably due to the stres of the pilots and also i highly doubt they werent communicating with ATC theres nothing saying they werent, until they touched ground #2 a bird strike is demobilizing yes, small birds arent going to blow up a engine, its just slowly losing capabilities, the usual amount of time a plane has with a broken engine is 30-50 minutes where it can still perform basic functions like turning #3 even without hydraulic power, the auto pilot and skill of the pilot can still align with the runway, was by any means perfect? No , buts its possible #4 if they continued with head wind the plane could stall and collapse, its kinda like wanting to brake a skateboard, you can but you would want it to drag out so its stops optimized #5 even with hydraulic the thrust and speed wouldnt of stopped the movement of the speed at all very much, they were doomed with the wall #6 this is idiotic, first of all even landing on water is not safe, man passangers could of drowned, but mainly the engines were failing so the pilot only had 30 minutes max to move the plane if he had chose to go land on water the engines could of failed over a town and killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, so this makes no sense
You should listen what korea pilot talking about, 2 egine is broken, they turned around because there is something also…and the pilot try his best to save everyone, but it seem the pilot mistaken about the localizer, that concrete wall is hide behind mound of earth…even korea pilot is shock about this…after that korea citizen found out that six AirPort in korea using same as muan, and after that they begin to break their concreet wall under localizer…and muan AirPort is not meet the standart from the start they built….the pilot is try his best and did a good job with belly landing…..and learn abaout jeju airline, they also have problem before…..the pilot also become a victim of the management indiifference
I do not know if this applies, but on January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 made an emergency water landing in the Hudson River - and all 155 people onboard survived. I would have not rushed my landing. It was a night flight, so maybe they were tired. On January 15, 2009, the Airbus A320 serving the flight struck a flock of birds shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia, losing all engine power. Given their position in relation to the available airports and their low altitude, pilots Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles decided to glide the plane to ditching on the Hudson River near Midtown Manhattan. All 155 people on board were rescued by nearby boats. There were no fatalities, although 100 people were injured, 5 of them seriously. The time from the bird strike to the ditching was less than four minutes.
Engine was 'closed down'? Taken out of commission? Locator landing light system? What the hell is that? A lot of non-aviation terminology from your expert. I know you have to dumb it down but really? Discharge/dump fuel? On a 73! What is he talking about?
…he has no idea what he is talking about. It was incoherent. He is an expert in the same way that Biden was sharp as a bell according to The Whitehouse.
Remember them saying they lost all contact and transponder when they struck the birds that means both engine generators stopped and the backup battery was out of service it had to have failed also for the transponder to stop transmitting and they lost all hydraulics from both system a and b because both engines stalled you can see more than ten white birds on both sides of the plane and the witness who filmed it heard 2 or 3 loud bangs that is both engines stalling. No hydraulics from a because no left engine and no pressure from system b because a cut line near the pump when birds bent or broke a blade and a piece hitting the line cutting it at the pump before any fuses and it explains why you can see a dark plume of liquid right next to the white cloud, So no hydraulics no flaps no air brakes and no power they were a glider and you can see a lot of damage on the right engine in the approach video. They were able to restart the right engine because you can see a heat plume behind that engine about 10 feet before the landing but no heat behind the left engine and they still landed perfectly using the backup flight control cable system for the three control surfaces Elevator, Rudder and ailerons awesome pilots so they opted for a wheels up landing knowing they would stop a lot faster than rolling on wheels with no hydraulic brakes and might have even thought that dirt berm would help slow them down safely how could they know it was loaded with 2 foot thick concrete foundation. I think they are going to find a broken blade, A cut hydraulic line on the right engine and a battery with no voltage. All my best to the families and everyone involved.
@@grahamstevenson1740 So you expect us to believe your words are somehow magical because you are all seeing and all knowing and don't need to provide any explanation. The transponder stopped transmitting.
@@stratocasterblue this was what got my attention the most: The transponder stopped at 8:58:xx. BUT nobody seems to ask questions about that event; I think more and more that this stoppage hints to the primordial reason for all systems failing: the electrics were fatally damaged or at least electrics were malfunctioning in a scenario not taken into account (electric circuits can behave weird; e g there is aging of the elec components) a shard of the engine cutting tru the wing, very rare but there has been a few cases
So it's strange that they raised the landing gear and the flaps when they decided to do a go around. That requires functioning hydraulics, so bang goes your theory.
@@PerteTotale What would cause them to lose all power and no transponder unless both engine generators failed and the battery was out of service also, A flight in Washington hit a flock of birds on takeoff with 150 passengers and seized both engines and luckily there was the big wide icy river Hudson right there so everyone survived and an A-10 hit a bird and it bent a blade cutting hydraulics and he went down in a neighborhood shortly after.
Earlier on, in one of the previous videos posted by this channel, this same expert said that the landing gear could have been compromised by the bird strike or words to that effect. He appears to have distanced himself from that theory which made no sense at the time. We have heard that the landing gear had been lowered during the first landing attempt. The question is why it couldn’t have been lowered again during the second attempt. Could it have been jammed as it was being pulled back or was there an oversight on the part of the pilots who failed to pull the manual lever that would have otherwise enabled the lowering of the landing gear without electricity or hydraulics?
Ok. If that’s the case, I can think of only four possibilities: they forgot to lower the landing gear (not likely) ; they didn’t have time to lower the landing gear; the landing gear was physically jammed or they deliberately chose to land in the way that they did due to some unexplained reason.
Here's a theory for this expert. The plane was on a fully stabilized approach to runway 01, with landing gear and flaps deployed. They suffered a birdstrike, which may have compromised one or even both engines. It's possible this caused smoke in the cockpit or the cabin, perhaps even an engine fire. In those circumstances, you should land ASAP. Instead, they did a go around, retracting both the landing gear and flaps, both of which require functioning hydraulics. After making what is commonly referred to as "the impossible turn", they touched down 1200m along runway 19 at an estimated 180kts, without flaps or landing gear. The #2 engine thrust reverser was deployed, and that requires functioning hydraulics. Conclusion - the flight crew panicked, omitted to run thru any checklists and caused the death of 179 souls.
