I loved the part where you said "Ask me how I know." I admire the skill and experience level that you bring to your work. Wise people learn from our mistakes, others don't, and sometimes they end up dead. The ability to be humble is important, in any job.
My favorite part was at 8:40 looking at the shredded underside of the forward section, "the nose gear is … collapsed". Looking at that picture I might have gone with "absent", but I do appreciate the dry humor.
Excellent reporting, Juan. Just a clarification: Mactan’s ILS has been out for many years. The crew performed the RNAV 22 approach instead, which has higher minima (510’ vs 325’ IIRC). I don’t know what Korean’s SOPs are but in our company, once we are visual with the runway and below minimums we kill the flight directors and select TRK/FPA mode which gives us a flight path vector (aka “the bird”) on the PFD. This means the last part of the approach is completed visually and vertical guidance is with reference primarily to the PAPI lights. There may be a VDEV “brick” on the PFD but this does not always give accurate vertical guidance, especially when you consider Mactan’s PAPI lights are poorly calibrated. On Rwy 22, one side could be indicating three whites, the other two reds, two whites (welcome to the third world). So now we have a combination of a black hole approach, poorly calibrated PAPI, a non-precision approach with high minima and possible windshear conditions. If it really was windshear (or even if it wasn’t) would it be correct to say the deviation that followed would’ve been more quickly detected had they been on an ILS? Instead, it took them just a bit longer to detect the increasing sink rate on short final, hence the hard landing. One other item of note is that on some photos, it seems the main landing gear doors are hanging open. This is usually a telltale sign of a hydraulic system failure.
One question, the hard touchdown happened on the second GA, if I understood Juan right. second question, PAPI is flown manually, as I understand it, including heading without the FD?
@@arturoeugster7228 hard touchdown was during the second go-around (or balked landing). And yes, the last part of the approach was most likely flown with reference to the PAPI and without flight directors.
@@tarmacpounder785 Reason I ask is because the Cebu 4 light PAPI is badly calibrated and at night the water restricts centerline vision and nothing can be seen on the dark horizon, so GPS gives some heading reference, used by FD.
Great video as always! I'm from Cebu. The ILS hasn't been operational over the past decade or two. Whenever we have thunderstorms and heavy rain, it is normal to see flights holding or diverting to alternative airports (sometimes backtracking to Manila). The usual approaches are RNAV for RWY04 and a straight-in for RWY 22.
I installed the VOR at Mactan Cebu in about 2016. I recall the ILS was still waiting to be commissioned then… and apparently still awaiting commissioning now. It will be interesting to see how the aircraft will be dealt with.
@@CyberSystemOverload that's just how PH is. If it's broken but there's a bandaid solution, they will continue to delay that repair for as long as they can get away with it. 😂
An American living here in the Philippines. Waiting for this one. That one diversion airport is Angeles city. You might know it as the old Clark airbase. I live with an easy walking distance of the main gate.
@@kevinbarry71 nothing wrong, but considering the weather was probably similar the only real reason to go to the alternate would have been equipment availability as they were in an emergency.
I’m pleased to say that I’ve been a Patreon supporter of blancolirio for a long time. I’m in my late 70s and have been a frequent flier for over fifty years. I’ve seen the ground spoilers in action many times and as a former sailor I’ve always assumed that their purpose was to provide drag. Thanks for putting a name to them.
Yes, they do the same as spoilers on a racing car, they are the opposite of wings. On a racing car you don't want drag but you do want downward force on the tyres to get good grip.
I was on that flight. The "slam" was not a typical hard landing, but something else that I have never experienced in 30 years and hundreds of thousands of flight miles. Just a suggestion that Juan's atta boy for the pilots might prove to be premature. Just saying... His description of the braking numbers exactly sounds like the perception that I had at the time. I became aware within seconds that the plane was not going to stop successfully. Regarding the flight attendants who are there "for passenger safety", the post accident response was SLOW and disorganized with ineffective communications for those who did not speak Korean. Stated another way, had fire ensued, everyone would have likely died. In addition, the communication was impacted by many, many passengers screaming like banshees long after the plane stopped. The message was clear to me that the system cannot be trusted and that passengers may have to act on their own for their own survival. I can hear the comments now. The same flight attendants put no effort into prohibiting passengers from securing their possessions and sliding down the puncture vulnerable chute. I saw one flight attendant who facilitated a passenger departing with a backpack. Maybe that is why the chute on the right side of the aircraft was deflated, which is not apparent in these pictures. Escape was through 1 of 8 doors. Once on the ground, profound disorganization was apparent. They asked all who were not hurt to raise their hands. which was few. So, the people who might have been interpreted to be hurt were ignored while the flight attendants just walked away never to address the subject of possible injury again. The suggestion of medical services was never introduced, with the exception of the prior statement. Four days later and still no luggage and Korean Airlines is getting impossible to get hold of, which is necessary, as they have not communicated updates. Your concerns are certainly not theirs. Juan's presentation is very enlightening and helps me to further draw conclusions on observations of this event. Please keep up the great analyses.
Glad you are safe! Sounds like a terrible situation that you made the best of. Thankfully no fire broke out. I get so angry when I see people grabbing their carry-ons during an emergency evacuation. They are literally putting lives in danger for their replaceable possessions. I imagine your stowed luggage will probably take some time to get to you considering it is located on the bottom of the wreckage which needs to be lifted and somehow moved to a location for the investigation to continue.
Fantastic to get your "first hand" review of the landing, and glad you made it out despite crew incompetence. I hope you get interviewed and are able to pass your observations to the correct authorities, but I'd have a lot more confidence of them being acted on if it was a US carrier.
I feel like I’ve read comments recently on either here or other aviation videos suggesting Korean Air’s safety culture leaves something to be desired. Your detailed report of this incident has only served to add weight to this.
With that antenna hitting on the top of the fuselage the pilots are probably lucky that the nose gear collapsed lowering the nose of the airplane so that that structure did not take out the flight deck.
Hello Juan another great analysis of the facts as known to date. My career ended in the Saab 340 left seat back in the mid-90s due to Medical and I have not flown since but I remain absorbed in aviation through and through and I greatly appreciate what you do. My dad joined American Airlines in 1950 on the convair 240 and flew everything American ever had including the convair 990 and 747, having skipped over the 727 and of course, due to his seniority the BAC 111. I am a subscriber to your Channel and an avid fan thank you for what you do. db
First, it is an excellent analysis for a preliminary incident-report-youtube video. Thank you, Captain Browne. One thing I noticed is that there is NO fire after runaway overshooting. In 2005, Air France 358 (A340-300) tried to land at Toronto airport in horrible weather conditions. Simply put, so many things attributed to the runaway overshoot, then AF358 in Toronto was on fire after the impact. For the KE631 in Cebu, there was no fire at the end of the incident. THAT WAS LUCKY BREAKTHROUGH, in my opinion.
