JEJU 737-800 Crash Update 2 Jan 2025

[@AviationUpclose]

I'm starting to draw some parallels between this accident and Ryanair flight 4102 which occurred in Rome in 2008. During a significant birdstrike incident, the crew elected to go around but lost thrust in both engines and made a forced landing within the airport boundary. One of the most important takeaways from that incident was affirming the idea that following a birdstrike on final, it is recommended to continue the approach to landing. Especially when the aircraft has not deviated from the stabilised approach criteria. Just my thoughts here. The investigation will hopefully give us more answers.

[@markremillard9237]

British Airways, flight 38, frozen heat exchangers, dual flameout..pilot in command raised flaps to extend glide...made it to the end of the runway..on a boeing 777

[@NicolaW72]

Indeed. The Ryanair pilots back then had the good luck that they didn´t faced an obstacle of concrete at their forced landing.

[@AviationUpclose]

​@@NicolaW72 The aircraft also touched down with the landing gear extended (although it had sustained multiple bird impacts), and the Flaps still set to 15 degrees. This helped to somewhat reduce the impact when the aircraft entered the onset of an aerodynamic stall and touched down with a force exceeding 2.6G

[@Foxyfreedom]

Why do a go around?

[@Kickinpony66]

If power was lost in both engines, why was the aircraft moving so fast down the runway, in ground effect?

[@divemaster2452]

Current 777 captain, ex 737 and 747. It’s easy in hindsight, but just can’t get my head around why they didn’t continue their first approach. If engines are damaged, I really wouldn’t want to increase them to go around thrust. The Boeing FCTM for the 777, suggests that if you lose an engine on final approach the best option is to continue. If possible leave flaps where they are, if performance does not allow that, reduce the flap setting and increase the speed (the amount by which depends on the variant). Like I say easy to discuss in hindsight in the comfort of my home, no doubt there would have been a lot of confusion and other factors at the time…

[@gordocooper9199]

@@divemaster2452 that is what we used the landing briefing for, KAL had a written one with all those actions covered ,bird warnings are std in Korea and almost always including windshear in every ATIS

[@rofo2107]

again. on the north side of runway were construction works which means excavators, heavy trucks, material of all kinds etc. Do you suggest that the pilot should continue landing with no reverse thrust and risk colliding with all of that ? Really, mr. Pilot ?

[@gordocooper9199]

@@rofo2107 green table and not knowing what actually happened but they where setup to land, reverse or not auto brakes would have been set after determining the landing distance wheels down a better option.Constuction north has been going on for ages and definitely a briefing point, rather charge into a ploughed field than a concrete wall but no flaps no gear equals no control.The FDR VRC will give us the missing parts. Sympathy for all 😔WTF is a concrete wall doing on the rwy centerline😑

[@twoturnin1]

same thing i was taught at PIA . Land. go around good grief.

[@lbowsk]

@@rofo2107 Your bona fides? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[@randyh8451]

Worked for a Korean airline for years. There policy was if an engine failure on final you shall go around, even on short final, 200 feet. I always thought it was inappropriate procedure and vowed to myself I would not do that unless the approach was unstable and a safe go-around could be made.

[@formgeben]

Very valuable information!

[@Lance_Lionroar]

I hope this is wrong, because that's just moronic nonsense and cost all those people their lives.

[@empower4you972]

Wow. Surprised on this Korean air policy. Most reports by other pilots indicate they would get the plane down with flaps and landing gear - with either one or zero engines on initial approach.

[@xantiom]

​@@Lance_Lionroarmoronic policies + hierarchical culture = disaster waiting to happen.

[@smakfu1375]

That’s one hell of a stupid SOP for an airline to have! It should PF discretion. If that was in place at this airline, it’s probably a major contributing factor in this crash.

[@seldoon_nemar]

Wild they were all squared up for a normal landing, ingested some birds, and immediately aborted, un-did all the landing prep, did a 180 and came back. I really hope the voice recorder isn't damaged, there's a hell of a lot of questions EDIT: some people have mentioned the possibility they committed to the go-around before they hit the birds, in which case they had already re-trimmed and pulled up the gear But still, unless both engines totally failed the time line is _way_ too compressed for any considered decisions occurring. They came in with absolutely zero landing prep

[@Smuggler169]

You got that right.

[@isilder]

Its crazy isn't it. A little engine problem and he completely does a panic landing .. in a panic.. 2nd pilot should have told him to not do that .

[@therealxunil2]

I can picture striking birds, which would result in a now-unstable approach in their minds, so they act quickly to go around, only to find afterward that the problem was too severe to make it safely back. But yea, lots of questions.

[@hifijohn]

One of the worst cases of pilot panic I have ever seen.

[@paulg2132]

It seems to me that from the point of the bird strike, they didn't buy themselves any time to fully assess the status of the aircraft and take the proper actions needed to land safely.

[@markg7963]

I’m new to the 787, but just came off a stint of 17000 hours total time on the 737. My analysis is that the masses are focused on the loss of the right engine, but the systems failures are more consistent with the failure of both engines, and that explains the immediate turn around and landing. I think they executed a go around, and then lost another engine, most likely because of birds in both cases (because in the middle of a go around, which they stated on the radio, no pilot is going to get to the severe damage checklist fast enough nor far enough to get to the step that has you shut down the fuel, nor pull the T handle reserved normally just for fires anyway…the T handle would have shut off even windmilling hydraulics from that engine). I do not believe the engines were running at touchdown, the sounds you are hearing in the video is aluminum scraping on concrete. So, at the end of the day, I think they lost the other engine. However that happened try this scenario in your head. 1. On approach. You are flaps say 5, no gear, 200 knots. Birds take out your right engine, compressor stall engine and that blows off the right reverser sleeve. (Explaining the appearance of an open reverser at touchdown) 2. You decide to go around. Non standard calls because you are not fully configured. So it’s really just push up the power and raise the flaps 1 and then up. Startle factor is already kicked in if the compressor stall and engine damage is sever enough to cause that damage. And you are not starting the go around from a typical configuration. 3. You have now a left engine “event”. Could be birds, could be somebody grabs the wrong fuel switch. But you realize no thrust, or very limited. Maybe you already lost that left engine and just now realize it when you attempt to power up. In the middle of a go around sequence add in the immediate items for a dual engine failure. 4. Forced into a glide, your first ever in a real airplane, by now both generators drop off line, no apu means no ac electric power. No standby or system A or B electric pumps can operate without AC power. But you have enough windmilling hydraulics to operate the flight controls and clean the flaps that are already selected up. The gear was never down. No electricity for transponder to send ADS data, left radio 1 works on emergency power. 5. You realize that you are too hot and high to land north, so you begin a teardrop to get turned around. Relatively low altitude and you misjudge the energy and turn a little bit too soon. If the captain is flying now he is having a hard time visualizing his approach and turn, so instincts tell me that the FO may still be flying (because of the teardrop direction) The early turn puts you high to the south, and long on the landing. You are hyper focused on flying your first glider. Causing crm to severely break down as you realize your position. 6. So, as a result of all this focus and breakdown, nobody thinks and doesn’t have time to try to get flaps out. First of all. I doubt that even if you moved the handle much would happen with just windmilling hydraulics with demand on the system from the flight controls, secondly the alternate flap system wouldn’t work because it also requires AC power to work. Hell, they are so fast still the trigger for flaps might not have entered their heads. 7. I can’t explain the gear for sure, but…I would guess that if you threw the handle with just windmilling hydraulics would be enough to get the gear over the locks, but maybe not. If that doesn’t work, you may be forced to grab the alternate extension handles, but those are behind the FO seat. If he is flying this approach that’s not happening. And it takes 30 seconds to get to the door, open it from all the sticky crap stick in there, and pull those 3 handles. I don’t think they got to it. You’re so close to the ground now you may be afraid that even if the gear does come down it won’t be symmetric. 8. By now, your just a few hundred feet, you focus on what appears to be the smoothest gear up touchdown I’ve ever seen, but you are long, fast, and there is no drag on the airplane. No brakes, no spoilers, not enough room before that damn wall. Now, add in all sorts of potential external factors, extreme vibration, display screens shutting down, master caution panel (6 packs) is a Christmas tree, transfer of controls? , shock, coordination with flight attendants, multiple checklists to do, immediate action items for a dual engine failure, etc. and you can see these guys were having a helmet fire even if they are super experienced. For their sake, I’m gonna say that something speaks volumes to me, and that something drove them to this solution. And put the timeline to 3 to 5 minutes and they needed 20 minutes they didn’t have. To their credit they put this airplane smack dab on the centerline, and the airport design ultimately failed them in a way they couldn’t imagine. To me, this accident will become one of the highest studied accidents I’ve ever seen. There will be much to learn, and much to teach. Let’s all pay attention to this so it isn’t one of us in the same position without a better outcome. It is the very definition of our professions! Don’t let these people die with no answers. RIP to all the souls. And hope that we get some clear answers for all the lives this touched.