This is a terribly inaccurate commentary The pilots did declare a mayday. The engine with compressor stall was still producing power as on the ground the thrust reversers deployed. Question is did they lose or incorrectly shut down engine #1? Why no flaps or gear down? Even if both engines are out flaps and gear can be deployed in a 737 ng
The evidence thus far shows the Lubitz theory cannot be ruled out. This Jeju plane deliberately flew around the runway to land in the opposite direction, heading directly towards the berm at full speed landing halfway down the runway with no air brakes, flaps, or wheels engaged to slow it down. It hit the berm like an intended target and the berm did what it was designed to do. May God rest their souls and reveal what truly happened in this tragedy.
How did this "aviation expert" omit to see lack of thrust from the left engine on landing? Thrust was evident from the right engine (cripled due a bird strike) as the aircraft had a yaw to the left on approach. Time will most likely tell that in the confusion of the go-around the crew possibly shut down the left engine by mistake, basically leaving the aircraft as nothing more than a glider with just idle thrust from the right engine.
The boring theory, from experience: Minute -7, bird advisory; landing gear lowered. Minute -5, bird strike, right engine, captain takes over from first officer; Minute -3, too high and fast to land, go around initiated, landing gear raised, flaps retracted; Minute -2, left engine mistakenly shut down; Seconds -60, too tight of a turn to runway, landing gear not lowered (overlooked?), flaps not set for landing; Seconds -20 speed too high, ground effect preventing touch-down; thrust reverser engaged for right (bad) engine, touch-down in middle of runway, no real braking capacity from any source...Seconds 0, contact with improperly constructed (non-frangible) guidance antenna.
The pilots knew that they landed the aircraft on a wrong place on the runway , with gears down or belly landing ,they did not had a choice no power in the engines for go around,they thought that the reverse thrust will stop the aircraft , they should use the rudder left or right to avoid colition with the wall they were to fast on the ground effect
I want to point out there is a resort located 1250 or so feet from the berm they built. There is no reason for the berm to be there which every expert I have seen is pointing out. There is a more sinister reason that would not be officially stated. It was built that way to protect the resorts by incinerating any runaway airplanes right before they leave the airport. This prevents a huge legal mess. Someone made these decisions and that is the sinister part.
This guy is an absolute flogger, has no idea what he is talking about. Conflicts himself with his own thinking. Better that he just shuts up and leave it too the professionals
One late blog of the incident highlighted the fact that this was the first time the airport was used for international flight since it reopened on 24th December. He put into question the air traffic controllers' proficiency. Perhaps if that air traffic controller didn't highlight bird risks while the plane was landing, the crew would have just gone on and landed the plane the first time around.. with landing gears.
MR. SCHOUMACHER !!! Did you not stop to think for one nanosecond what would happen to Corporate Media, RUclips, if they had your attitude? 👍👍 As a pilot I am guilty of giving my two pennies worth. But only after I listened to real experts and researched. I think that the flow chart of events with a "yes", "no" at each box is going to leave us with our heads shaking. R.I.P. for those who didn't make it.
I hate to say this but that is exactly what a airplane crash should look like. I know of one or two accidents 'yeears' ago that was suppose to be a major airplane crash but what they showed us was anything but what we see here. What they showed us of the crashes on the news, almost 24/7, was no airplane debris anywhere. To this day I do not understand why they did that. I hate that this happened to the people of South Korea and will remember them when I pray.
The localizer installation referred to as the “wall” or the “berm” isn’t just a concrete slab on top of a embankment made of soil. Under that soil embankment are 19 solid concrete pillars in H x W x L measurements of 1.9m x 0.3m x 2.3m. And the concrete cap/slab everyone is talking about is built on top of the 19 pillars with H x W x L measurement of 0.3m x 42m x 4.2m. It was almost designed with a concept of withstanding an impact rather than being frangible and thus the reason why it’s become a problem.
If built like that, it was meant to stop a plane. Someone did a risk assessment and estimated the probability of this accident ever happening was very low. It is worth noting the other end of the runway does not have this berm.
@ You know a plane running into a localizer happens but is very rare when you take the number of flights into consideration. But that doesn’t mean they should disregard regulation and let alone do the exact opposite. Wouldn’t you agree?
You are correct. It's designed to stop a plane, knowing full well that stopping a plane this way will seriously injure or kill those on it. Whatever a plane does, the maker of that barricade wanted to make sure that it will not make it outside the airport's perimeter, regardless of injuries or deaths. @@CreativeRC2
Preliminary indications are that a routine, survivable emergency procedure (bird strike & single engine landing) was botched. Possibly they forgot to put the gear back down after the go-around.
This is exclusively BAD, it ended up hugely entertaining/engaging. Explosions on board Lights gone out in the plane on landing - All aircrafts do that on landing. Big hole at end of the wing - where is the evidence from the video? Scientific formula - air bubble and air pocket under the fuselage. Can't he say he turned too early? Fuel dumping on 737-800 possible? All experts say no. Hypothesis of In flight incident - he contradicted himself saying the air attendants did not notice anything. Brace position - Other "experts" say the pilot did not issue a crash warning. Such experts only bring more pain the the bereaved. Condolences.
Two "surviving" flight attendants were in their rear facing seats which are at the extreme back of the aircraft. They were both extracted by fire rescue according to some reports, so their actual physical state is a question mark.
