Bird Feathers Found In Both Engines Of Jeju Crash 737

Welcome to a special edition of Daily Airline News.
We bring you news that investigators have found bird feathers and blood in both engines of a Jeju Airlines 737 plane that crashed in South Korea last December.
So, what do we know for facts and from informed speculation?
#jeju_air #jejuairlines #jejuair7c2216 #boeing737 #boeing #boeingairplanes

[@irenevais7813]

So the ATC knew of the major electrical failure of this plane, but did not order the deployment of all available fire fighting facilities? They know their airport is vulnerable due to its proximity to the bird habitat, they also issued a warning of bird flock activity just a few minutes before the bird strike, but they did not take any precautionary measures to protect these lives? Its name clearly states that it is an international airport, but they do not have sufficient personnel during a high traffic season in order to keep the birds away? This is getting more and more outrageous, Muan airport has too many safety issues to continue to be operating like this.

[@williamturner1517]

There was power for a go around and traffic pattern. Proving beyond a doubt, there was power to continue the original straight in approach.

[@TyroneJenkins-lx8nn]

The decision to go around, the wrong one.

[@knackered1557]

A couple of points here. 1 - You don't request a go around, you carry out a go around and then advise the tower. 2 - In the timeline given here, the aircraft suffers a loss of all electrical power before the loss of engine no. 2, which doesn't seem to make sense.

[@JetSkiBuyFixPlaySellChannel]

I can't imagine how horrible it was for the family members to see the videos and watch the explosion knowing your loved one was inside. Absolutely heartbreaking!

[@jmy6050]

The sound of what appears to be the right engine running as it passes the camera tells us that it was producing power....how much is the question. Also where was the aircraft when (if) it lost all engine power? Must have been during the turn back to the airport or on their final approach. To lose all thrust on your way out would mean the aircraft had to execute the U turn and then make it back to the runway. I don't know that would be possible due to the amount of altitude loss in that turn, then to fly across the threshold at 200kts. It doesn't look like, according to the flight path, that they had too much altitude to play with.

[@easydrive3662]

Makes sense now, both engines disabled with the aircraft at low height and speed due to landing configuration, so pilots decided to keep gear up with no flaps to try keep speed up to make the runway, so the pilots havr actually done a great job and all pax and crew would of been alive if it was not for the ils mound, terrible!

[@jamesreynolds4220]

Not so fast - most go-arounds take about 20 mins. ; in this case the pilot did it in 4 minutes, with plenty of speed. As soon as his turn was completed towards runway 19, he has chose to land on the runway instead of doing a "Sully" (stalling it at low altitude, tail down, in water). Two pilots at controls, no landing gear, no flaps, no APU on . . . complete fail! Very few airports in the world can accommodate a large jet landing more than half way down the runway at nearly 200 mph with no gear, no speed brakes, no flaps down - either a boundary wall, highway, building will be it's final stop. He did not have a space shuttle runway - bring in all the Korean pilots and Sim test them - will save lives.

[@echassin]

Even if bird strikes caused both turbines to fail completely, the aircraft's design needed to enable ADSB, the black boxes, and basic functions with an immediate and automatic switch to backup power. Either the plane wasn't so equipped and/or there are contributing factors besides the birds. In the same vein, the bird strikes don't explain the flight path: we know there was enough power for the go-around, ergo there was plenty of power to continue the descent into the initial approach. That also suggests other contributing factors.

[@jacobwarren1498]

This particular 737 was built one year before the mandate to have the recorder's on the backup bus. Tell me you haven't done any research into this without telling me. Take a wee look: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4WuoHZ_btCJqsU

[@masonmccauley736]

@@jacobwarren1498 👍🏻

[@JetSkiBuyFixPlaySellChannel]

I think they need to design a system that deploys a guard in front of the engines to deflect birds when it detects them. Could use radar, lidar, sonar. Or have it engage on takeoff and landing when the plane is at a certain altitude where birds could be present.

[@TheManGrant]

If power failure occurred from bird strike, then a go-around was commenced, how could the landing gear and flaps be raised without power for the go-around. Something is fishy here.

[@meofnz2320]

Nothing fishy. Entirely possible the second engine failed after the thing was cleaned up.

[@andret4403]

Other analysts of video noted there was power in right engine. Perhaps degraded power. Bird strike doesn't necessarily mean engine is dead.