A330 captain myself. I was originally spring loaded to blame the pilots but firmly on ground with 8000 feet remaining? The lack of WOW (weight on wheels) theory makes sense. Not being able to stop from 90 knots with over a mile of runway remaining seems crazy.
@@patrickjames1080 There are so many computers involved but, as I recall, there was a German A320 that failed to get WOW, The antiskid computer released the brakes and they went off the end of the runway. If anyone has more information please correct me. This was quite a while ago.
@@gabrielg8826 I would assume they were trying but I find the thrust reversers to be rather ineffective compared to Boeings. I think that’s true of GEs, Pratts, and RRs. I am not sure why that is except the A330 is more about the wing where the Boeings I’ve flown are more about the thrust.
Always good to hear all survived. Looking forward to finding out what damage occurred on the second landing attempt. Sounds like the pilots did a good job and I applaud them for their hard work. There are many people (mostly people named Karen) who need to see these videos before flying so they listen and pay attention to the air crew.
Would also like to know how many of these “Karens” were onboard and grab their carry-on as they evacuated? Somewhat common knowledge, these “Karens” believe they’re carry-on is more valuable than other pax. 🙄🤬
@@terryterry1655 Second attempt. They did touch down hard on the second attempt, and then aborted. But may have ended up damaging the brakes so the brakes failed when they did that third and final attempt.
That was amazing. Thanks Juan for the deep level of insight without all the fluff and exaggeration that all the less-capable journalists can't resist inserting. Well done
Good review. Juan, re why to touchdown firmly on wet or icy runways, the most significant need (and reason for firm touchdown) is to get the mains rotation rate up to speed. Sliding wheels can take a very long time to start rotating, even to the point of damaging the tire. Until the mains are up to speed, there is no braking. Weight on wheels is important but secondary. Cheers
-TSRA = Thunderstorm Light Rain, to be totally crorrect. Thus, a + sign indicates Heavy Rain intensity and no + or - is Moderate rain, but intensity not spoken. Great analysis and explanations, as usual.
Hello Juan, I must say that your descriptions to the non-aviation viewers as well as aviation enthusiasts is very detailed, and easy to follow along. It will be interesting to find out after investigation if this is a systems failure or pilot error. Keep up the informative great work that you do. BTW, I also enjoy your off road motorcycle adventures~L.M
As a passenger on this flight this was very interesting. We knew something was wrong when we heard we were going to have an emergency landing and then when the crew started yelling brace for impact. The touchdown was super smooth and folks started cheering but I noted we weren't slowing down. Didn't hear any reverse thrust and didn't hear the spoilers engage. I yelled we weren't done yet so people would put their heads back down as the crew continued to yell brace for impact. Once stopped the crew kept everyone seated while they checked on everyone and got the evacuation slides ready. The slide on the right side of the plane collapsed under a lady but fortunately the ground was saturated and covered in about 4" of standing water so she only got a bruise on her arm. All in all the crew did an amazing job keeping everyone calm and evacuating. So thankful their were no severe casualties.
How can there be such different impressions from 2 different pax? Maybe seat location, level of anger, fear, expectations... I had a close call once, which I now realize was probably bad pilot judgment, but I was so glad to get safely on the ground I didn't care. But I do have a level of expectation of the cabin crew.
Great stuff mate. Enjoying this format. While human error could still be a factor in this incident, I’m glad you’ve not jumped to any conclusions. As a fellow aviator I’m sure we both share the frustration with how quickly people are willing to blame all incidents on crew without reviewing all available information. Keep it up mate and hopefully we’ll have some answers soon that we can all learn from. Cheers.
One minor correction, the ground spoilers on the A330 cannot be deployed manually. If they are not armed they will still deploy when reverse thrust is selected on at least one engine and the other is at idle thrust.
@@blancolirio Wasn't there an overrun where a 747 didn't get one engine to idle? That prevented ground spoilers deploying until the throttle (#1 IIIRC) was retarded. Qantas maybe? Ah, and the #1 throttle being above idle also cancelled the auto brakes. QF1 Bangkok 9/23/1999. No idea if the A330 has similar interactions between spoilers, brakes, and throttle. And especially no idea that that's what happened this time. Just a similar incident on a different aircraft.
That was the cause of a runway overrun crash in south america - can't recall the flight details. Pilot selected reverse on one engine, but accidently left the other at full power. Asymmetric thrust + no spoilers + wet runway meant they went right off the end and into a fuel tank.
@@Dilley_G45 Manually: grab the speedbrake lever, position it to full. It's been well over a decade or so since I flew an A330, but it used to work back then.
Thanks Juan! Great clarification without all the hype by non-pilot RUclips contributors. My brother and his Filipina wife fly into this airport sometimes. So thankful no one lost their lives. This had to be very scary for the passengers and crew. With the ground spoilers deployed ground effect is minimized. Without ground spoilers you still have lots of lift.
Excellent laying out of possible causes, without jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Excellent comment section as usual, useful personal experience. Been a low level patreon for quite a while now.
Thanks Juan for your excellent analysis. This was big news here in the Philippines. A lot of flights, especially the Manila - Cebu route were canceled because of this.
Good video and well explained. However, living here, having flown into Cebu many times, and being aware of just how much rain a storm can generate, I would expect the aircraft simply hydroplaned. At the time there was a large LP off the East coast of Leyte generating large thunderstorms over the area.
@@islandlife756 diversion to another airport with similar conditions in an emergency isn't exactly a good idea. In an emergency the available equipment on the ground becomes a major deciding factor.
Great information. I can see you have far many followers now than from the time I started following you 😄. I am currently flying A320/321 as Captain and before than B737 NG and MAX as Captain and 777 as First Officer 😊 Your Chanel gives very useful information for pilots. Great work 😊👍
My favorite go-around experience as a passenger was descending to land at Owen Roberts Intl (MWCR) in Grand Cayman at night in the summer of 1999. I knew a little bit about the different phases of flight being a young enthusiast. So when we were not down to the runway and I felt and heard power being applied, I knew we must be going around. We climbed out before touching down. The pilot then came onto to the PA to announce that "a large animal" was on the runway. Hahaha. Next approach was smooth as butter, and we deplaned without incident. Glad to hear that the folks aboard this scary KAL adventure were shaken, but not stirred. Thanks, Juan.