Most likely scenario is they shut down the wrong engine that would explain a lot of what happened with flaps and gear . Add in the stupidity of having a concrete wall at the end of the runway you’ve git a disaster. The sad thing is the pilot actually did a nice job off getting it down with that configuration but the shorter runway from construction work and ground effect just didn’t leave them enough room. Red eye flight the pilots were probably tired as can be and just mixed up which engine was down. It’s happened before
If he was flying on one engine then a sudden teardrop manouvre will seriously compromise flight at such a low altitude. If it was a single engine landing than entering a teardrop probably needed rudder deflection to ensure authorative control and the filmed RW19 approach appeared controlled ie centrally straight lined up with a slight nose up (AoA) attitude. Landing almost halfway down the runway with a small metal/ground footprint of centre fuselage/wing and engine nacelles and low mu metal/hard standing (LCN) meant it maintained high kinetic energy that could not be shed quick enough. The critical manoeuvre was the exection and timing of the teardrop.
My biggest concern is how we are going to survive all these financial and political crises, especially the power struggle in the US. The government has really made things difficult for its citizens and we cannot just sit by and suffer the consequences of bad governance🙏...,
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of information can be a big hurdle. I've been making more than $21k passively by just going into crypto investment , and I don't have to do much work. Inflation or no inflation, my finances remain secure. So I really don't blame people who panic.
I am new to the crypto world and don't understand how it really works. A friend told me trading with a professional trader is the best strategy for beginners and busy investors, but for months now I've been making so research and haven't found any.please any recommendations
It was a long flight at 2171.3 nm. If the wind direction had changed, the landing clearance was to come in on RWY 19. The bird strike may have damaged the drive to the hydraulic pump on the gearbox to the B system that operates flaperons, but not the landing gear, so we can assume they were coming in to fast. Hesitation on speeds may have caused confusion as to a go around, so after such a long haul flights they decided to land. Hesitation could have been the cause of pilot error!!
Personal pronouns when discussing the pilots of this doomed aircraft ... really? Also, how does an "expert" claim the aircraft was not old, citing 1994 as the time it was built? Well, he confused the. launch date for the 737-800 series with the actual age of the individual 737-800 in question, which was 15 years I believe.
Rather interviews with other pilots are asking what could have happened on board to make the pilots need to get down so fast? However, I doubt this was a suicide as there more assured ways and schemes for a pilot to crash a plane.
Why did they do that crazy 180 turn to land down wind the only possibility is they had no working engines if they had a working engine the procedure is to climb to a safe altitude and prepare for a single engine landing. So what happens you loose electric power and only limited systems an electric emergency flaps switch that's very slow and is battery powered the gear needs to free fall it all takes time they didn't have. I think the no2 engine was still working but producing no thrust.
The Sun back at what they're infamous for doing. Baiting drama engagement out of every single tragedy. Largely one of the most disgusting "media" channels out there.
There seems to be a number of factors. From what I've read, the day before the crash, the plane landed for an emergency after squawking 7700. I don't know the full reasons, some said it was a rowdy passenger. Others said it was the hydraulic issues. Maybe that explains no gear being down? Was there a bird strike? If so, no landing gear and a bird strike would cause panic. Hard not to in that situation. The final factor was the runway? The structure at the end meant it was not favourable for any emergency landing, never mind a belly landing. We can only speculate.
The report I saw said the previous emergency was a medical one. Their mayday explicitly said birdstrike and prior to it there was a birdstrike warning from the tower. Lowering gear and flaps would greatly reduce the glide slope meaning they might not have even reached the runway. So it might not have been failure, error, or panic, but a deliberate choice. The least worse of two very bad options. We will find out once they have completed the investigation.
I really appreciate your efforts! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
He landed 'long' being concerned with the engine mounts breaking away and the engines disconnecting and striking the wing and initiating a fire from wing fuel.
Sir, what I fail to understand is how you and other idiots are volunteering opinions over an accident in which no one is aware of the truth and even after the investigation is over the reports will be sanitised and doctored. It is all done with the intention of making money. Shame on those unscrupulous creatures which should be put behind bars for such actions.
I think it’s just a matter of the keeping the conversation going until the black box data is revealed and also for everyone to understand the baseline of the event. Silence doesn’t really do justice for the families of victims.
This so-called expert offers NOTHING that hasn't been covered in-depth on other channels with much keener insight and less speculation. GARBAGE!
I was an engineer at Boeing as an IBMer and worked on the design of the 787. My test 787 plane was eventually done of the first to be delivered to ANA. The 737-800 does NOT have fuel dumping capabilities. Where do you find these people giving off incorrect information? My take is that everything was under control until they needlessly rushed the go-around, and did not have proper landing configs, e.g., landing gear down, flaps, etc. However, if there was smoke in the cockpit, then yes, immediate landing becomes a priority. The vortex effect, especially at initial landing speeds floated the plane to expend about 42% of the runway before touching down. Professor Ron Batsch is wrong,
NO you just need to blame the pilots like most everyone you are wrong they lost both engines and the battery was out of service low voltage is the only explanation for the transponder to stop transmitting and then it resumed transmitting because they were able to restart engine #2 but had no hydraulics at all so no flaps no air brakes and still landed perfectly because the 800 has redundant cables for the flight control surfaces these pilots did everything right
Another 787 pilot said exactly what you said, 'The vortex effect, especially at initial landing speeds floated the plane to expend about 42% of the runway before touching down' . I do think that the landing was strategic and smooth until they hit the wall.
@@stratocasterblueyou are talking total nonsense. They could not have aborted the first approach if they had lost both engines. Low voltage is not the only explanation for loss of transponder signal. If they hit a flock of birds as reported, it is perfectly feasible that the antenna was damaged. I do not know, but I do know that more than one possibility exists.
Concur your point having witnessed as an aircraft engineer a similar teardrop manouevre to void a heavy squall when the airliner hit the beach jNose leg first just ahead of the RW threshold and activted the inertia switches preventeing a power up go-around. It veered off the runway across grass/earth that had a high friction mu and larger aircraft/ground footprint. No casualities of 128 pax and 7 crew.