[@gordonrichardson2972]

Well said, sir!

[@mmburgess11]

A very likely possibility; well thought-out. YT comments are so valuable because of all the experiences and viewpoints.

[@moxievintage1390]

Brilliantly stated, thank you.

[@gregorymoats4007]

Except it is reported the landing gear was DOWN during approach and during bird strike

[@Nondas6]

Why they didn't use the rudder left or right to avoid the coalition with the wall ?

[@teakettle100]

Nice job, Juan...especially researching the airport standards pieces...that's a very specialized technical area and, while I'm no expert, your analysis seems spot on. Well done! HNY!

[@FlyingtheLJ]

I'm not sure about the training at Jeju, but my experience with FlightSafety training is to increase speed to VREF+20 and go to flaps 20 (approach flaps for the Lear). In fact it's ground into us such that they often will do an engine fire on short final during our checkride as a predicate to an evacuation so we can shut it down quickly and end the checkride in a more timely fashion. I'm surprised to see, based on comments here, that this isn't more heavily covered at the major airlines. The mindset of "continue if you can" was helpful as my only bird ingestion was at 800 feet while on an ILS. I was on the instruments and heard a thud and a very noticeable vibration, the FO said he'd seen the birds as we passed over a ship just after breaking out. The N1 on the #1 engine was looking grim but it was producing power so that engine went to idle, we declared a PAN-PAN and landed without incident, shutting the engine down after clearing the runway. The paperwork with the airport and getting Duncan out to change some fan blades (and a $30,000 repair bill) were the most stressful parts of that adventure.

[@reggierico]

It is...

[@ashdee-zz1ze]

Very insightful comment. I can't however get the visual of sitting in a KFC after reading the term 'bird ingestion', out of my head now.

[@BosworthMcG]

Duncan to the rescue as usual

[@Kalimerakis]

I read getting the ducan out 😅

[@OtoyaYamaguchi-i1b]

Changing the flap and speed setting low to the ground would destabilize the approach, especially if the airplane were on an ILS, or even GPS approach (with autopilot on). It's gospel: stabilized approaches are the best way to ensure a successful landing. At least 500 feet, or 1000 feet in instrument conditions. Big jets are not so nimble as a Lear.... Is there more than one landing flap setting for the Lear? Go to flaps 20 from what flap setting? Sounds like "increase speed to VREF+20 and go to flaps 20" may be cautionary preparation for a go-around.

[@cryptokid1021]

As a B737 captain with a major airline I can say that we aren't really trained to continue an approach after and engine failure type problem except during our initial type rating and in our case we are given the option to continue or go around. From memory it wasn't an easy manoeuvre to perform as you are required to increase IAS by around 20 kts and raise Flaps to 15 if performance is an issue which means a stable approach is very difficult to achieve. I presume this type of failure will now be incorporated into our training. Just my two cents.

[@rkan2]

Check out the 747 birdstrike landing at Amsterdam here on KZbin. I know things are a bit different with 4 engines. However it should be the standard for everyone.

[@johnraahauge4552]

I'm a 737 Captain at another US major and we have the option and practiced it during a recent CQT. Not really that big of a deal to continue and land. That said, the Jeju crew may not have been in a good position to continue if they had done evasive maneuvers to avoid the birds.

[@lucasalfredorinconmontiel145]

Hello ckid, I have two questions for you! When they authorized landing on 01, what was the wind speed on the runway and when it landed on 19... what was the lift speed of this plane without slaps/flaps and with? Thanks Luke

[@TGraysChannels]

Bingo. Same here, many thousands of hours on all sorts of 73s at a major. Raise the flaps to 15, brief go-around at flaps 1 and continue the approach. If you are sure you are not going to go around for a bus full of nuns, heck, just leave the flaps full down and land. Go-Arounds are simply not easy to do, particularly with an engine out. Avoid them if you can.

[@cryptokid1021]

@@rkan2 having flown the B747 as an FO a while ago I can tell you it depends which engine. Engine number 2 or 3 failing wasn't a big deal as loosing 1 or 4 (ie outer) as the thrust diferential required was minimal. Secondly the B747 has a much better autopilot than the B737 so this would also make a big difference as the B737 AP isn't even good at handling gusty conditions. Again it's all about training and given most dont get trained to handle what would seem on paper a simple failure I would say going around would be a sensible option as you would assume you can safely fly with one engine onto a holding pattern, do the check list, brief the Cabing crew and then come back for a safe landing.

[@kurtbilinski1723]

For me, as the aircraft slides past the cameraman is just heartbreaking, seeing the right seat pilot with his arm up, bracing himself. He's no doubt staring straight at that embankment, realizing that they aren't going to stop in time. RIP to all.

[@pamshewan9181]

Heartbreaking

[@justsnappy]

@@kurtbilinski1723 how can you see it? Are you watching YT on a tv?

[@southpark5555]

@@justsnappy On youtube, there is just terrible direct footage of the plane ploughing straight into that crazy wall. And the plane just gets totally destroyed in split second.

[@CA-vy8et]

@@southpark5555I watched the KZbin video and I can’t see that far in. Are you watching a zoomed in version?

[@johnnunn8688]

@@justsnappyI saw it on iPad, watching Yuan’s first report.

[@phatkid6811]

I hit a flock of geese at GFAFB about 10 years ago on landing; even fully configured (high drag) if I had lost all 4 engines - I would have selected less flaps (30) and glided in. Point = there’s an argument to fly radar pattern and run a bunch of checklists - but there’s also the point that you’re in a stable landing configuration to just land. IMO.

[@robertfuessl3769]

Correct, sir!

[@NicolaW72]

Indeed, exactly. And therefore it is a crucial question in this investigation why they choosed to perform a go-around - but then didn´t did what you do after a go-around: running the relevant checklists before starting the second attempt to land. This indicates that human factors played a role here. Hopefully the CVR and FDR will give an answer to that question.

[@billh4849]

Dido..

[@ce7857]

Yep. If you have enough power for a go around, you obviously have enough power to simply keep on landing. Absolutely no reason to risk a go around.

[@19127bh]

I lost the right engine on a left downwind to final. Just continued the turn to final and landed no big deal. Of course it'd be even easier on a straight in approach. I'm pretty sure this is what 99.9% of pilots would do. Can't wait to hear what's on the cvr.

[@raynes1957]

The preliminary report from the JAL crash in Haneda has been released. Hope to see your breakdown of that as well.

[@LadyAnuB]

I was wondering about this since it's been a year since this happened

[@casssmith2610]

Can I just say that watching all these flight channels and listening to the experts and reading all these pilots comments, as an over 30 year business flier logging multi millions of miles internationally, and living to tell of it, my belief in you all being my heroes is cemented even more strongly!! My head spins reading what you say and hearing your expertise and how you remain calm and collected. I’m that person who thanks the flight crews, all of them, as I disembark because you truly earned my gratitude and respect and awe!! People thank vets for their service, I do as well, but I thank my flight crews!! And it’s so deeply sincere! You’re awesome!

[@737smartin]

❤

[@MrChaza001]

I’ll second that! (Not so many miles traveled but I always thank the cabin crew when I disembark and the flight crew if the cockpit door is open.) I’ve even been known to strike up a conversation with the pilots if we happen to be walking the concourse together. Such professionalism is awesome to see and be a part of even if I’m just a passenger in cattle class!

[@casssmith2610]

@ the following comment was in response to you, my fellow Road Warrior!

[@casssmith2610]

@ cabin crews too! I think of them all as my flight crews.

[@gerhardfourie8150]

Amen to this wonderful words. It's in that seat of PIC that it changes from a "relaxed, job well done stable on final" to a hot seat and wish I was down, within a second, as the options arw so few

[@johnschulenberg7560]

I watch these outstanding videos week after week, month after month and I'm just astonished at the knowledge Juan displays as he meticulously lays out, breaks down and explains all the incidents. Anyone else here agree?