[@richysuphiy]

If the reverser on eng2 is operating, that mean eng2 is working🧐🤨 this reporter is no expert!!😂🤣😂🤣

[@meofnz2320]

Working does not necessarily mean producing useful thrust…😂🤣😂😂

[@gregtriplett2458]

The engineer who signed off on the localiser support structure has some explaining to do.

[@jamesm568]

That structure did its job as it kept that plane on the airport property.

[@boneezy1028]

Yeah because the structure was the essential reason why the pilot forgot the flaps and landing gears

[@TyroneJenkins-lx8nn]

ATC should begin cancelling approaches when there is danger by birds and develop a better way to disperse them, its there turf.

[@johnreas9216]

Great reporting….esp 2009/2010 battery back-up change. Still….why didn’t that ding-dang Pilot just land straight-in? With his landing gear & flaps ALREADY deployed? Grrrrrr……

[@Mount_Bowen_Hiker.Hinchinbrook]

I suspected this might be case.

[@Hawker900XP]

Almost looks like the pilot is holding the nose off the runway. Another KZbinr made the comment that the puff of smoke out of the right engine could be the result of pulling the fire handle discharging the Halon. 🤷‍♂️

[@geoffreythomas-on-air]

Yes indeed....

[@michaelshrader5139]

So is there any evidence inside of the engine cowlings or the engines themselves that supports this theory? Or is there just bird feathers and blood? I mean, I'd consider your theory to be plausible IF there was anything supporting it... but there isn't. 😐

[@michaelshrader5139]

So where's all the critics who were saying it's impossible for a bird strike to take down a modern passenger jet??? (silence!) Hmmm.... imagine that.

[@mmmqua]

Thank you, Geoffrey. ❤ You're one of the very few analysts who covered this ongoing investigation into this tragedy, with thoughtful analysis, correct information, and rational thinking, without bias. I'm glad they finally confirmed what most of us with common sense all knew, within the first few days when the eyewitness reports came out. Hopefully all those YT commentors (and some pathetic channels) can stop trying to only blame the pilots for shutting down a "wrong" engine now, and just wait till more confirmed information comes out of the full investigation.

[@geoffreythomas-on-air]

Thanks very much.....we are trying to keep up with this bizarre crash....

[@mmmqua]

@@geoffreythomas-on-air I appreciate you & your hard work! ♥️ 👍👍

[@jonathanparle8429]

It doesn't matter how many engines failed - one or both. They still should have completed the initial approach. Abandoning the approach after a bird strike is never in any way, shape or form going to make things better - it is a terrible piloting decision. They failed to do that then went around and still managed to stuff it up by landing with far too much energy - energy that could easily have been bled off by extending the go around leg. And then the third stuff up - landing without any gear - they could always have deployed it manually - and it doesn't take much longer to get it down manually than it does using the hydraulics. Most of the extra time is taken up by leaning back behind the seat to pull the three red handles. It was either land gearless and bleed off energy accordingly or use that excess energy to deploy the gear and also land - even if they just had accumulators for braking. And they sure had enough time given how much excess energy they had to get rid of. bottom line is the aircraft was still in one piece. The pilots still had three axis of control. And yet they stuffed it up, one engine or no engines. The berm at the end of the tarmac is as much to blame as the house at the end of a cul de sac is to blame when an out of control driver smashes into it. But given the pilots were clearly flaring the aircraft upon landing with the expectation of the tyres hitting the runway, they most likely simply didn't even follow the landing checklist. And forget the very first thing they were ever taught and the last thing they should ever forget - GUMPS.

[@Toro_Da_Corsa]

So they probably pulled the fire handles on both engines. Thus causing the loss of generated power (terrible design)and turned the plane into a glider

[@michaelshrader5139]

And what evidence is there of this though? Have they found fire retardant in either of the engines, or just bird feathers and blood? 😕

[@davidchoi6068]

No pilot will do a rapid turn if all engines are failed. Rapid turning a plane will most likely stall a plane. As seen on war movies, fighter plane saw below ememy planes , roll & start power dive to attack enemies.

[@michaelshrader5139]

@@davidchoi6068 Well the plane didn't stall so... one might assume the engines were failing, but still running to some extent at least for a minute or two. You aren't seriously suggesting we review Hollywood movies for how planes should work are you? 😕