@@XPLAlN The transponder resumed transmitting explain yourself
Where do they find these people to drag out as 'experts'. Insufferable to listen to his claptrap.
Shame on The Sun for giving this person air time. It’s not the first air accident he’s been spouting rubbish about. He clearly has little useful technical knowledge of aircraft or airport systems and putting forward theories and conspiracies before the full facts are available is IMHO very disrespectful to the crew and passengers who died. Nobody knows yet what this crew was dealing with in the very short time they had. Arm chair experts need to wait for the facts and stop guessing. I for one will vote with my feet and not visit this channel again.
This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
First off the berm had ILS antennas on it not “lights”. Secondly, the aircraft was a Boeing 737-800. He said it was built in 1994. The 737-800 didn’t go into service until 1998. This is nothing more than a clickbait video.
He does know ? He knows it all about F/A lol
He is a complete idiot. Carbon fibre, carbon steel…. Nacelles withstand fan blade out
He’s a complete idiot. Carbon fibre, carbon steel…. A fan blade out would be contain within the nacelle
Yep you're 100% spot on there mate - this 'Julian Bray' fella is absolutely clueless!
The longer he rambled, the more apparent his lack of basic aviation knowledge became - _"Aviation Expert"_ my arse! ✈🧠❌ 🤡✅ 😂😂
This particular plane involved, was built in 2009.
They should close this airport down.
It should be/ is closed for 3 weeks min. for investigation and clean up.
but airport should never be classified as international
@@PerteTotalewhat does it being international have to do with anything.
This guy is presented to us as anaviation expert? He is not even proficient regarding terminology. And he also does not seem to have made any serious efforts to gather the facts that are already in public domain. His sinister speculations regarding an explosion inside the aircraft are baseless and complete and utter BS.
But YOU know it, right???
@matthiasarcari1132 You apparently didn't watch the video before you commented. Towards the end he said there's notbing sinister, once it happened (the fireball) it was a quick end. Earlier he said for some reason the crew didn't fly around to spend the fuel, otherwise no fireball.
@@iemranjuffri4827….this Julian Bray is a total sciolist. He already speculated they may have been operating with only one pilot - truly absurd. He thinks the fan blades are made of “carbon steel”. Those two early errors in his commentary immediately marked him out to me as a charlatan.
He believes that having the gear up creates “a bubble of air” under the airplane, for some reason. “We worked this one out” - referring to the extreme float during landing. That has been a known result of ground effect since the 1920s, so I’m fairly confident he didn’t help work it. He doesn’t understand it anyway because it isn’t due to a “bubble of air”. If you are tempted to think a bubble of air explains this float, then think on why ground effect works the other way round on a Grand Prix car with its flat bottom.
He thinks the ILS localiser antennas are “the locator landing light system”. This is total nonsense. It is neither lights nor a locator (locator being jargon for a low powered NDB beacon and nothing to do with the ILS system). He substitutes “frissible” for the correct term any actual expert would use, namely, frangible.
“1994 this one was built”. Wrong. The first 737 NG did not enter service until 1997, as any real expert would remember. This particular airframe dates from 2009.
“Normally you try and burn as much fuel as possible”. Not a priority at the end of a long haul flight though. Fuel jettison is for landing weight not mitigation of fire. The question that should come to mind is why didn’t they use the fuel reserve to divert to a longer, safer, runway, not why didn’t they fly round in circles burning it off.
This guy has zero insight. He is blowing smoke.
@@tcm4730 as someone with a pilot"s licence i can definitly say that this guy does not know whqt he is talking about. Takes localizer antenna for lights etc.
@@matthiasarcari1132 Probably because he is explaining it to the public where majority are not into aviation world.
This guy knows absolutely nothing. Get him off.
Pilot panicked is the most plausible explanation.
I sincerely hope there isn’t anything ‘sinister’ behind this horrendous event.
I hope the guy who ordered the concrete wall is still around just so he can see what a dumb clueless idea that was . Infact he needs to be put in prison for rest of his life
It wasn't a concrete wall, it was an earthen mound or 'berm' that the plane hit with the ILS mounted on it.
Definitely that is the sinister part. It was possibly designed for that exact purpose. There is no reason from an engineering standpoint for the antenna to be on a 4m reinforced concrete berm you can just mount them on breakaway mounts. There are resorts located 1250ft from the berm. If the plane overruns into the resorts there is an even bigger legal mess. Someone made these decisions...
Not just who ordered it but anyone who had a say in the matter and let it happen. Basically if it was known for the ATC and they didnt at least warn the crew they too should be held accountable. Was this in the "flight charts" (or whatever they are called) that any emergency landing should only be taken to the direction away from the berm? If not, whoever put together that flight chart should be considered one of those potentially guilty of this.
The berm was within regulation. It was noted that it might have been build due to flooding. Salt water and metal don’t exactly play nice together. In hindsight was it in the worst spot in this situation, well yes. There are other airports that have far worst obstacles at the ends of their runways.
@@kevintrabert1922 they are grasping for reasons to justify the existence of the berm. There is no justification. It was designed to be a plane exploder. It worked exactly as designed. If saltwater is a concern you reinforce the mounts with concrete on the outside to prevent exposure. This would be similar to bridge foundations over a saltwater body. These mounts can be concrete and designed to breakaway. You do not need a concrete reinforced 2-4m berm to hold up antenna. Something being within regulation or having an "official" reason does not mean there are "unofficial" reasons like protecting resorts. That plane would have traveled the 1200ft and hit the resorts instead it was a self contained explosion in the airport.
An aviation expert? From when? The early 20th century? 😂 Sounds like my grandpa reading Wikipedia.
I saw smoke puff out of both engines. A video of plane almost above a person filming it….if you look closely, before right engine smoke, left engine gave a puff of smoke also!
If the engine is unstable and the Pilot moves the thrust lever, that to can cause a compressor stall and puff of smoke. So this video could be moments AFTER the bird strike, we will find out soon enough.