[@Kickinpony66]

I just watched Hoover's video. A broken connector on an FDR isn't an issue; it will be replaced and the data pulled. Most of this crash doesn't make sense. The Captain had over 6,800 hours, which (I believe) is more than plenty to be panicky in a situation like this. Like you said, they were already on approach, why not just continue in? Why did they initiate a go-around?

[@paulocapelas2881]

From AvHerald: "A ground observer reported that the aircraft flew through a flock of birds, two or three pop-sounds were heard as if the birds were ingested into engines, flames were seen from the right hand engine. The aircraft climbed a little but seemed to be unable to climb further and landed opposite direction. When the aircraft overflew the observer, it had the landing gear down" They may have attempted a go-around without sucess, now they are unstable for RWY01 in low engine thrust with the gear and flaps up. The only option is to put the jet down immediatly in opposite direction, at any cost

[@charlestoast4051]

@@paulocapelas2881 That only makes not doing a go-around the even more obvious solution. The video from the apartments does show some small flares coming out of the #1 engine, just before the you see the compressor stall on engine #2. If there's any danger of both engines quitting, land ASAP, same as for a fire.

[@somealias-zs1bw]

Yes from the information currently available it seems like the most likely explanation for this tragedy is sheer panic. This should have been a simple birdstrike on a plane already configured for landing and with the runway probably almost made if not made already. There was absolutely no indication to execute a go around in this situation. In fact, this is precisely the situation where a go around should be avoided at all reasonable cost: the engines have bit it and you have no idea how much longer the plane can keep flying. Unfortunately the pilot in this instance seems to have impulsively and thoughtlessly firewalled the throttles the moment he heard a bang and abandoned what would otherwise almost certainly have been a perfectly safe, gear down landing. If it later emerges that they also shut down the wrong engine, AND there was nothing wrong with the landing gear deployment system and they simply "forgot" to lower the gear..well..

[@wzukr]

@@paulocapelas2881 wrote "When the aircraft overflew the observer, it had the landing gear down"" Sure most of us have seen the video of the alleged bird strike from this observer, the problem is only that the video doesn´t show that the landing gear was down at the plane.

[@sven_86]

it makes no sense regd the panic as the pilot with these many hours would certainly have trained (on sim and procedure flow) a number of times w.r.t bird strike on final approach surely? Either that or jeju air really messed up with its training cert standards. A pilot panicking anyway is also possible....guess we will know for sure once more info is out.

[@mickboakes7023]

Thanks Juan. Good to get yours and Hoovers take on this accident with so much click bait rubbish being broadcast in the media. All the best for the coming year. Mick🇬🇧

[@CWSteam32]

Juan, Thank you for the information and everything you do. The terms you use for describing these events are descriptive and easy to follow for me as a non-aviation person.

[@ecstazyrm]

Blancolirio is the most knowledgeable pilot channel on the internet

[@alanblyde8502]

Thus by far, I don’t even bother with any other click bait Chanel direct to the Point and always spot on👌

[@LasVegasVocalist]

Agreed. I have learned, by far, more info from from this channel than any other KZbinr. And for the other guys, Mentour, 74Gear, Captain Joe, Captain Steeeve and several others your stuff is great as well. I just really like Juan's long form videos the best. I started with Juan back when he started on the destruction of the Oroville Dam. Keep up the great reporting My Brown.

[@kevinstevenson8604]

Get a room😂

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

he's truly excellent, however it's hard to say that for a fact. there's probably an obscure channel somewhere with an even awesomer pilot, and there's also similar channels in slightly different subgenres that go into crazy detail, like greg's airplanes and automobiles.

[@kevinstevenson8604]

@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 Why does everyone insist on kissing ass- watch pilot debrief for a way better analysis

[@andrewsnow7386]

The wall appears to be of a cinder block construction. If it is un-reinforced (designed just to keep people out) it might not be catastrophic to hit. But if the wall is steel reinforced (possibly to resist military equipment) then it would likely be just as bad to hit as the berm. The extra 200 feet or so of stopping distance might have helped a little, but probably not much.

[@scottwatrous]

Even if somewhat reinforced against a truck or vehicle punching through, it's a relatively thin wall and not terribly tall and also at the bottom of a little slope there so the jet may or may not just work it's way partially over it. In any case it probably would have been a bad scene for anyone in the first 1/3 of the airplane, but maybe survivable for the other 2/3?

[@gottagowork]

A brick wall isn't going to stop much military equipment, unless you're talking about russians on a motorcycle with a bathtub mounted as a sidecar. Yeah, I guess that's a thing now... I don't know, hitting that brick wall at what looks like 150 knots could have induced a tumbling motion and doesn't exactly fill me with confidence as far as outcome goes. Outcome doesn't always match the odds...

[@scottwatrous]

@@gottagowork It's better than a chainlink fence at stopping, say, a few guys in a van or car looking to smash through. Certainly not much to stop a properly armored vehicle.

[@andrewsnow7386]

@@scottwatrous I didn't research it at all, but it's possible the wall is more than one row of blocks thick. Thus, I left open the possibility that it was built very strong. If it's designed around military requirements, then it's conceivable (but I think unlikely) that it was built heavy enough to resist a bulldozer or a tank.

[@jameslehnert5054]

We tend to forget that South Korea is still at war with North Korea. It's not hypothetical to them, but a fact of life. They still have mandatory military service for all able-bodied males. If Juan is correct that the wall is military related, it's probably more solid than a light-weight concrete block wall that will fall over when hit by a VW bug.

[@AndyRCchannel]

If the eye witness account is accurate (they are usually not) claiming the gear was down when the bird strike happened. Perhaps the video of the compressor stall is a second bird strike (the gear is up in that video) therefore possible two bird strikes happened taking out both engines. See what the report says.

[@MR-xc3sw]

Agree. 3 minutes from mayday to touchdown, why would anyone shut an engine down when they would be on the runway in 3 minutes. If the left engine was out it was not the pilots doing .

[@charlestoast4051]

There are images that show at least the nosegear down on that first approach, but the mains are in shade and can't be seen.

[@wzukr]

False memory is a common thing.

[@AndyRCchannel]

@@charlestoast4051 not aware of any new images? What to search for?

[@AndyRCchannel]

@@wzukr very much so. It's why a lot of criminals go free and vice versa

[@Tuckpana]

Thanks Juan, I waited for your 1st and 2nd update, before delving elsewhere. You are the best aviation nuts and bolts person out there. Thank you very much for the outstanding work!

[@r.b.701]

Fatigue will play a part in those strange decisions as well. It was a night flight that started 02:30 AM [UTC+7hrs] with prebriefing and all that comes along ahead of departure

[@NicolaW72]

This seems to be an important point. Jeju Air is a (U)LCC with the usual operations of this type of airlines - at least in Europe and Asia: Aircrafts and Crews are fix stationed at their base, the crew returns always to the base to avoid the cost for hotel stays. And the aircrafts have short turn-around-times and so much legs to fly as possible. According to FR24-data this aircraft (HL-8088) was nearly around the clock in the air with usually only 50-minutes-turn-around-times. Jeju Air has no base in Bangkok, so the pilots probably flew both legs. If you link this information with the last flight data from this aircraft according to FR24 this pilots probably checked in around 08:00 pm LT the evening before. The aircraft departed Muan airport at 09:03 pm LT. They performed then a flight of 05:35 hours to Bangkok. The turn-around there lasted - for whatever reason - two hours instead of 50 minutes, so they departed Bangkok for the return flight with a delay of round about one hour. They performed then the return flight through the whole circadian low and were on final approach after a flight of round about 04:30 hours and at the limits of their allowed duty time when the birdstrike happened. That was definetely not the best time for it. And: They had still a delay of round about half an hour while the aircraft should have departed Muan airport again at 09:20 am LT, what means that the next crew and the next passengers were waiting at the gate for this aircraft when the crash happened. To take this into consideration may could make it more understandable under which circumstances this pilots were operating.

[@Carlos-im3hn]

I don't know. I saw the video and it did not look like night-time ? can't recall...need to see again.

[@rue2127]

​@@Carlos-im3hn Wtf, you need to watch initial video first, this video already has title "update 2 Jan 2025". This Jeju 2216 departure time from Bangkok thailand 02:29 AM, arrival time scheduled at 08:30 AM Muan South Korea 29 December 2024. Jeju 2216 crash at 09:07 AM Muan Airport South Korea.