Hey- just wanted to let you know they were likely on the GPS approach to 22. The Philippines isn't too keen on having and maintaining ILS ground equipment, especially when there's a GPS/RNAV approach for every major airport in the country
Distance between Clark International Airport and Cebu International Airport - Flight / Air Distance: Kilometers: 656.98 km., Miles: 408.23 miles., Nautical Miles: 354.51 NM. Estimated flight time: 1:29 hours. (With average airplane speed of 567mph and additional time
Regarding the soft touchdown they had a hard touchdown so gear integrity would be a natural concern. And as always I'm pleasantly surprised by the enormous quality of commentary both from you and your comment section!
good day sir, just to add some info (frequent flyer here, with Cebu as one of our destinations/bases) Mactan-Cebu’s (RPVM) ILS has been inoperative for many years now… they are currently using RNAV/GNSS/RNP approaches as primary…
Hi Juan, the ILS approach into Cebu has been out of service for years. The approach in use was RNP Runway 22. First approach was commenced at Golda then the aircraft did the missed towards Almar. The subsequent approaches were commenced from ALMAR. The gear issue I have heard in the ATC rumormills here in the Philippines. That explains the third approach as it is the longest runway in the area. If you ask me, good decision to still choose Mactan Cebu airport for the third approach. Either it is crew knowledge or luck of choice knowing that here in the Philippines, Mactan would have one of the longest clearway distance of any airport. Had this happened in Manila, the aircraft would have likely went off the perimeter fence and into populated area and roads. The only other airport I know of that has a long clearway on both ends of the runway is Clark airport (former Clark Airforce Base) north of Manila.
Excellent report Juan. Particularly like hearing you talk about he pilots first 2 go around decisions…, and that they were good decisions. Sounds like weather hovering around that runway., and just taking awhile to scouring out.
What I want to assume could’ve happened is that after the second go around, the FO or CP must’ve put the spoilers to off, when they came in, the spoilers were not deployed because they may have left it in the 1/2 position or off because the spoilers are hard to see and what you might’ve said “where it looks to be open or could be the flaps.” And after landing, it hydroplaned off the runway. Another assumption is just that they unfortunately hydroplaned with a perfectly configured aircraft. I love your content and this is just what I am assuming base off what I have seen and heard from you.
Great analysis Juan. Very similar to AA1420 on 01-Jun-99 at KLIT. MD-80, T-storms in the area, no landing checklist, they shot a visual, PNF didn’t arm the spoilers, aquaplaned, off the end, hit the non-frangible localizer array, 12 fatal including PIC with a post crash fire. It sounded like they initially had decent deceleration from 134 to 92, but curiously the speed doesn’t erode after that. Any mention of braking action? The FDR and CVR will fill in the blanks with a crew debrief. Thankfully no fatale. Great insight Juan.
Thanks for the great analysis! I’ve been very interested in this since I had just left Cebu a few hours earlier. As a long time airline employee and private pilot I’ve been asking the same questions: why no divert, why the two go arounds etc. I’ve also heard they had one TR inop but not sure that is accurate. Hats off to the crew including cabin red for a safe evacuation.
So this "incident " Closed the Airport for a couple of days and stranded thousands of Pax . Bad luck to be transiting through MCIA. I live in Cebu 10 miles from the airport and there were torrential rains that night. Runway was probably still a "lake" . Hydroplaning and another case pilots flight training relying on automation which got a false reading from the hydroplane and didn't deploy the spoilers is my guess. You pointed out the need for a manual deploy of spoilers in case they weren't activated . Nice Job Blanco L.
Reminds me of an accident that occcured on 14 September 1993 - an A320 landing in Warsaw also had an issue with Weight on wheels due to a very soft touchdown.
They changed that later. That plane was aquaplaning. They needed 12 tons on the ground to activate it but they changed it to 2 tons. Typical Airbus. Designed around the computer. The CVR to that crash is on youtube. Last word is a drawn out "Scheiße" ("Sh^t!")
One thing of note at Cebu is that the runway is not grooved, it also may not be crowned. If there was heavy rain around their time of arrival my experience at airports in the Philippines is that there is a lot of standing water on the runway and a lot of hydroplaning.
Juan, the flight landed on 04, used the entire 10,827 landing distance, then overran the end of the runway and plowed into the LOC antenna off of runway 22.
Love the McDonalds Golden Arches in the distance above the crashed a/c in the last photo. Thanks to pilot skill, everybody lived to see another day and enjoy more Big Macs.
I'm a former KAL expat 777 Captain, regrettably I suspect this will turn out to be a case of Korean cockpit culture being incompatible with the circumstances at the time. Unfortunately the average Korean crew I worked with tended to be autocratic and lacking what many would consider "airmanship". It's also important to understand that KAL don't encourage any manual flying, infact they like to utilize the autoland as a default landing SOP. I'm guessing they didn't have the resilience to cope when the braking action or function wasn't working as they had planned. Yet another KAL airframe written off.
I heard and saw that too. Seen many post of how mediocre they are in crosswind landings and not easy ones. They hire by connections mostly and ignore the talented pilots without connections. Horrible to be good, but the job is taken by the mediocre instead. That is a problem in most third-world countries and the reason they crash those safe and easy to fly jets.
I don't think the thrust reversers were deployed. The engines on this aircraft appear to be the PW4000 which have a translating sleeve thrust reverser. The thrust reverser Cascade Vanes would be showing in these pictures if the thrust reveres were deployed.
7:38 Quite a shot, all decorated with ILS antenna. Glad they declared an emergency. VERY glad the ILS structure did not go into the cabin proper. I am sure it will buff out.
This reminds me of an accident some 30 years ago in Poland on a testflight, where a plane landed in a thunderstorm and somehow the plane didn‘t realize it was already on the ground and the crew was unable to deploy spoilers or thrust reversers and crashed overshooting the runway. The „smooth landing“ might not have been a landing at all from the bird‘s flight computer’s perspective… or only 2/3s down the runway. Just guessing here, of course…
It wasn't a test flight. 93 in Warsaw. Lufthansa. Airbus 320. They improved the design of the plane systems after that crash. It's a Boeing or I ain't going
It was an early A 320, which failed to recognize ground contact properly. After that crash they made changes to the systems to prevent such accidents in future
@@Dilley_G45 So you think a Boeing never thinks she know‘s better what to do than the pilot? With their MCAS-System, they have taken this principle literally to the MAX!