So it wasn't necessarily the birds, the engines were old and outdated????
Others noticed that too. It's possible there were multiple bird strikes. Plan A was to go around. If the second engine also had issues that might explain their change in plan.
Some 737 pilots also conjectured that if they wanted to land as soon as possible (as might be the case if both engines were impaired) they might also be concerned about being able to reach the runway. They were already low and a 180 turn would lose more height. That might be a reason not to lower the gear or flaps as that would seriously impact their glide slope. Meaning they might not reach the runway. Without gear and flaps might make it difficult, with gear and flaps might make it impossible. There are hundreds of possibilities and some pretty bizarre 'theories'. I'm surprised aliens hasn't been suggested more often (yet). The most useful speculation I've seen is from 737 pilots but they are wise enough to know what they don't know and point out it's just that, speculation. We will know once the investigation is complete. Meanwhile we'll have 10% informed speculation and 90% internet foolishness.
I think you guys need to find yourselves another "expert".
The plane was built in 2009, not 1994.
Plane was build 2009, not 1994.
If there was a proper run off zone with sand or gravel without any obstructions I’m sure most passengers would have survived. Anyone that watches motor racing will know that on dangerous high speed bends there are run off zones for driver safety.
There was a 200 metre runoff area. Also, the runway was a good 50% more than need for a 737. It was a regional airport until December 8th with plans to extend the runway.
I now hear that they had planned to remove the concrete obstruction but were waiting on funds. So they knew it was a hazard.
That Julian Bray is no expert, not even close. It is astonishing that The Sun keeps wheeling him out, but that is tabloid journalism for you. More clicks if you find a willing MxExpert whose speculation is not constrained by professional knowledge of aeronautics.
Deepest condolences to all the family's in this 🙏
Nothing sinister here, pilot just touched down much too fast, leaving himself with no room to slow down after touchdown.
The pilot was panicked he raised his arms before he smashed the plane on a stupid concrete wall barrier.
Over shot the touch down zone, then "ground effect" prevented a quick landing.
Pretty much the case.
It's silly speculation based on nothing I can fathom. I think the pilots panicked and shut down the number one engine by mistake. It was the number 2 that took the bird strike and it was still delivering some power on landing because it had the thrust reverser engaged.
The other thing is that it floated in ground effect for ages, made worse by the undercarriage not being extended.
@grahamstevenson1740 Yes, you can see on the video that it floated belly landing I've seen on the left side of the plane smokes hard, almost catching on fire when approaching at the end close to the concrete
@@user-vb8kq4xt8t The landing gear not being deployed meant it stayed in ground effect longer than otherwise, also because of the no flaps landing speed would have been higher too. Just everything here made it worse than it needed to have been.
There are plenty of unexplained annomalies before reaching the concrete wall...
- Why were there not any further comms between the plane and ATC?
- If they lost control and power, for bird-strike or whatever other reason to make them "Go around", how did they manage to make a 180º degrees turn and land in record time...?
- If they had no hydraulics, how they managed to align the airplane with the runway?
- If they were to land with head-wind, why chosing to land with tail-wind that would extend miserably the distance until full stop?
- If they HAD hydraulics, why did they not had landing gear/flaps/slats/spoilers?
- Would it not have been better to land on water, that they had a few hundred meters away, with no limitations of distance?
- What ACTUALLY HAPPENED?????
The first second I saw the video I knew something was odd... Straight from the twilight zone.
I can answer your questions,
#1 comms between the plane and ATC stopped probably due to the stres of the pilots and also i highly doubt they werent communicating with ATC theres nothing saying they werent, until they touched ground
#2 a bird strike is demobilizing yes, small birds arent going to blow up a engine, its just slowly losing capabilities, the usual amount of time a plane has with a broken engine is 30-50 minutes where it can still perform basic functions like turning
#3 even without hydraulic power, the auto pilot and skill of the pilot can still align with the runway, was by any means perfect? No , buts its possible
#4 if they continued with head wind the plane could stall and collapse, its kinda like wanting to brake a skateboard, you can but you would want it to drag out so its stops optimized
#5 even with hydraulic the thrust and speed wouldnt of stopped the movement of the speed at all very much, they were doomed with the wall
#6 this is idiotic, first of all even landing on water is not safe, man passangers could of drowned, but mainly the engines were failing so the pilot only had 30 minutes max to move the plane if he had chose to go land on water the engines could of failed over a town and killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, so this makes no sense
You should listen what korea pilot talking about, 2 egine is broken, they turned around because there is something also…and the pilot try his best to save everyone, but it seem the pilot mistaken about the localizer, that concrete wall is hide behind mound of earth…even korea pilot is shock about this…after that korea citizen found out that six AirPort in korea using same as muan, and after that they begin to break their concreet wall under localizer…and muan AirPort is not meet the standart from the start they built….the pilot is try his best and did a good job with belly landing…..and learn abaout jeju airline, they also have problem before…..the pilot also become a victim of the management indiifference
I do not know if this applies, but on January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 made an emergency water landing in the Hudson River - and all 155 people onboard survived. I would have not rushed my landing. It was a night flight, so maybe they were tired.
On January 15, 2009, the Airbus A320 serving the flight struck a flock of birds shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia, losing all engine power. Given their position in relation to the available airports and their low altitude, pilots Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles decided to glide the plane to ditching on the Hudson River near Midtown Manhattan. All 155 people on board were rescued by nearby boats. There were no fatalities, although 100 people were injured, 5 of them seriously. The time from the bird strike to the ditching was less than four minutes.
@@cspaulin you know that shouldn't happen... a plane is not a bus...
Engine was 'closed down'? Taken out of commission? Locator landing light system? What the hell is that? A lot of non-aviation terminology from your expert. I know you have to dumb it down but really? Discharge/dump fuel? On a 73! What is he talking about?