[@BlackkTiger]

@@Carlos-im3hn OP is saying the flight occurred mostly at night (2:30 am UTC+7 departure) not that the incident (9:00 am UTC+9) occurred at night. They're suggesting that fatigue, not darkness, could have played a role. It's probably not an issue if this was the crew's first flight of the day, but other commenters suggest instead that it may have been their last flight of a long duty day.

[@syjiang]

@@Carlos-im3hn He is referring to circadian low. Anyone who worked through night shift will appreciate the fact that, even if one is well rested, staying awake and working through the night until the next morning bring about significant degradation in cognition and response time. The accident happened in day time but they will be fatigued from working the night.

[@jimmccurdy3293]

Good Lord what an in depth analysis - the best crash analysis online. Thank you

[@guillaumeromain6694]

In the English language, perhaps. A whole world exists out side of it.

[@Skiandcycle]

Ok.. i can understand Koreans so i am watching the news for updates.. these are what the Korean medias are saying. 1. The Korean Civil Aviation Agency recovered the voice recording data without degradation. They are analyzing it. 2. Based on the video evidences, both engines had smoke and fire coming out. However, engine #2 seemed like it was partially operating based on deployment of reverse thruster. Plus, some former pilots pointed out that aircraft was yawning to the left.. so compressor stall might not be the cause on #2 engine. However, #1 engine might experienced compressor stall. 3. One of the flight attendants who survived stated she saw smoke and heard explosions right before the emergency landing. She does not remember anything after the landing. If what she said is true, this could be a strong evidence of bird strike and serious damage to #2 engine. I think a former pilot said if #1 engine is damaged, the cockpit will have smoke and if #2 is damaged, you will see smoke in main cabin. 4. The Captain is a veteran pilot with 6,800 flying hours who was a former Air Force pilot. His total flying hour experience is unknown but 6,800 hours are on B737 based on the report. 5. Based on the eye witness, the aircraft veered left during the go around which might have blocked Captain’s view to the runway. 6. The investigator recovered pages of B737-800 manuals that looked like ripped out of the manual book showing gliding distance with flaps and landing gears. Which can implicate dual engine failures and seems like the pilots were desperately troubleshoot and fly. 7. There is a video evidences showing at least one landing gear was deployed (front) during the initial approach. It is unknown if all landing gears were operating without malfunctions. 8. The Korean media discovered the Korean civil aviation regulation stating that any structures near the runway need to be fragile for the aircraft in case of overrun. The Korean law enforcement initiated a criminal investigation and just executed a search warrant on Jeju Airline corporate office, and Muan Airport. The investigation is focusing more on the reinforced concrete structure and possible negligence in maintenance for caused of mass casualties. However, the recovery of flight data recording might take some time since the Korean government had to send the device to the NTSB for analysis. This will delay the investigation. 9. Although, the aircraft landed far down the runway, the emergency belly landing was well executed, however due to an angle of attack, the Korean government suspects that the aircraft was traveling more than 200 nautical miles per hour on the ground. 10. According to the former Jeju employees, it seems like the company over flew this aircraft. This aircraft might have been suspended from flying due to safety violations. Additionally, the former employee accused that the company intentionally over utilized the aircraft without proper maintenance. 11. Some people criticized why didnt the captain dump the jet fuels. According to the report B737-800 does not have fuel dumping capability. additionally, the captain landed the aircraft within 3 minutes and not enough time to dump the fuel even if he could. 12. According to a former B737-800 pilot, in the case of dual engine failures, you want the clean configuration to maximize the gliding distance. Former pilot stated that if you deploy flaps and landing gears, you lose significant gliding distance on B737. 13. The reinforced concrete structure was covered under the mound of dirts. The captain most likely did not know that there was a reinforced concrete structure under it and assumed that this was just dirt which could have helped the aircraft slowdown without explosion. 14. There was a similar structure on runway 01 with reinforced concrete structure. Additionally, runway number 01 has residential structure behind the runway and close proximity to the ocean. FYI, i am not a pilot and i don’t have the expertise on this. However, this is what i was able to find out.

[@mostlyvoid.partiallystars]

Thank you for passing this info along. It helps to view media from closer to source I think, and I do not speak Korean so I’m very grateful you took the time to share. Sending peace and love to the families of the lost loved ones and hoping some positive change happens after this. 😢

[@seansoccer100]

Thanks for all this information. I’m sorry that so many people were lost. 😢

[@eshackleton8248]

Thank you for your time. My condolences to the Korean people.

[@Skiandcycle]

@ just saying what the investigators discovered. This was released in today’s news. This is high profile case, and Koreans get very sensitive if they dont get enough updates on large casualty events like this. The investigators found a ripped page on Boeing manual, but this is all speculation. However, it makes sense that the pilots would pull out a manual to troubleshoot. However, i think the chart was showing the effect of drag with landing gears and flaps are deployed based on the page they showed.

[@joeskis]

I'm still in favor of the reinforced barrier. For those that aren't then you're saying in this situation you think it would have been fine for the plane to crash through the wall and possibly add motorists to the victim count?

[@jonnyduncan7056]

Excellently explained ref. the left and right seat and respective entry pattern Juan

[@OswaldJames-x2t]

Maybe the copilot was PIC for that leg?😢

[@kennethhoffman8845]

Gut Feeling: The crew panicked and turned a manageable situation into a disaster.

[@2760ade]

Afraid so, and reading between the lines I think this is Juan's belief as well! Too many illogical decisions made here!

[@photudiodan4648]

It is more than your gut, plenty of evidence says your gut is correct. Damn shame, and I just weep internally for all those innocent souls.

[@charlescomly1]

That is my opinion too I've felt that from the start.

[@DJG37S]

I've been saying this since the accident happened and the report came out. The pilots panicked due to a bird strike, did a go around and completely forgot everything. Now the questions becomes why did they panic? Were these pilots not trained for bird strikes? When was the last time these two pilots had training for situations like bird strikes, etc.

[@NicolaW72]

Indeed. Very probably human factors played a role in this crash.

[@mapleext]

I’m a non-aviator who has watched a lot of reports on this accident. It’s very obvious that many commenters are aviators or are in the industry in some way, and that this puzzling accident does not yet make sense and causes a lot of theories and guesses to be made. It will be very interesting once the report comes out to look again at these guesses and note the scope and trends these viewpoints present. We so much want to use our experience and knowledge to figure things out - to make a hypothesis as to what causes what. This is science, engineering and psychology in action. I feel like I’m reading comments from a lot of smart and caring people. This is not to take away from the horrible tragedy which occurred. Additionally, when you look at that very high reinforced berm, your heart sinks. May this investigation make a difference for others in the future.

[@Kickinpony66]

Yes, indeed.

[@davethewave7248]

Fatigued pilot put on edge about birds. Then nearing landing bird strike. Reacts in the go around... even though the engine are potentially compromised. The training should be to continue landing. Just basic logic. No?

[@Ida-fz3ir]

​@@davethewave7248 there are no reports about the pilots: How old, experienced they were...

[@MontyMcRib]

It’s a great way to make a hypothesis for yourself and see what actually happened in a month or two and compare what you got right and wrong and why, so you can improve your critical thinking

[@isabellind1292]

@@MontyMcRib Huh? You mean ask better questions? I'm confused as to what you mean, please.

[@retiredatc8720]

Thank you for everything you do Juan!

[@calvinreeves]

AA flight 1420 in 1999, from Wikipedia: The aircraft continued past the end of the runway, traveling another 800 feet (240 m; 270 yd), and striking a security fence and an ILS localizer array. The aircraft then collided with a structure built to support the approach lights for Runway 22L, which extended out into the Arkansas River.[1]: 43  Such structures are usually frangible, designed to shear off on impact, but because the approach lights were located on the unstable river bank, they were firmly anchored.[1]: 159  The collision with the sturdy structure crushed the airplane's nose, and destroyed the left side of the plane's fuselage, from the cockpit back to the first two rows of coach seating.[1]: 159  The impact broke the aircraft apart into large sections, which came to a rest short of the river bank.[1]: 43

[@nikosatsaves3141]

That makes the explosion in this situation pretty weird, doesnt it?