Juan, I wonder if the clue to cling to is: Brake failure warnings sufficient to motivate pilots to declare their emergency. Marvelous channel and video! 💛🙏🏽
Another great video and analysis, Juan! Just a couple of comments: (1) We don't know the fuel state of the aircraft during the third approach and landing. After two approaches and 30 minutes of holding, they may have been running a bit low, and perhaps a diversion was no longer an option. (2) Even though the hourly sequence reports indicated virtually no strong surface winds at the time, it would be interesting to know what the tower-reported winds were, during each of the three approaches. With TRW's in the area, a short-lived microburst, which at night, would be virtually invisible to the crew (except for the on-board wind shear warning system, of course), might have been an additional factor. The rapidly changing vertical speed during each of the approaches should have been a good indicator for the need to divert early.
I think they were having serious hydraulic issues after the second landing attempt. The probably lost one or maybe even two hydraulic systems. That's why the reversers are not deployed and that's why the gear doors are open.
Thanks for the break down Juan. Seeing the wild fluctuations in vertical speed on short final really tells the story here I think. Pretty challenging conditions, but it certainly seems like the pilots made the right choices.
@@billjones3071 at the end of the day you may be correct, however at this point nobody knows for sure! It could have been a mechanical issue that caused this!
GENERAL A330 If the flight crew does not perceive deceleration when required, the flight crew will apply the LOSS OF BRAKING procedure from memory because of the urgency of the situation. PROCEDURE USE OF REVERSE THRUST ‐ If needed, full reverse thrust may be used until coming to a complete stop. Below 70 kt, when the flight crew considers that the aircraft can stop on the runway, the flight crew should set idle reverse thrust ‐ Unless required due to an emergency, it is recommended to avoid the use of high level of reverse thrust at low speed, in order to avoid engine stall and excessive EGT. A/SKID & N/W STRG OFF In order to successfully revert to alternate braking, it is important to sequence the actions in three steps. The PF should: 1. Release the brake pedals 2. Request the PM to set the A/SKID & N/W STRG sw to OFF 3. Press the brake pedals, only after the PM has set the A/SKID & N/W STRG sw to OFF. Modulate brake pedal pressure to maximum 1 000 PSI. At low ground speed, adjust brake pressure as required. Monitor the brake pressure on the BRAKES PRESS indicator. PARKING BRAKE ‐ Use short successive parking brake applications to stop the aircraft ‐ Brake onset asymmetry may be felt at each parking brake application ‐ If possible, delay the use of parking brake until low speed, to reduce the risk of tire burst and lateral control difficulties. Parking brake uses accumulator px, newer models regulate the 1000psi no matter how hard you push older models like HL7525 need good team work one braking one reading off the px , not many mem items on the 330 but this one gets practiced all the time.
I loved the part where you said "Ask me how I know." I admire the skill and experience level that you bring to your work. Wise people learn from our mistakes, others don't, and sometimes they end up dead. The ability to be humble is important, in any job.
"Ask me how I know"
Rubber Jungle? 😆
My favorite part was at 8:40 looking at the shredded underside of the forward section, "the nose gear is … collapsed". Looking at that picture I might have gone with "absent", but I do appreciate the dry humor.
“It’s okay to make mistakes because you learn from them. Except for fatal mistakes, which at least others can learn from.”
- Al Franken
Juan calls it smash and go. His son Pete calls Juan Captain Ka-Blamo.
Well said
Excellent reporting, Juan. Just a clarification: Mactan’s ILS has been out for many years. The crew performed the RNAV 22 approach instead, which has higher minima (510’ vs 325’ IIRC). I don’t know what Korean’s SOPs are but in our company, once we are visual with the runway and below minimums we kill the flight directors and select TRK/FPA mode which gives us a flight path vector (aka “the bird”) on the PFD. This means the last part of the approach is completed visually and vertical guidance is with reference primarily to the PAPI lights. There may be a VDEV “brick” on the PFD but this does not always give accurate vertical guidance, especially when you consider Mactan’s PAPI lights are poorly calibrated. On Rwy 22, one side could be indicating three whites, the other two reds, two whites (welcome to the third world).
So now we have a combination of a black hole approach, poorly calibrated PAPI, a non-precision approach with high minima and possible windshear conditions. If it really was windshear (or even if it wasn’t) would it be correct to say the deviation that followed would’ve been more quickly detected had they been on an ILS? Instead, it took them just a bit longer to detect the increasing sink rate on short final, hence the hard landing.
One other item of note is that on some photos, it seems the main landing gear doors are hanging open. This is usually a telltale sign of a hydraulic system failure.
Yellow system fail due to nose gear ripped out could do that.
@@philipberry6477 Green?
One question, the hard touchdown happened on the second GA, if I understood Juan right.
second question, PAPI is flown manually, as I understand it, including heading without the FD?
@@arturoeugster7228 hard touchdown was during the second go-around (or balked landing). And yes, the last part of the approach was most likely flown with reference to the PAPI and without flight directors.
@@tarmacpounder785 Reason I ask is because the Cebu 4 light PAPI is badly calibrated and at night the water restricts centerline vision and nothing can be seen on the dark horizon, so GPS gives some heading reference, used by FD.
Great video as always! I'm from Cebu. The ILS hasn't been operational over the past decade or two. Whenever we have thunderstorms and heavy rain, it is normal to see flights holding or diverting to alternative airports (sometimes backtracking to Manila). The usual approaches are RNAV for RWY04 and a straight-in for RWY 22.
I installed the VOR at Mactan Cebu in about 2016. I recall the ILS was still waiting to be commissioned then… and apparently still awaiting commissioning now.
It will be interesting to see how the aircraft will be dealt with.
I find this absolutely astounding. How does such a major busy airport not have an active ILS, why do they take so long to fix it?
@@MichaelShaw_vk2hms Did you ever get to know as to why it hasn't been commissioned?
@@CyberSystemOverload that's just how PH is. If it's broken but there's a bandaid solution, they will continue to delay that repair for as long as they can get away with it. 😂
In 2010 I made my first Visit to the Philippines, connecting flight from South Korea, was on this very model of plane coming in to Mactan
An American living here in the Philippines. Waiting for this one. That one diversion airport is Angeles city. You might know it as the old Clark airbase. I live with an easy walking distance of the main gate.