…he has no idea what he is talking about. It was incoherent. He is an expert in the same way that Biden was sharp as a bell according to The Whitehouse.
Remember them saying they lost all contact and transponder when they struck the birds that means both engine generators stopped and the backup battery was out of service it had to have failed also for the transponder to stop transmitting and they lost all hydraulics from both system a and b because both engines stalled you can see more than ten white birds on both sides of the plane and the witness who filmed it heard 2 or 3 loud bangs that is both engines stalling. No hydraulics from a because no left engine and no pressure from system b because a cut line near the pump when birds bent or broke a blade and a piece hitting the line cutting it at the pump before any fuses and it explains why you can see a dark plume of liquid right next to the white cloud, So no hydraulics no flaps no air brakes and no power they were a glider and you can see a lot of damage on the right engine in the approach video.
They were able to restart the right engine because you can see a heat plume behind that engine about 10 feet before the landing but no heat behind the left engine and they still landed perfectly using the backup flight control cable system for the three control surfaces Elevator, Rudder and ailerons awesome pilots so they opted for a wheels up landing knowing they would stop a lot faster than rolling on wheels with no hydraulic brakes and might have even thought that dirt berm would help slow them down safely how could they know it was loaded with 2 foot thick concrete foundation.
I think they are going to find a broken blade, A cut hydraulic line on the right engine and a battery with no voltage. All my best to the families and everyone involved.
You don't lose the transponder from a bird strike ! Just a bunch of idiots here taking complete nonsense.
@@grahamstevenson1740 So you expect us to believe your words are somehow magical because you are all seeing and all knowing and don't need to provide any explanation.
The transponder stopped transmitting.
@@stratocasterblue this was what got my attention the most: The transponder stopped at 8:58:xx.
BUT nobody seems to ask questions about that event;
I think more and more that this stoppage hints to the primordial reason for all systems failing: the electrics were fatally damaged
or at least electrics were malfunctioning in a scenario not taken into account (electric circuits can behave weird; e g there is aging of the elec components)
a shard of the engine cutting tru the wing, very rare but there has been a few cases
So it's strange that they raised the landing gear and the flaps when they decided to do a go around. That requires functioning hydraulics, so bang goes your theory.
@@PerteTotale What would cause them to lose all power and no transponder unless both engine generators failed and the battery was out of service also, A flight in Washington hit a flock of birds on takeoff with 150 passengers and seized both engines and luckily there was the big wide icy river Hudson right there so everyone survived and an A-10 hit a bird and it bent a blade cutting hydraulics and he went down in a neighborhood shortly after.
Total crap from a crap newspaper !
Earlier on, in one of the previous videos posted by this channel, this same expert said that the landing gear could have been compromised by the bird strike or words to that effect. He appears to have distanced himself from that theory which made no sense at the time.
We have heard that the landing gear had been lowered during the first landing attempt. The question is why it couldn’t have been lowered again during the second attempt. Could it have been jammed as it was being pulled back or was there an oversight on the part of the pilots who failed to pull the manual lever that would have otherwise enabled the lowering of the landing gear without electricity or hydraulics?
Since they were able to deploy the #2 engine thrust reverser, they must have had functioning hydraulics.
Ok. If that’s the case, I can think of only four possibilities: they forgot to lower the landing gear (not likely) ; they didn’t have time to lower the landing gear; the landing gear was physically jammed or they deliberately chose to land in the way that they did due to some unexplained reason.
Russian hybrid warfare? Gift to Kim Jong Un for sending troops
Do you know there's both a North and South Korea?
So your saying the Thai had no right to fly to JEJU?
@@Ann-hm7gj It wasn't flying to Jeju
How did he have an engine reverser deployed?
Indeed Sir
Because the damaged engine was still running, you can even hear it.
@Gwaredd86 shouldn't be able to reverse unless gear was down and compressed?
No the 737-800 and 737-max you have to be 10 feet above the ground to deploy them
It was deployed, and to do that, you have to have functioning hydraulics.
Here's a theory for this expert. The plane was on a fully stabilized approach to runway 01, with landing gear and flaps deployed. They suffered a birdstrike, which may have compromised one or even both engines. It's possible this caused smoke in the cockpit or the cabin, perhaps even an engine fire. In those circumstances, you should land ASAP. Instead, they did a go around, retracting both the landing gear and flaps, both of which require functioning hydraulics. After making what is commonly referred to as "the impossible turn", they touched down 1200m along runway 19 at an estimated 180kts, without flaps or landing gear. The #2 engine thrust reverser was deployed, and that requires functioning hydraulics. Conclusion - the flight crew panicked, omitted to run thru any checklists and caused the death of 179 souls.
That aircraft was a glider hence that crazy 180 turn to land down wind.
This is a terribly inaccurate commentary
The pilots did declare a mayday.
The engine with compressor stall was still producing power as on the ground the thrust reversers deployed.
Question is did they lose or incorrectly shut down engine #1?
Why no flaps or gear down?
Even if both engines are out flaps and gear can be deployed in a 737 ng
If there is a sinister motive, maybe it's like a South Korea Andreas Lubitz. That guy intentionally crashed into the Swiss Alps.
little Elenskyyy (Ukraine) Wants South Korean F-16's Operations from Romania. Exceptional Timings via CIA Operatives (Modus Operandi).
German pilot ... Therefore , in the horror championship he had lessons ...
The evidence thus far shows the Lubitz theory cannot be ruled out. This Jeju plane deliberately flew around the runway to land in the opposite direction, heading directly towards the berm at full speed landing halfway down the runway with no air brakes, flaps, or wheels engaged to slow it down. It hit the berm like an intended target and the berm did what it was designed to do. May God rest their souls and reveal what truly happened in this tragedy.