[@sbreheny]

@@nikosatsaves3141 not really - that plane was on its landing gear so many parts of it were above the obstacles

[@alfredomarquez9777]

​@@sbrehenyYES!... The height of that Steel-Reinforced Concrete Localizer "base" was very high indeed, especially for a 737 skidding on its belly. Full impact.

[@djinn666]

Being built on unstable soil means the foundation has to be solidly built. The stuff on top of the foundation can still be frangible.

[@ijdodijkstra8997]

@@nikosatsaves3141 Based on the FAA report, AA1420 came to a stop before the distance from the runway end to the Muan localizer. (240m vs 260m)They would not have disintegrated against it. Jeju 2216 was moving significantly faster, and likely decelerating less than AA1420 was. AA1420 wouldn't have moved much further had it not encountered the runway lights, JJA2216 would have left the 300m runway safety area at not significantlty less speed than it ahd when it ran out of runway. It would have hit the cincerblok airport fence at that speed, and info the fields behind it. It would likely have started to tumble and disintegrate, but who knows, they might have been very lucky.

[@JaysThoughts-q5e]

Thanks for breaking down the technical aspects of this crash, Juan. The discussion of the 737's electrical system and the potential for continued operation even with a single engine failure is really insightful. Looking forward to seeing more updates on this investigation

[@JBE158]

Thank you for the follow-up!

[@Priorpilot-lv6uk]

Re: whether it circled left or right, it appears to have gone to the left of Runway 01, then climbed and circled right to Runway 19. The New York Times interviewed the restaurant owner who took the famous landing video, and his restaurant is abeam the threshold of 01, and to the West. Here's a quote from the article: "Around 8:57 a.m., I heard bangs. They sounded like incomplete combustion from motorbikes but louder and unfamiliar. I often hear guns being fired to chase away the birds, as well as noise from different construction work. But never have I heard that kind of banging noise. I thought it was strange, so I left my kitchen and went outside to the restaurant parking lot and looked up at the sky. I saw the airplane. It was above my restaurant instead of over the runway. And the plane was tilted a bit to the right. It looked to me like the plane was about to make a landing, only toward my restaurant rather than toward the runway. I have never before seen a plane fly so low and over my restaurant at that. I went to the back of my restaurant to watch the back of the plane. The plane was higher in the sky than when I watched it earlier, and as it ascended, it was making a circle toward the right, doing a U-turn. It felt like this circle was a really small one. I felt that there was something definitely wrong with this plane and that I should take a video. That’s why I walked up to the rooftop. On the rooftop, I shot the first video."

[@EleventhMonkey]

I've been to a few of these incidents in my time due to my job. A few things surprised me about this, certainly surprised at the height of the landing system, and obviously the concrete foundations are a strange choice but I've seen similar problems occur from the result of poor management of the terrain around runways. This isn't the first time aircraft have had a battle with striking landing assisting systems on the ground but this is definitely the worst I've ever seen in 35 years. R.I.P to those who died, condolences to the families, and well done to the emergency responders who I'm sure have been rocked by this.

[@lohikarhu734]

Someone suggested that they may have pulled gear and flaps up to maintain altitude during go round, and forgot to lower the gear in the last seconds of approach.. if so, they would have been caught by surprise when they expected the gear to touch down, then floated in ground effect for a long time...

[@marialilahl3217]

Sounds simple but could have forgot to put landing gear down.

[@eshackleton8248]

Manual (assuming hydraulics failed) landing gear deployment takes 3-4 minutes which they didn’t have.

[@BGraves]

​@eshackleton8248 not gravity deployed by cable pulls in seconds?!?! I smell b.s. from you

[@isabellind1292]

@@marialilahl3217 For all anyone knows, the cockpit could have been filled w/smoke and the flight crew trying to don their oxygen masks in lieu of holding their breath for the 3-4 minutes it would have taken to go through the checklist.

[@GlossaME]

It could be as simple as that. They retracted it, and forgot to deploy it again.

[@Toby84139]

Thanks!

[@danwood2581]

Another airline pilot here. Great info and insight! Well done sir.

[@mikefendel]

Thanks Jaun. We will be watching our for your next report on this tragic accident as more truthful data is available. Some reporting on this one have filled their videos with speculation after speculation and I am so happy you don't do that.

[@Tod_oMal]

Another woke who is afraid to speak out. Shameful.

[@SinergiaAlUnisono]

When you have so little time to make a good decision, it may be time to have an AI well trained in the quick reference manual and emergency procedures to decide for you, unless the pilots deem otherwise. That might reduce panic and save lives and prevent these types of accidents.

[@cassinipanini]

@@SinergiaAlUnisono Studies show that the more assistance software is installed on cars, the worse drivers become. For example, the beeping when you are near an obstacle, some people dont even check their mirrors and instead just change lanes unless they hear the beeping. Of course a pilot has much more training than a typical driver, but there have been opinion pieces prior to this accident from flight instructors discussing how the emphasis on rote memorization in Korean education culture results in pilots who are very good at answering specific questions, but not great at actually applying the knowledge. If that is true, and course im not an instructor so i have no way to know, but if it is true, then we may encounter a situation like with drivers: once the automated systems fail, they lose that safety net and accidents happen.

[@alfredomarquez9777]

​@DennisMerwoodEspecially the still very deficient "A.I."...

[@hb1338]

@@SinergiaAlUnisono "AI well trained". You have been reading FAR too much publicity material. Humans are an order of magnitude better than machines at handling complex, incomplete and fuzzy data. Any machine that makes such decisions will use algorithms created by humans, and those algorithms are unlikely to be clearly expressed because of the large number of variables that we humans regularly factor into our decisions. I remember the excitement when we were told what KBS (knowledge based systems ) would do for us; I also remember how the whole thing fizzled out because we found it almost impossible to represent the detail and complexity of our knowledge in a form that any computer could process.

[@Ksweetpea]

Happy new year, Juan!

[@jozseffabri]

Not just ADS-B went offline, but navigation lights akd cabin light also seem to be dark. For a layman's eye it seems like they had serious electrical issues.

[@jimgraham6722]

Thanks These guys had big problems, the details hopefully become clear. I had a friend who was killed when the bird (a pelican) came straight through the windshield and hit him in the face. In reading of this case I was reminded of the potential consequences of bird strike.

[@wim0104]

their biggest problem was deciding to go around, the airplane was ready to glide in!

[@kathleenmartin8036]

Just like the airplane that landed on the Hudson River by Captain Sullenburger. He lost all power on the plane he was flying. Thank goodness, he had experience flying gliders in his spare time to be able to land the plane on the Hudson River.

[@joshyaks]

And then there was the time Fabio took a goose to the face while riding a rollercoaster...

[@gottagowork]

@@wim0104 And yet, the wording is "When in doubt, go around".

[@gottagowork]

​@@kathleenmartin8036 Well, it is called a "miracle" for a reason. That outcome was certainly not a guarantee. Little to no waves, and being a river no delayed (regardless of current weather) swells, with plenty of help immediately nearby. In this accident, not even emergency was called out, apparently. I'm sure they'll look into if airport operations was mature enough to switch to international status (even if unrelated to the accident as such).

[@kathleenmartin8036]

Love your channel and I learn so much with your analysis of airplane issues and crashes. When I fly, I pray for the airplane flight staff and I always note the closest exit from where I sit. During any flight, I always wear my seat belt because you never know when you will hit turbulence. Thanks, for all of your hard work analyzing flight crashes and problem areas.

[@rexmyers991]

On a 757, I ingested birds on an ILS approach descending below 1000 feet. I had the copilot monitor engine indications and continued the approach. The right engine EGT was rising as we touched down. Going around was not even considered. The right engine was severely damaged and was replaced.

[@Paiadakine]

That just seems like common sense. I don’t understand why a go around is SOP? Good on you.

[@generessler6282]

Thanks. It looks like they actually started the go-around before the strike. I wonder if they saw a big flock of birds rising into their path, so retracted gear and flaps and throttled up, then panicked when they actually hit the birds and engine power went away. Panic doesn't seem likely with two such experienced pilots, but does cockpit smoke from ingested birds really explain the huge hurry to land?

[@blancolirio]

Excellent point!

[@asynchronerflugelflitzerim8481]

Yes, timeline starts earlier.