I assume their equipment is probably not better than that at the accident airport?
@@Argosh what's wrong with the equipment? Nothing I can see. Pilot landed and couldn't stop.
@@kevinbarry71 nothing wrong, but considering the weather was probably similar the only real reason to go to the alternate would have been equipment availability as they were in an emergency.
@@Argosh it is a few hundred miles away so I think the weather was probably not the same. Airport is similarly equipped. Quite large.
"It's more fun in the Philippines" USA/Mindanao
No one else can make a 25 minute video on an accident that holds my attention the entire time. Cheers!
Thanks Aran!
My attention was gone when I locked eyes on the golden arches 0:03 into the video
I’m pleased to say that I’ve been a Patreon supporter of blancolirio for a long time. I’m in my late 70s and have been a frequent flier for over fifty years. I’ve seen the ground spoilers in action many times and as a former sailor I’ve always assumed that their purpose was to provide drag. Thanks for putting a name to them.
Yes, they do the same as spoilers on a racing car, they are the opposite of wings. On a racing car you don't want drag but you do want downward force on the tyres to get good grip.
The Brits have a term for them that convey their use clearly - lift dumpers.
I was on that flight. The "slam" was not a typical hard landing, but something else that I have never experienced in 30 years and hundreds of thousands of flight miles. Just a suggestion that Juan's atta boy for the pilots might prove to be premature. Just saying... His description of the braking numbers exactly sounds like the perception that I had at the time. I became aware within seconds that the plane was not going to stop successfully. Regarding the flight attendants who are there "for passenger safety", the post accident response was SLOW and disorganized with ineffective communications for those who did not speak Korean. Stated another way, had fire ensued, everyone would have likely died. In addition, the communication was impacted by many, many passengers screaming like banshees long after the plane stopped. The message was clear to me that the system cannot be trusted and that passengers may have to act on their own for their own survival. I can hear the comments now. The same flight attendants put no effort into prohibiting passengers from securing their possessions and sliding down the puncture vulnerable chute. I saw one flight attendant who facilitated a passenger departing with a backpack. Maybe that is why the chute on the right side of the aircraft was deflated, which is not apparent in these pictures. Escape was through 1 of 8 doors. Once on the ground, profound disorganization was apparent. They asked all who were not hurt to raise their hands. which was few. So, the people who might have been interpreted to be hurt were ignored while the flight attendants just walked away never to address the subject of possible injury again. The suggestion of medical services was never introduced, with the exception of the prior statement. Four days later and still no luggage and Korean Airlines is getting impossible to get hold of, which is necessary, as they have not communicated updates. Your concerns are certainly not theirs. Juan's presentation is very enlightening and helps me to further draw conclusions on observations of this event. Please keep up the great analyses.
Glad you are safe! Sounds like a terrible situation that you made the best of. Thankfully no fire broke out. I get so angry when I see people grabbing their carry-ons during an emergency evacuation. They are literally putting lives in danger for their replaceable possessions. I imagine your stowed luggage will probably take some time to get to you considering it is located on the bottom of the wreckage which needs to be lifted and somehow moved to a location for the investigation to continue.
Fantastic to get your "first hand" review of the landing, and glad you made it out despite crew incompetence. I hope you get interviewed and are able to pass your observations to the correct authorities, but I'd have a lot more confidence of them being acted on if it was a US carrier.
I feel like I’ve read comments recently on either here or other aviation videos suggesting Korean Air’s safety culture leaves something to be desired. Your detailed report of this incident has only served to add weight to this.
Wow, glad you and everyone is ok. How was that first "slam?" Do you mean that it was very hard and you could feel stuff breaking on the airplane?
@@Jerram89 something to be desired? Yeah, that wont crash airplanes. Be nice with the corrupted ? They are..
As a retired commercial driver I say your profession is not paid enough. God bless.
Juan, Very nice blend of personal knowledge mixed with initial data. Great job!
With that antenna hitting on the top of the fuselage the pilots are probably lucky that the nose gear collapsed lowering the nose of the airplane so that that structure did not take out the flight deck.
Hello Juan another great analysis of the facts as known to date. My career ended in the Saab 340 left seat back in the mid-90s due to Medical and I have not flown since but I remain absorbed in aviation through and through and I greatly appreciate what you do. My dad joined American Airlines in 1950 on the convair 240 and flew everything American ever had including the convair 990 and 747, having skipped over the 727 and of course, due to his seniority the BAC 111. I am a subscriber to your Channel and an avid fan thank you for what you do. db
Oh, man, the Convair 990 - that was speedy plane! One of my favorites.
Great video! I'm working towards my CPL in Melbourne, Australia and I'm learning a lot from your content! Thank you!
First, it is an excellent analysis for a preliminary incident-report-youtube video. Thank you, Captain Browne.
One thing I noticed is that there is NO fire after runaway overshooting. In 2005, Air France 358 (A340-300) tried to land at Toronto airport in horrible weather conditions. Simply put, so many things attributed to the runaway overshoot, then AF358 in Toronto was on fire after the impact. For the KE631 in Cebu, there was no fire at the end of the incident. THAT WAS LUCKY BREAKTHROUGH, in my opinion.
A330 captain myself. I was originally spring loaded to blame the pilots but firmly on ground with 8000 feet remaining? The lack of WOW (weight on wheels) theory makes sense. Not being able to stop from 90 knots with over a mile of runway remaining seems crazy.
Indeed. There're a couple of questions to be answered.
Would they be able to use reverse thrusters to stop the aircraft before an overrun?
Does the lack of WOW disable the manual toe breaks?
@@patrickjames1080 There are so many computers involved but, as I recall, there was a German A320 that failed to get WOW, The antiskid computer released the brakes and they went off the end of the runway. If anyone has more information please correct me. This was quite a while ago.
@@gabrielg8826 I would assume they were trying but I find the thrust reversers to be rather ineffective compared to Boeings. I think that’s true of GEs, Pratts, and RRs. I am not sure why that is except the A330 is more about the wing where the Boeings I’ve flown are more about the thrust.