Why is this getting so much coverage unlike Azerbaijan Airlines crash 🤔
Maybe because the reasons about the Azerbaijan crash are pretty clear
How did this "aviation expert" omit to see lack of thrust from the left engine on landing? Thrust was evident from the right engine (cripled due a bird strike) as the aircraft had a yaw to the left on approach. Time will most likely tell that in the confusion of the go-around the crew possibly shut down the left engine by mistake, basically leaving the aircraft as nothing more than a glider with just idle thrust from the right engine.
The boring theory, from experience: Minute -7, bird advisory; landing gear lowered. Minute -5, bird strike, right engine, captain takes over from first officer; Minute -3, too high and fast to land, go around initiated, landing gear raised, flaps retracted; Minute -2, left engine mistakenly shut down; Seconds -60, too tight of a turn to runway, landing gear not lowered (overlooked?), flaps not set for landing; Seconds -20 speed too high, ground effect preventing touch-down; thrust reverser engaged for right (bad) engine, touch-down in middle of runway, no real braking capacity from any source...Seconds 0, contact with improperly constructed (non-frangible) guidance antenna.
The pilots knew that they landed the aircraft on a wrong place on the runway , with gears down or belly landing ,they did not had a choice no power in the engines for go around,they thought that the reverse thrust will stop the aircraft , they should use the rudder left or right to avoid colition with the wall they were to fast on the ground effect
A bird strike doesnt stop all landing gear from working, nor does it affect the runway surface.
I want to point out there is a resort located 1250 or so feet from the berm they built. There is no reason for the berm to be there which every expert I have seen is pointing out. There is a more sinister reason that would not be officially stated. It was built that way to protect the resorts by incinerating any runaway airplanes right before they leave the airport. This prevents a huge legal mess. Someone made these decisions and that is the sinister part.
This guy is an absolute flogger, has no idea what he is talking about. Conflicts himself with his own thinking. Better that he just shuts up and leave it too the professionals
One late blog of the incident highlighted the fact that this was the first time the airport was used for international flight since it reopened on 24th December. He put into question the air traffic
controllers' proficiency.
Perhaps if that air traffic controller didn't highlight bird risks while the plane was landing, the crew would have just gone on and landed the plane the first time around.. with landing gears.
I'll wait for the NTSB to conduct their investigation before coming to any conclusions.
MR. SCHOUMACHER !!! Did you not stop to think for one nanosecond what would happen to Corporate Media, RUclips, if they had your attitude? 👍👍 As a pilot I am guilty of giving my two pennies worth. But only after I listened to real experts and researched. I think that the flow chart of events with a "yes", "no" at each box is going to leave us with our heads shaking. R.I.P. for those who didn't make it.
I hate to say this but that is exactly what a airplane crash should look like. I know of one or two accidents 'yeears' ago that was suppose to be a major airplane crash but what they showed us was anything but what we see here. What they showed us of the crashes on the news, almost 24/7, was no airplane debris anywhere. To this day I do not understand why they did that.
I hate that this happened to the people of South Korea and will remember them when I pray.
Know exactly what you mean. I’ve been wondering about that as well. Suppose most folks are, at least those that question official narratives.
The localizer installation referred to as the “wall” or the “berm” isn’t just a concrete slab on top of a embankment made of soil. Under that soil embankment are 19 solid concrete pillars in H x W x L measurements of 1.9m x 0.3m x 2.3m. And the concrete cap/slab everyone is talking about is built on top of the 19 pillars with H x W x L measurement of 0.3m x 42m x 4.2m. It was almost designed with a concept of withstanding an impact rather than being frangible and thus the reason why it’s become a problem.
If built like that, it was meant to stop a plane. Someone did a risk assessment and estimated the probability of this accident ever happening was very low. It is worth noting the other end of the runway does not have this berm.
@ You know a plane running into a localizer happens but is very rare when you take the number of flights into consideration. But that doesn’t mean they should disregard regulation and let alone do the exact opposite. Wouldn’t you agree?
You are correct. It's designed to stop a plane, knowing full well that stopping a plane this way will seriously injure or kill those on it. Whatever a plane does, the maker of that barricade wanted to make sure that it will not make it outside the airport's perimeter, regardless of injuries or deaths. @@CreativeRC2
It's almost like a cheese grater!
Preliminary indications are that a routine, survivable emergency procedure (bird strike & single engine landing) was botched.
Possibly they forgot to put the gear back down after the go-around.
This is exclusively BAD, it ended up hugely entertaining/engaging.
Explosions on board
Lights gone out in the plane on landing - All aircrafts do that on landing.
Big hole at end of the wing - where is the evidence from the video?
Scientific formula - air bubble and air pocket under the fuselage. Can't he say he turned too early?
Fuel dumping on 737-800 possible? All experts say no.
Hypothesis of In flight incident - he contradicted himself saying the air attendants did not notice anything.
Brace position - Other "experts" say the pilot did not issue a crash warning.
Such experts only bring more pain the the bereaved. Condolences.
he is not Aviation expert Professor Ron Batsch
Goodnight all
nobody could survive in such collision, it is impossible in any miracle way. Who those two so called survivors? Cyborgs surrounded by living tissue
Two "surviving" flight attendants were in their rear facing seats which are at the extreme back of the aircraft. They were both extracted by fire rescue according to some reports, so their actual physical state is a question mark.
Two flight attendants in the furthest section of the plane and in a portion of the tail of the plane that broke off from the main fuselage.
Most likely scenario is they shut down the wrong engine that would explain a lot of what happened with flaps and gear . Add in the stupidity of having a concrete wall at the end of the runway you’ve git a disaster.
The sad thing is the pilot actually did a nice job off getting it down with that configuration but the shorter runway from construction work and ground effect just didn’t leave them enough room.
Red eye flight the pilots were probably tired as can be and just mixed up which engine was down. It’s happened before
Are you sure about the lighs? Lights ON know body at home more like lol.