[@pablodefelipe7696]

Fully agree! From the video ( apartament view), before the impact with the birds, the AC is clearly going around (nose up) . GA on 737 can be tricky with low weight ( remember Fly Dubai accident in Rostov ) , so now add two serious engine issues almost simultaneusly ,but unfortunately you are now high / out of glide slope for Rwy 01 and AC configuration is clean ( flaps retracting, L/G retracted) . Take into consideration that this chain of events happened in less than 3 minutes, and with multiple warnings, sounds and GPWS alarms. PF unfortunately did not achieve the correct visual path / glide for Rwy19 , overshooting the Runway , plus ground effect, very long flare, plus low reverse power on engine #2.

[@Tobi_2107]

and you can see through the cockpit outside of the other window. Smoke probably wasn't that bad

[@chrisc161]

I agree but why come around and land in an urgent way from the opposite side? I think the theory of shutting down the wrong engine might be a big possibility.

[@feldon27]

Thank you for these timely updates on this tragedy. It would be easy as one of the first people commentating on this situation to Make assumptions and be sensationalistic but you are just presenting the information as it is available with enough context for it to make sense.

[@marcpootmans7454]

@blancolirio : Hypothesis - a bird strike to the VHF antenna could instantly block ADSB data transmission.

[@anders95]

The loss of ADS-B data right when they started having trouble seems important, doesn't it?

[@markotrieste]

I see it as another indication that they've lost both engines.

[@gunnarlandin3258]

​@@markotriesteso how could they climb to do a go around then?

[@rkan2]

​@@markotriesteI dunno if it is in the QRH or memory actions now after Hudson etc, but having lost one or more engines shouldn't really make a difference in continuing the landing...

[@conscience359]

@gunnarlandin3258 The engines can still produce some thrust during a compressor stall. Ideally, the pilots can reduce the throttle on the engine enough to get thrust AND prevent the compressor from stalling repeatedly.

[@markotrieste]

@@gunnarlandin3258 The second engine failed after the decision to go around.

[@veritas6466]

Been waiting to hear your thoughts.

[@gallardoo9]

he has already posted before, other sites though have already said this same information so this is nothing new here..bad training, pilot error I am betting here like most are...and I have survived one plane crash, will not have another my one give me is done

[@GrumpyOldMan2]

Totally agree with your comment at 04:45, continue with the landing.

[@davethewave7248]

This is the obvious solution to this whole tragedy... yet not many are seeing it.

[@gstadter]

I still can't make sense of the fact that the pilots exclaimed "mayday, mayday, mayday!" and "go around" almost simultaneously. One would presume that if the pilot was aware of damage to engine, enough to declare mayday.... why on earth would he seek or consider delaying getting down to the ground. I hope the data and voice recorded bring clarity.

[@davethewave7248]

@@gstadter Landing locked in with plane configured should mean continue with landing even on bird strike. The last thing you'd want to do is power up agian with potentially compromised engines. No-one wants to admit that the pilot could have made such a simple mistake.

[@frankgulla2335]

Juan, thanks for the detailed update. You do provide the best, most consise, best explanained and best illustrated any news source on scheduled and GA flight.

[@Daynja1]

Thanks for doing these. You're a great source for honest and technical details that the big news companies just can't explain.

[@justincrawford7508]

I feel like there is a missing chunk of information, Could the 737 have had two bird strikes. Initial bird strike on approach Go around Second bird strike in the good engine during the bird strike. Quick 180 to get it on the deck.

[@jimbobeire]

Entirely possible. Ryanair 4102 was on a single engine go around after a bird strike when they flew into a further flock of our fine feathered friends who became FOD in the remaining engine.

[@christopherrobinson7541]

I have come to the same conclusion.

[@rubensilva_]

What’s crazy/baffling is that the Mayday! call happened with all the parameters favoring the flight to still land safely. In many air crashes when the Mayday call goes out we, in hindsight, can see that the flight was virtually doomed no matter what actions were to be taken. It seems as if, in these early stages of investigations-at least, that everything went wrong by both humans and circumstances.

[@dickfitswell3437]

Maybe the bird strike and loss of thrust caused them to drop altitude and when they finally got more thrust it was too far so the swung around to come in at the other end and then another bird strike and lost both engines with no time for apu start up.

[@rkan2]

Aviate, navigate, communicate. No reason to do anything else but to land at that point. There was no need for communicating and very little for navigating.

[@NicolaW72]

Indeed, exactly. This crash was very probably a star example for Murphy´s Law: Everything what could go wrong obviously went wrong in this case.

[@jamesm568]

Going around and not going around is totally at the pilots discretion.

[@rubensilva_]

@@jamesm568 I’m 100% sure that they would take back that discretion that they hastily made here-if they were given a second chance. Life doesn’t offer that to us, second chances (do-overs), in the hardened real world-to be sure.

[@rafaelallenblock]

If you don't have enough thrust to continue the landing, why would you have enough to perform a go-around?

[@normannutbar424]

Saab 340 procedure for engine fail on short final is to double the thrust % on the good engine (using both levers) and land the bloody thing.

[@CanVeyn]

I think you are right with that they might have shut down the wrong engine and needed to land immediately

[@robertbandusky9565]

Juan! I remember a memory item from the B727 days and should also be appropriate for the B737. Power loss on one engine on short final “15-15-15” . Increase N1 by 15%, Flaps to 15 degrees and increase airspeed by 15 knots and land👨‍✈️Great work as usual Captain 🇨🇴

[@russellhltn1396]

So, if I'm understanding this right, a dual-engine failure could explain the ADS-B failure as well as the desire to get on the ground immediately. Perhaps a knee-jerk reaction was go around, but then quickly decided with both engines out that wasn't in the cards.

[@BGraves]

But... No gear!!!

[@mendel5106]

What im not understanding is the "Go around"... Well a Go Around means to fly runway heading (unless obstructed by immediate terrain such as mountains" and follow the published procedure. Plus call tower/ATC With the reason for the go around... Over here, they didn't mean "Go around" They meant, we will simply take the plane to the other side of runway 01 and land it as configured, at all costs. That's whats baffling to me.

[@markotrieste]

My understanding is that they had the first bird strike on final, decided for go-around, and once they cleaned the configuration something else happened which caused them to decide to land immediately. That "something" is a problem to the other working engine, either a second bird or pilot error in shutting down the wrong engine.

[@garwig2]

I think they initially intended to do a Go Around, and then changed their mind for some reason - probably a loss of power that prevented them from completing the Go Around.

[@mendel5106]

@markotrieste I'm not quite sure they had a "landing configuration" in the first place to clean up from once they declared their go around. I think that is yet to be determined. Also, if they shut down the wrong engine, would they not tumble faster, giving more reason to continue to land on runway 01 even if they will be touching down further down the runway than what is ideal.

[@mendel5106]

@markotrieste I agree to the theory of shutting down the wrong engine, since these pilots where quick to shed their professional CRM garbs and hats and enter a panic mode. Most analysis that I've seen so far including simulator replays based on the data we have so far show that using CRM and protocols would have been able to land the plane safely. (I'm also wondering about a ditching option since there is a beach nearby and the swells may not have been high at the time. Captain Sullenberger showed the world that it is possible even in the dead of ❄️ he used the opposite of "get-there-itis" and tunnel vision to pull it off against many odds.

[@gemma3877]

A video on pilot debrief showed them climbing, but only very briefly, as if they started an actual go around and then either decided not to climb, or found themselves unable to do so. And so turned the plane around and landed almost immediately.

[@danalexander1960]

Thanks Juan for your analysis and as always presenting facts as known and staying away from dangerous speculation which only fuels the crap going around on the internet. Thanks for keeping it real. Keep up the fine work from the home office and remote global offices!

[@philiphumphrey1548]

I agree about the logic of continuing a stable approach and landing after a birdstrike or engine mishap. Best to use whatever thrust may be left during the landing before the engines give out altogether. But in this case we just don't know yet what else was damaged or why they chose to go around.

[@Tommy_Boy.]

“Slow down to speed up”. Also, not the first time I’ve heard of an aircraft that did a go-around, cleaned-up, and landed gear up on the subsequent attempt.

[@dougdrvr]

From the time they issued a "Mayday", I'm surprised there wasn't at least one set of eyes in the control tower watching them with a set of binoculars and issuing a warning that their gear was up.

[@kikiryki]

They also lost transponder at 8.58. The pilots knew they dont have the gear down because the plane have no power to use hydraulics.