Wow Juan how comprehensive was your commentary on this excursion. Coming from someone with real experience in the cockpit. Thank you
Always good to hear all survived. Looking forward to finding out what damage occurred on the second landing attempt. Sounds like the pilots did a good job and I applaud them for their hard work. There are many people (mostly people named Karen) who need to see these videos before flying so they listen and pay attention to the air crew.
damage after third landing attempt
Would also like to know how many of these “Karens” were onboard and grab their carry-on as they evacuated? Somewhat common knowledge, these “Karens” believe they’re carry-on is more valuable than other pax. 🙄🤬
@@terryterry1655 Second attempt. They did touch down hard on the second attempt, and then aborted. But may have ended up damaging the brakes so the brakes failed when they did that third and final attempt.
That was amazing. Thanks Juan for the deep level of insight without all the fluff and exaggeration that all the less-capable journalists can't resist inserting. Well done
great analysis Juan, always enjoy the detailing you provide on your channel...👍
Good review. Juan, re why to touchdown firmly on wet or icy runways, the most significant need (and reason for firm touchdown) is to get the mains rotation rate up to speed. Sliding wheels can take a very long time to start rotating, even to the point of damaging the tire. Until the mains are up to speed, there is no braking. Weight on wheels is important but secondary. Cheers
Thanks Juan, I am one of the many who asked for this video, As always fantastic work!
-TSRA = Thunderstorm Light Rain, to be totally crorrect. Thus, a + sign indicates Heavy Rain intensity and no + or - is Moderate rain, but intensity not spoken. Great analysis and explanations, as usual.
Great explanation of everything, so that The layman can understand! Good job. Dave, 28,000 hour airline pilot
Hello Juan, I must say that your descriptions to the non-aviation viewers as well as aviation enthusiasts is very detailed, and easy to follow along. It will be interesting to find out after investigation if this is a systems failure or pilot error. Keep up the informative great work that you do. BTW, I also enjoy your off road motorcycle adventures~L.M
As a passenger on this flight this was very interesting. We knew something was wrong when we heard we were going to have an emergency landing and then when the crew started yelling brace for impact. The touchdown was super smooth and folks started cheering but I noted we weren't slowing down. Didn't hear any reverse thrust and didn't hear the spoilers engage. I yelled we weren't done yet so people would put their heads back down as the crew continued to yell brace for impact. Once stopped the crew kept everyone seated while they checked on everyone and got the evacuation slides ready. The slide on the right side of the plane collapsed under a lady but fortunately the ground was saturated and covered in about 4" of standing water so she only got a bruise on her arm. All in all the crew did an amazing job keeping everyone calm and evacuating. So thankful their were no severe casualties.
Another passenger a few comments up said the cabin crew was terrible.
How can there be such different impressions from 2 different pax? Maybe seat location, level of anger, fear, expectations... I had a close call once, which I now realize was probably bad pilot judgment, but I was so glad to get safely on the ground I didn't care. But I do have a level of expectation of the cabin crew.
Great stuff mate. Enjoying this format. While human error could still be a factor in this incident, I’m glad you’ve not jumped to any conclusions. As a fellow aviator I’m sure we both share the frustration with how quickly people are willing to blame all incidents on crew without reviewing all available information. Keep it up mate and hopefully we’ll have some answers soon that we can all learn from. Cheers.
Key statement by Juan at 16:45!! a great pilot is using superior judgement to avoid situations where he needs to apply his superior flying skills.
One minor correction, the ground spoilers on the A330 cannot be deployed manually. If they are not armed they will still deploy when reverse thrust is selected on at least one engine and the other is at idle thrust.
Wow! Thanks George!
@@blancolirio Wasn't there an overrun where a 747 didn't get one engine to idle? That prevented ground spoilers deploying until the throttle (#1 IIIRC) was retarded. Qantas maybe? Ah, and the #1 throttle being above idle also cancelled the auto brakes. QF1 Bangkok 9/23/1999. No idea if the A330 has similar interactions between spoilers, brakes, and throttle. And especially no idea that that's what happened this time. Just a similar incident on a different aircraft.
Anti-manual Airbus....wow. Not nice
That was the cause of a runway overrun crash in south america - can't recall the flight details. Pilot selected reverse on one engine, but accidently left the other at full power. Asymmetric thrust + no spoilers + wet runway meant they went right off the end and into a fuel tank.
@@Dilley_G45 Manually: grab the speedbrake lever, position it to full. It's been well over a decade or so since I flew an A330, but it used to work back then.
Thanks Juan! Great clarification without all the hype by non-pilot RUclips contributors. My brother and his Filipina wife fly into this airport sometimes. So thankful no one lost their lives. This had to be very scary for the passengers and crew. With the ground spoilers deployed ground effect is minimized. Without ground spoilers you still have lots of lift.
Excellent laying out of possible causes, without jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Excellent comment section as usual, useful personal experience. Been a low level patreon for quite a while now.
Thanks Juan for your excellent analysis. This was big news here in the Philippines. A lot of flights, especially the Manila - Cebu route were canceled because of this.
Your always on top of things Juan! Great job again!
Always great content. You give the details that regular media does not.
Great reporting, Juan. Could not help but notice, they parked under "The Golden Arches."
That's the voice of much experience saying "ask me how I know." Thanks for what you do Juan.
Juan, Your detailed explanations of aircraft mishaps are greatly appreciated.
Good video and well explained. However, living here, having flown into Cebu many times, and being aware of just how much rain a storm can generate, I would expect the aircraft simply hydroplaned. At the time there was a large LP off the East coast of Leyte generating large thunderstorms over the area.
it's possible, but what was the actual METAR?
IMHO, the pilots should have opted to divert. Thank God there wasn't a post crash fire.
I wonder about that. The rain making a runway completely slick has affected a number of takeoffs and landings here at my small local airport.
@@islandlife756 possibly it appears to me they have less fuel onboard
@@islandlife756 diversion to another airport with similar conditions in an emergency isn't exactly a good idea. In an emergency the available equipment on the ground becomes a major deciding factor.
Was definitely waiting for this one. As usual, was not disappointed in any way. Thanks again, Juan.
I've been waiting for this one!
Great information. I can see you have far many followers now than from the time I started following you 😄. I am currently flying A320/321 as Captain and before than B737 NG and MAX as Captain and 777 as First Officer 😊 Your Chanel gives very useful information for pilots. Great work 😊👍
My favorite go-around experience as a passenger was descending to land at Owen Roberts Intl (MWCR) in Grand Cayman at night in the summer of 1999. I knew a little bit about the different phases of flight being a young enthusiast. So when we were not down to the runway and I felt and heard power being applied, I knew we must be going around. We climbed out before touching down. The pilot then came onto to the PA to announce that "a large animal" was on the runway. Hahaha. Next approach was smooth as butter, and we deplaned without incident.