If he was flying on one engine then a sudden teardrop manouvre will seriously compromise flight at such a low altitude. If it was a single engine landing than entering a teardrop probably needed rudder deflection to ensure authorative control and the filmed RW19 approach appeared controlled ie centrally straight lined up with a slight nose up (AoA) attitude. Landing almost halfway down the runway with a small metal/ground footprint of centre fuselage/wing and engine nacelles and low mu metal/hard standing (LCN) meant it maintained high kinetic energy that could not be shed quick enough. The critical manoeuvre was the exection and timing of the teardrop.
My biggest concern is how we are going to survive all these financial and political crises, especially the power struggle in the US. The government has really made things difficult for its citizens and we cannot just sit by and suffer the consequences of bad governance🙏...,
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of information can be a big hurdle. I've been making more than $21k passively by just going into crypto investment , and I don't have to do much work. Inflation or no inflation, my finances remain secure. So I really don't blame people who panic.
I am new to the crypto world and don't understand how it really works. A friend told me trading with a professional trader is the best strategy for beginners and busy investors, but for months now I've been making so research and haven't found any.please any recommendations
Thanks to Mrs. Ksenia Alice
She's a licensed broker and successful entrepreneur from the state.
I first met her last year at a conference in Washington DC, invested $2,000 and within a week of trade I make over $15,000.
Do you still trust the officials? Not me.
Who were the pilots? This has never been mentioned. That's strange.
It was a long flight at 2171.3 nm. If the wind direction had changed, the landing clearance
was to come in on RWY 19. The bird strike may have damaged the drive to the hydraulic pump on the gearbox to the B system that operates flaperons, but not the landing gear, so we can assume they were coming in to fast. Hesitation on speeds may have caused confusion as to a go around, so after such a long haul flights they decided to land. Hesitation could have been the cause of pilot error!!
The moment they initiated the go around the aircraft was doomed, justy my gut feeling.
Not if they had one good working engine but they didn't.
Glider.
RhS engine was not shut down but comprimised due to birds, LHS was, very important detail.
Surviving flight attendant told "smoke in the cabin" (as far as I heard on korean channel).
Personal pronouns when discussing the pilots of this doomed aircraft ... really? Also, how does an "expert" claim the aircraft was not old, citing 1994 as the time it was built? Well, he confused the. launch date for the 737-800 series with the actual age of the individual 737-800 in question, which was 15 years I believe.
Pilot suicide ? he could have landed the other way but turned landed half way down the runway .
Or maybe the pilot aborted the 1st attempt because they saw that there was no wall so they decided to land the opposite side with the wall
Rather interviews with other pilots are asking what could have happened on board to make the pilots need to get down so fast? However, I doubt this was a suicide as there more assured ways and schemes for a pilot to crash a plane.
Could they have broken the second window from the far right due to striking a drone ?
Singapore airline using 737-800 from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur 🦋🦋
A total failure, whether human or technical errors.
Why did they do that crazy 180 turn to land down wind the only possibility is they had no working engines if they had a working engine the procedure is to climb to a safe altitude and prepare for a single engine landing.
So what happens you loose electric power and only limited systems an electric emergency flaps switch that's very slow and is battery powered the gear needs to free fall it all takes time they didn't have.
I think the no2 engine was still working but producing no thrust.
Maybe putput got the "Bird strike" for the wrong aircraft.
The Sun does have its reputation as a good example of Yellow Journalism in Korea :-)
The Sun back at what they're infamous for doing. Baiting drama engagement out of every single tragedy. Largely one of the most disgusting "media" channels out there.
I think the Sun's "expert" is full of 'hit.
There seems to be a number of factors. From what I've read, the day before the crash, the plane landed for an emergency after squawking 7700. I don't know the full reasons, some said it was a rowdy passenger. Others said it was the hydraulic issues. Maybe that explains no gear being down? Was there a bird strike? If so, no landing gear and a bird strike would cause panic. Hard not to in that situation. The final factor was the runway? The structure at the end meant it was not favourable for any emergency landing, never mind a belly landing. We can only speculate.
One thing you forgot most plane with bird strike don't go BOOM!!!
The report I saw said the previous emergency was a medical one.
Their mayday explicitly said birdstrike and prior to it there was a birdstrike warning from the tower.
Lowering gear and flaps would greatly reduce the glide slope meaning they might not have even reached the runway.
So it might not have been failure, error, or panic, but a deliberate choice. The least worse of two very bad options.
We will find out once they have completed the investigation.
It was a medical issue, not plane issue, or "rowdy" passenger.
A specialist that doenst know what he is talking about...
"Aviation expert" my arse!
It's was some bird that again. 😮
The bird is reason
The plane is 15 yrs.old so definitely it didn't built in 1994 lol...😂 it could built 2010
Can I come to your programme please? I can speak 🤣🤣
would like to know how they operate muan airport.
It was Thanos
What if it wasn't a bird, but a drone, maybe even a North Korean one, deliberately positioned?
Or a CIA one..! little Elenskyyy wants South Korean F-16's Operations from Romania.
🤣🤣
Not impossible, but as likely as aliens or dragons.
I heard early on a report of a CCP university plane encircling this one a few minutes before. Now nothing…
Click Bait
I think so 🤔
I really appreciate your efforts! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
Sudo apt rekta 😂😂😂😂😂
Sinister? Yes.
Drunk pilots, gaying at the joystick
He landed 'long' being concerned with the engine mounts breaking away and the engines disconnecting and striking the wing and initiating a fire from wing fuel.
Sir, what I fail to understand is how you and other idiots are volunteering opinions over an accident in which no one is aware of the truth and even after the investigation is over the reports will be sanitised and doctored. It is all done with the intention of making money. Shame on those unscrupulous creatures which should be put behind bars for such actions.
I think it’s just a matter of the keeping the conversation going until the black box data is revealed and also for everyone to understand the baseline of the event. Silence doesn’t really do justice for the families of victims.
Extend all runways to 5 km length?
🤣🤣
The explosion of the start in the middle not in front towards the concrete wall.