[@formgeben]

It's a very small airport. I'm sure tower was completely overwhelmed

[@kikiryki]

@formgeben I don't think they had multiple landings to manage at once

[@formgeben]

@@kikiryki No, but never seen anything like that and unable to manage it in such a short amount of time

[@davepayne164]

@@kikirykithis is nonsense. They have triple redundancy on hydraulics. There is electrical back up (albeit less powerful). No engines doesn’t mean no hydraulics on this type

[@michaelarlen7805]

Thank you for calling it a 737 next gen and not a “new gen”

[@chrisw4562]

Thank you for the thorough report, and for not adding any speculation. That is pretty rare these days. Regarding the safety area after the runway, I wonder if they could consider adding a gravel pit, similar to what they have for emergency truck ramps.

[@peterbustin2683]

I noticed from the main video of the crash that just before it hits that mound, there appears to be reflections of orange flame on the fuselage forward of the right engine for quite a way.

[@JDrapic]

Thanks for breaking it down in ways even us non-pilots can understand. Glad I'm starting to get an understanding of aircraft systems. The gear still being up going into the crash could have been pilot error and missed due to the rapidly developing situation, but I wonder if maybe the electrical (and possible hydraulic) failure might have contributed in some way, such as a frozen indicator or a malfunctioning sensor, or possibly that a manual extension was required and by the time that was caught there wasn't time to complete it and the lack of power meant their options had been reduced to none. I know some runways have a material arresting system for overruns. Have those been tested on belly landings? I know typically all the aircraft weight is on the gears, so relatively high weight per square inch of ground contact helps them sink into it. On a belly landing, it's more spread out so it's possible those systems would not be effective, right? If that's the case, the material would need to be more sensitive to weight and the safety area would need to be larger to accommodate, which probably isn't feasible for many airports. Belly overruns are probably super rare so I wonder if it would even make sense to develop a contingency system for those or it they're just taken as freak accidents. I hope these questions / observations are at least reasonable ones. Like I said, I'm not a pilot but I am very curious about these sorts of things.

[@newdiggszweiundsiebzig]

They’re good points you’ve raised!

[@mostlyvoid.partiallystars]

You ask great questions. I sense engineer in you ;) I thought the same, 50/50 on whether the lack of gear deployment was pilot panic or mechanical failure. I’m glad NTSB is going to extract the data.

[@JDrapic]

@mostlyvoid.partiallystars thanks! Great WTNV handle

[@davidinman3542]

If the birdstrike went through the windscreen, that could explain some of the crew's actions (ref Flair Airlines flight FLE641 to Winnipeg International Airport Oct 24, 2024)

[@hughjones13]

Thank you Juan for the info.

[@JohnLeaman-un4rh]

Thanks for the update Juan

[@davidobyrne9549]

Thanks again for your insightful updates Juan. As previously mentioned, my own feeling regarding the very short timeframe is that they lost power on BOTH engines and not just #2. With very few options available after the decision to go-around, a wheels and flaps up landing (to give best glide ratio) on the reciprocal runway was actually achieved, but the high speed and lack of braking action resulted in overun and impact with the berm. There are similarities with the B777 landing at London Heathrow some 20 years ago, however in that incident the loss of power on both engines was due to fuel icing, but the pilot's decision to raise the flap setting from LDG to T/O enabled him to use glide angle and inertia to clear the airport boundary fence before ground contact short of the runway and saving everyone onboard. However after initial praise from all quarters, that captain faced a company internal inquiry for not sticking with EOPs by raising the flaps and subsequently left the company by 'mutual consent' (though as was pointed out at the time the Emergency Procedures did not cover total power loss on short finals). The closest comparison to this JeJuu birdstrike incident is that of Capt Sullenberger who lost both engines due to birdstrike after T/O and subsequently ditched in the Hudson River, again not included in SOPs or EOPs, but sometimes you have to fly using experience and gut-reaction.

[@lindsaycole8409]

The tragic thing about the comparison with Hudson River was a ~200 m to the west of where the Juan aircraft actually landed on the runway is a large body of water. If the pilots understood the dangers of overunning that particular runway and knew they were not going to be able to not overrun it, there was potentially a better option even very late into the second landing attempt.

[@markwhatley9955]

Concerning obstacles at the end of runways, does anyone else remember the Delta L-1011 crash at DFW involving wind shear? The aircraft skidded across a freeway and collided with an above ground fuel storage tank on the north end of the airport.

[@sageskeleton1400]

Delta 191 back in '85. If memory serves, that one just barely missed the DFW fuel farm.

[@mazdaman0075]

It was actually water tanks.

[@himssendol6512]

It's jan 3rd, 12 noon, friday in Korea. Latest news is a new cctv footage from a nearby farm that captured the moment the plane declared mayday, unsuccessful go around, flew level without climb, and engine puffing dark smoke.

[@samhill3496]

Good report Juan. Lots to learn from the recorders

[@LOLmusics]

Been waiting for this - good video

[@reggierico]

Thanks for the update, Juan.

[@DaleSteel]

They weren't on a stabilised approach. They started climbing BEFORE the bird strike maybe to avoid birds

[@automaton450]

ATC warned them of birds while they were on approach, not sure how long before they hit the birds. If they were already going around as they hit the birds, sounds like they were doing the sensible thing. The problem with ATC just warning them is that puts the decision on the pilots if it is safe to continue, and the pilots cannot see the birds yet to know how dangerous it is, but the tower (if that is where ATC was operating from) CAN see the birds and are in the best position to know how dangerous the bird situation is.

[@davethewave7248]

Looks like they were well into a stabilized approach [fully configured and footage of plane over land] when bird strike hit. They should have just kept on coasting in.

[@davethewave7248]

@@automaton450 Warning of birds came first, they were well into there landing approach a good few minutes after that... they should have just continued in when the bird strike hit.

[@scollyutube]

Why did the locator stop transmitting while the plane was stablised and descending then.....?

[@DaleSteel]

@scollyutube it didn't. If you look at chart. They were following glideslope (although slightly off but good enough). They then climbed. Then it cut off. I personally think they shut down engine 1. Engine 1 was the generator selected. Once they shut it down they should of switch power over to engine 2 or battery. Looks like total pilot failure. I imagine they selected climb power... got smoke I'm cockpit and engine surge. They panicked and shut down engine 1 instead of engine 2. Happened before. Search EAST MIDLANDS AIR DISASTER. Very similar in many ways

[@michaelrichter8766]

Depending on the height and the distance from touchdown, I thought the same thing: if I’m cleared to land, and let’s say I have an engine fire on final, it would probably be better to continue to land (and a fast assessment regarding runway length and conditions (contaminated))

[@dennism8346]

There goes Juan Brown once again with the facts. 😃I wait for his and Hoover's aviation debriefs and ignore all the rest. Because facts matter.

[@antonvandermerwe9852]

A split second before the compressor stall flameout on engine two, it's clear on the video that both engines spits out something. I think both engines were hit at the same time, although only engine two, shows the compressor stall flameout.

[@TheEmilySun]

A few seconds before and even after! I saw that too. Looks like some sparks are coming out. A lot of sparks

[@justsnappy]

*What are the chances of survival if the gear had been down, lifting the fuselage that extra 3 feet off the ground? Would that height have “launched” the aircraft over the berm?*

[@benjaminschaefer6757]

Many thanks for the update.

[@lolbubs11111]

That quote about the flock of birds and overflying an observer with landing gear down has been on avherald since the beginning and as far as I can tell it was an early confused take. The gear clearly isn't down in the compressor stall video.

[@blancolirio]

That video was shot after the go around was initiated...engine still compressor stalling.

[@leokimvideo]

Juan there's some very interesting Korean news channels looking very carefully at the cockpit and what the pilots were doing, just as you indicated in your previous video. I can already see the title of the Air Crash Investigators 'Mayday' episode : 3 Minutes Of Panic. This crash has many hallmarks of a tired overworked crew. We know the aircraft that crashed was always flying.

[@OtoyaYamaguchi-i1b]

It's not unusual to see an aircraft utilized 14 hours per day, that's one way airlines make it profitable to operate them. Min turn times with different crews. But yes, crew fatigue will be closely scrutinized for this accident, given the large loss of life.

[@nitramluap]

That they requested clearance to land on the opposite runway only a minute after the go around suggests they rushed into getting down at all costs. Will be interested to see if the CVR or FDR will explain whether or not that was their only option.