Glad to hear that the folks aboard this scary KAL adventure were shaken, but not stirred. Thanks, Juan.
Hey- just wanted to let you know they were likely on the GPS approach to 22. The Philippines isn't too keen on having and maintaining ILS ground equipment, especially when there's a GPS/RNAV approach for every major airport in the country
Distance between Clark International Airport and Cebu International Airport -
Flight / Air Distance: Kilometers: 656.98 km., Miles: 408.23 miles., Nautical Miles: 354.51 NM.
Estimated flight time: 1:29 hours. (With average airplane speed of 567mph and additional time
as a further clarification Clark Airport is the one Juan is referring to when he says one of the diversion airport was Angeles City.
Regarding the soft touchdown they had a hard touchdown so gear integrity would be a natural concern. And as always I'm pleasantly surprised by the enormous quality of commentary both from you and your comment section!
good day sir, just to add some info (frequent flyer here, with Cebu as one of our destinations/bases)
Mactan-Cebu’s (RPVM) ILS has been inoperative for many years now… they are currently using RNAV/GNSS/RNP approaches as primary…
Hi Juan, the ILS approach into Cebu has been out of service for years. The approach in use was RNP Runway 22. First approach was commenced at Golda then the aircraft did the missed towards Almar. The subsequent approaches were commenced from ALMAR.
The gear issue I have heard in the ATC rumormills here in the Philippines. That explains the third approach as it is the longest runway in the area. If you ask me, good decision to still choose Mactan Cebu airport for the third approach. Either it is crew knowledge or luck of choice knowing that here in the Philippines, Mactan would have one of the longest clearway distance of any airport. Had this happened in Manila, the aircraft would have likely went off the perimeter fence and into populated area and roads. The only other airport I know of that has a long clearway on both ends of the runway is Clark airport (former Clark Airforce Base) north of Manila.
No doubt they loaded it from the data base and flew it coupled much like an ILS
@@RJLM330 yup thats how its supposed to be done.
Panglao airport was open ..but to scared pussy pilots
Excellent report Juan. Particularly like hearing you talk about he pilots first 2 go around decisions…, and that they were good decisions. Sounds like weather hovering around that runway., and just taking awhile to scouring out.
What I want to assume could’ve happened is that after the second go around, the FO or CP must’ve put the spoilers to off, when they came in, the spoilers were not deployed because they may have left it in the 1/2 position or off because the spoilers are hard to see and what you might’ve said “where it looks to be open or could be the flaps.” And after landing, it hydroplaned off the runway.
Another assumption is just that they unfortunately hydroplaned with a perfectly configured aircraft.
I love your content and this is just what I am assuming base off what I have seen and heard from you.
Very well done sir. I appreciate all the work put in for these incidents.
Great analysis Juan. Very similar to AA1420 on 01-Jun-99 at KLIT. MD-80, T-storms in the area, no landing checklist, they shot a visual, PNF didn’t arm the spoilers, aquaplaned, off the end, hit the non-frangible localizer array, 12 fatal including PIC with a post crash fire. It sounded like they initially had decent deceleration from 134 to 92, but curiously the speed doesn’t erode after that. Any mention of braking action? The FDR and CVR will fill in the blanks with a crew debrief. Thankfully no fatale. Great insight Juan.
A “Smash and go” is often alternative referred to as a balked landing. Nice video juan.
Thanks for the great analysis! I’ve been very interested in this since I had just left Cebu a few hours earlier. As a long time airline employee and private pilot I’ve been asking the same questions: why no divert, why the two go arounds etc. I’ve also heard they had one TR inop but not sure that is accurate. Hats off to the crew including cabin red for a safe evacuation.
So this "incident " Closed the Airport for a couple of days and stranded thousands of Pax . Bad luck to be transiting through MCIA. I live in Cebu 10 miles from the airport and there were torrential rains that night. Runway was probably still a "lake" . Hydroplaning and another case pilots flight training relying on automation which got a false reading from the hydroplane and didn't deploy the spoilers is my guess. You pointed out the need for a manual deploy of spoilers in case they weren't activated . Nice Job Blanco L.
Wow great presentation thank you Juan. So well explained. I will become your 😢. Thank you Juan
Good brief as always…retired USA 330/Capt 2000 hours 4 years….good/great autoland system…suspect squat switch issue….
Thanks Juan, Nicely Done.
Thanks for the hard work, T.
Awesome review. Just a note something I found recently is you can use the desktop version of Google Earth Pro to change the measuring distance to feet
Reminds me of an accident that occcured on 14 September 1993 - an A320 landing in Warsaw also had an issue with Weight on wheels due to a very soft touchdown.
Very interesting. I know in Boeing there are 3 independent feedback systems to tell the computers the aircraft is on the ground.
We had a few issues with the BSCUs about that time at the airline I was with.
They changed that later. That plane was aquaplaning. They needed 12 tons on the ground to activate it but they changed it to 2 tons. Typical Airbus. Designed around the computer. The CVR to that crash is on youtube. Last word is a drawn out "Scheiße" ("Sh^t!")
One thing of note at Cebu is that the runway is not grooved, it also may not be crowned. If there was heavy rain around their time of arrival my experience at airports in the Philippines is that there is a lot of standing water on the runway and a lot of hydroplaning.
Surprised he didn't touch on it and no one else is talking about that.
Well except me and Etops.
Theres two airplanes already landing at that time with no accident ..if u are a pussy pilot u are really a pussy ..
@@packohub1145 You have issues.
Awesome video Juan!! Thanks 👍
I was stationed at Mactan AB as a C-130 loadmaster with the 774th TAS 1967-68. It was pretty undeveloped back then.
Great breakdown, Juan. Thank you.
Juan, the flight landed on 04, used the entire 10,827 landing distance, then overran the end of the runway and plowed into the LOC antenna off of runway 22.
Love the McDonalds Golden Arches in the distance above the crashed a/c in the last photo. Thanks to pilot skill, everybody lived to see another day and enjoy more Big Macs.
Juan photoshops those in to get free B-Macks.
As always, a clear and informative report. I have only a high school education, you make it understandable.
I'm a former KAL expat 777 Captain, regrettably I suspect this will turn out to be a case of Korean cockpit culture being incompatible with the circumstances at the time. Unfortunately the average Korean crew I worked with tended to be autocratic and lacking what many would consider "airmanship".
It's also important to understand that KAL don't encourage any manual flying, infact they like to utilize the autoland as a default landing SOP.
I'm guessing they didn't have the resilience to cope when the braking action or function wasn't working as they had planned.
Yet another KAL airframe written off.
I heard and saw that too. Seen many post of how mediocre they are in crosswind landings and not easy ones. They hire by connections mostly and ignore the talented pilots without connections. Horrible to be good, but the job is taken by the mediocre instead. That is a problem in most third-world countries and the reason they crash those safe and easy to fly jets.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 South korea a third world country ?
I don't think the thrust reversers were deployed. The engines on this aircraft appear to be the PW4000 which have a translating sleeve thrust reverser. The thrust reverser Cascade Vanes would be showing in these pictures if the thrust reveres were deployed.
This has been a great video thanks for sharing as you do so well. I'd say they went for a smooth landing as to not add insult to the brake injury.
7:38 Quite a shot, all decorated with ILS antenna. Glad they declared an emergency. VERY glad the ILS structure did not go into the cabin proper. I am sure it will buff out.
Indeed.
Buff out fer sure.
I don't know if you can simply buff it out. They may need to put a doubler on it. /s
That antenna will not buff out. It is MIA for a few days for sure.
@@upgrayedd9732 Duct tape.
JB is always on his game.. Hats off
This reminds me of an accident some 30 years ago in Poland on a testflight, where a plane landed in a thunderstorm and somehow the plane didn‘t realize it was already on the ground and the crew was unable to deploy spoilers or thrust reversers and crashed overshooting the runway. The „smooth landing“ might not have been a landing at all from the bird‘s flight computer’s perspective… or only 2/3s down the runway. Just guessing here, of course…
It wasn't a test flight. 93 in Warsaw. Lufthansa. Airbus 320. They improved the design of the plane systems after that crash. It's a Boeing or I ain't going
It was an early A 320, which failed to recognize ground contact properly. After that crash they made changes to the systems to prevent such accidents in future
@@Dilley_G45 So you think a Boeing never thinks she know‘s better what to do than the pilot? With their MCAS-System, they have taken this principle literally to the MAX!
@@philipkudrna5643 lol yeah that's actually right. Boeing went Airbus with the max. If it's a max I ain't a pax
It was indeed a Lufthansa flight.
Awesome video Juan!!!!!
Great analyses! Fortunately no one got hurt.
Juan, I wonder if the clue to cling to is: Brake failure warnings sufficient to motivate pilots to declare their emergency. Marvelous channel and video! 💛🙏🏽
Thank you again!
Fantastic walk through Juan - thank you.
Another great video and analysis, Juan! Just a couple of comments:
(1) We don't know the fuel state of the aircraft during the third approach and landing. After two approaches and 30 minutes of holding, they may have been running a bit low, and perhaps a diversion was no longer an option.
(2) Even though the hourly sequence reports indicated virtually no strong surface winds at the time, it would be interesting to know what the tower-reported winds were, during each of the three approaches. With TRW's in the area, a short-lived microburst, which at night, would be virtually invisible to the crew (except for the on-board wind shear warning system, of course), might have been an additional factor. The rapidly changing vertical speed during each of the approaches should have been a good indicator for the need to divert early.
Excellent analysis as always
thank you for the great explanation
JB is like DJ Khaled - ..."and another one"..... excellent video
At 22:20 have they considered that the crew and passengers may have needed to get to the McDonalds before closing?
Excellent report, RB,NS.
JUAN GREAT JOB, GREAT VIDEO...SEE YOU WHEN...I'M LATE GOT TO GO...
Great report, Juan. Sure seems like the crew did everything they could to get everyone home safely.
Thanks Juan. Great analysis.
Enjoy your videos. Thank you!
Awesome analysis 👍✈️🇺🇸
All things considered that was a bloody good set down. Professionalism under extreme pressure.
I think they were having serious hydraulic issues after the second landing attempt. The probably lost one or maybe even two hydraulic systems. That's why the reversers are not deployed and that's why the gear doors are open.
Indeed, that seems to be very likely.
Possible
Thanks for your report, RB, Nova Scotia.
Thanks for the detailed analysis.
Thank $%#, this is a great walk away.
Well done report. I'm curious about-face the possibility of the thrust reverse issue.
Excellent info...👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thanks for the break down Juan. Seeing the wild fluctuations in vertical speed on short final really tells the story here I think. Pretty challenging conditions, but it certainly seems like the pilots made the right choices.
@@billjones3071 at the end of the day you may be correct, however at this point nobody knows for sure! It could have been a mechanical issue that caused this!
GENERAL A330
If the flight crew does not perceive deceleration when required, the flight crew will apply the
LOSS OF BRAKING procedure from memory because of the urgency of the situation.
PROCEDURE
USE OF REVERSE THRUST
‐ If needed, full reverse thrust may be used until coming to a complete stop. Below 70 kt, when
the flight crew considers that the aircraft can stop on the runway, the flight crew should set
idle reverse thrust
‐ Unless required due to an emergency, it is recommended to avoid the use of high level of
reverse thrust at low speed, in order to avoid engine stall and excessive EGT.
A/SKID & N/W STRG OFF
In order to successfully revert to alternate braking,
it is important to sequence the actions in three steps.
The PF should:
1. Release the brake pedals
2. Request the PM to set the A/SKID & N/W STRG sw to OFF
3. Press the brake pedals, only after the PM has set the A/SKID & N/W STRG sw to OFF.
Modulate brake pedal pressure to maximum 1 000 PSI. At low ground speed, adjust brake
pressure as required. Monitor the brake pressure on the BRAKES PRESS indicator.
PARKING BRAKE
‐ Use short successive parking brake applications to stop the aircraft
‐ Brake onset asymmetry may be felt at each parking brake application
‐ If possible, delay the use of parking brake until low speed, to reduce the risk of tire burst and
lateral control difficulties.
Parking brake uses accumulator px, newer models regulate the 1000psi no matter how hard you push older models like HL7525 need good team work one braking one reading off the px , not many mem items on the 330 but this one gets practiced all the time.
I love your respectful way in all your videos! Thank you so much, Juan!
Outstandingly astute analysis..............
A little krylon and fiberglass putty and that bird is as good as new 👍
No.
Interesting report, thank you Juan
Thank you very much for this very informative video! Still a lot of questions to be answered...🤔