[@haventyetbegun]

Very basic question: what use is warning pilots of birds in the area? Can they prepare for this eventuality better?

[@gordonrichardson2972]

Climb or go-around. Gives the pilots choices to reduce risk, until birds go away.

[@haventyetbegun]

@gordonrichardson2972 Thank you. Do you also know on what the pilots base their decision? Is it on the plane they fly? On their level of fatigue?

[@mykofreder1682]

Losing both engines or unknown is more of a reason to land right now. You find out what you have and deal with it, dealing with it without a runway in front of you has to be worse almost every time.

[@donadams8345]

I suspect you may be on to something. I could see losing one engine immediately and then losing power in the second while they are cleaning up the aircraft for a go-around and emergency landing. This would account for a rushed landing when the aircraft is not prepared for one (gear and flaps up, high speed). They simply wouldn't have had time to continue preparing for the emergency landing with lack of power on both engines. It was a matter of putting it down regardless of the consequences.

[@SloverOfTeuth]

​@@donadams8345 If you don't assume pilot error (which I think means you have to consider the go-around as conservatism not error), this seems to be a good candidate for what happened. The idea of pilot error seems to come from the assumption that the plane was flyable throughout the go-around and landing. The ADSB going out might be relevant in that regard.

[@davethewave7248]

Simple logic - landing, low and configured to land, and then a bird strike? Just continue to land instead of trying to power up again with potentially compromised engines. Thinking fatigued pilot put on edge with bird warning, then reacted with an unnecessary and risky go around on the atual strike.

[@scollyutube]

​​@@SloverOfTeuthwhen the data stopped they were still descending, stable and configured for landing though.....they hadn't started the go round then.

[@SloverOfTeuth]

@@scollyutube Yes, I take your point. I'll be interested to see how it pans out.

[@johndemerse9172]

Thanks Juan for the update. Cheers from CYYB.

[@CraigGrant-sh3in]

Instead of a concrete bunker for the localizer a platform material like fiberglass would have taken the sudden stop out of the crash. Even the security wall around the airport could be made of a material other than concrete block in the area at the end of the runway. Had the localizer platform been a fiberglass or carbon fiber box they wouldn't have even known they hit it.

[@Mjm614]

And it wouldn’t have slowed their 150 mph slide either

[@daleallen7634]

@CraigGrant-sh3in: The only people who knew about the wall strike were the survivors of the crash landing who were still conscious.

[@danielch6662]

​@@daleallen7634nah, they know less than people on the ground looking at the plane crash landing. These two were seated at the back of the plane facing the rear. Nothing they could have seen. One moment they were strapped in for a landing. Then they open their eyes in a hospital bed.

[@JacobTJ1]

He did his homework and research very well. Juan I appreciate your hard work and diligence in educating us

[@BillySugger1965]

Difficult to see how a bird strike could take out the electrical supply to the ADS-B, but much easier to see a strike of multiple birds taking out the antenna.

[@christopherrobinson7541]

Losing GPS positional data will also cause a loss of the ADS-B aircraft trace as the mapping application (ie: Flight Radar 24) has nothing to plot. However other data, such as height, heading etc would still be transmitted.

[@RolandW_DIYEnergyandMore]

I was flying in Korea for 7 years. According FOM of all airlines there (they typically just copy-paste) in any emergency/non-normal the captain will be PF immediately no matter who was in control until that point. I guess they therefore flew a left pattern but in Korea you never know. Most pilots are Ex-Airforce and still fly as they would sit in a one-seater fighter jet...unfortunately

[@777jones]

As a beancounter, I can see that South Korea's accident per 1,000 departure rate is atrocious. Airmanship and command problems are alleged.

[@RolandW_DIYEnergyandMore]

@@777jones yeah, just in the time I have served there, my airline had 2 mayor crashes with very lucky outcome. With less luck they could have killed almost 500 people. And that's not so long ago. Before that Korean air had a series of fatal crashes which has led to a lot of operational changes throughout the whole countries aviation industry but they have successfully used Covid as a chance to get rid of that "foreign" influence again. I have seen so many things there, that I know to never fly with any of those airlines again in my life ;)

[@davethewave7248]

Not to mention there entrenched seniority culture which is deadly for CRM cross-checking of procedures in the cockpit.

[@777jones]

@@davethewave7248 exactly, it is like Korean culture is incompatible with CRM.

[@formgeben]

​@@RolandW_DIYEnergyandMoreWow, interesting insights. Sounds crazy

[@1010tesla]

If you look closely at the zoomed in video of the bird strike you can see sparkles come out of BOTH engines right before the fireball out of the #2 engine. you have to look closely at the video and its possible its just an artifact in the video but its there.

[@BluefearHere]

Feels likely that they had double engine bird strike, we only "clearly" see one of the engines choking (the other possibly just out of camera shot). Hit go around to buy time. Then they had smoke in cabin/cockpit/both and tried to get right back down. Based on the shared diagram they took such a sharp turn to land instead of a longer controlled final, so fire/smoke feels like it must have been the symptoms.

[@rkan2]

Still no reason to go around.

[@jamesphillips2285]

@@rkan2 20/20 hindsight. People like to claim that every landing is optional (unless you are a glider pilot) because you can always go around and try again.

[@rkan2]

@@jamesphillips2285 Checkout "747 birdstrike landing" video and think about that 20/20 some more. There is no reason to do it any differently even if you have 2 engines instead of 4.

[@mattmichael6792]

It also looks like debris puffs streaming under the fuselage from the nose, suggesting birds may have hit the cockpit area, perhaps penetrating or damaging the windshield

[@TheLincolnshireFlyer]

Thank you for the update 👍😊

[@maxxq]

The only data point I've seen that matches the approach for the second attempt matching the infographic you had at 2:58 is that there's a restaurant owner who is on that side of the airport who has said in the media that the plane went around OVER his business at a very low altitude. That's the only data point I've read my self that would corroborate the infographic.

[@415volts]

Small plane just crashed at Fullerton into a warehouse... Interested to hear Juan's analysis on that when all the data comes out - he does a great job.

[@pigdroppings]

From the news reports it sounds like another case of " The Impossible Turn". The RV-10 took off and at 900 feet alt called for an immediate return to the airport. The plane then went vertically into a building

[@lyleparadise2764]

I think we'll also find out that fatigue of the flight crew will be a big factor. Those " red eye " flights can be extremely challenging , not only for the passengers , but also flight crews. Even on uneventful flights it can be challenging to stay on top of your game. Throw in an emergency at the end of a flight you may just have a crew that is just not thinking clearly........... You can create holes in the swiss cheese that you're just too tired to overcome.

[@rickrickard2788]

The speed is something that keeps bothering me. It eerily reminds me of PIA flight PK8303... It makes me wonder if something similar may have happened here, once he realized he was too long down the runway....

[@chrismiddleton9088]

There is a video cirulating showing a compressor blowout on the RH engine of the aircraft. What is interesting is that the landing gear is retracted and it looks like there might be partial flaps so I think that the aircraft in this video was already in a go-around maneuver. What is the possibility that a first bird strike took out the LH engine or caused the pilots to shut it down at which time they made the mayday and go-around declaration. At the time of the high speed landing it appears that there was still some thrust coming from the RH engine and the reverse thrust was activated which would suggest that there was at lease some hydraulic capability. The voice data recorder shuold provide some critical clues.

[@edgarmuller6652]

One thing that I have not seen or heard mentioned, is that with engine stall on the right, there are power surges that will create a jaw towards the left and may require very confusing rudder inputs that may have led to shutting down the opposite engine (good engine), if the engine instrument are not monitored and interpreted correctly.

[@BOHICA_]

Wouldn't the plane yaw to the right side with no engine?

[@samspade2131]

Diagram states “instructed to go around”. I wonder the basis for that. Did the tower actually tell them to go around?! I wouldn’t think that would be a tower function.

[@samspade2131]

I think you are off on the timing. I suspect the diagram is faulty. But wait and see.

[@shoersa]

I wondered about the go-around just after the bird strike and you clarified that they could have continued the approach and NOT risked further engine problems at full go-around thrust and also the runout to the North looks better than the one they faced going South. I am ONLY watching your videos on these air crashes as you provide the BEST experienced commentary.

[@Kickinpony66]

I'm curious what the outcome would have been, if they hadn't diverted and continued the approach and landing?

[@BuzzyStreet]

​@@Kickinpony66 There wouldn't be anything to talk about.