JeJu Air Preliminary Report 27 Jan 2025

[@carldaniel6510]

As an engineer (not aerospace) for 40 years, it boggles my mind that the FDR and CVR are not connected to the most reliable power source in the airplane (or built with their own internal backup power). I gather (from a previous video on this channel) that this has changed in current generation airliners.

[@tomstravels520]

Only the CVR has the 10 minute extra power if installed. The 737 only has batteries to power the standby system so anything not essential to get the aircraft back on the ground in those 30-60 minutes is shed....which includes the recorders

[@wallyballou7417]

You would think the recorders would have internal backup batteries

[@bmw_m4255]

@@wallyballou7417 well they don't.

[@tomstravels520]

@ the risk is they could keep recording after the crash has occurred. You don't want that to happen

[@fredsalter1915]

@@bmw_m4255 DERP! Well, they should, eh?

[@leeaf7]

Juan, reading the original report published in Korean: That paragraph starts with a disclaimer saying "The exact timing of the crew experiencing bird strike has not been determined accurately as the accident is still under investigation." Then it continues stating "The aircraft while executing a go-around maneuver reported to the tower at 08:58:56 that they (the crew) are going around due to the bird strike.." Just based on this, it does sound like bird strike has happened first, followed by a go-around.

[@tomstravels520]

The pilots identified a group of birds while approaching runway 01, and a security camera filmed HL8088 coming close to a group of birds DURING a go-around.

[@RonSwansons-0]

The footage showed a birdstrike occurring when the undercarriage was deployed, presumably before the go round. I think we can assume bird strike, go round, crash. Lots of things we still don't know and probably won't until the CVR and FDR is sorted, if they can be, but number one for me is why the go round. Secondly why the belly up attempted landing and if they had problems with power why was their approach speed so high. 150+kts at impact indicates a very fast landing. So many things don't make sense to me at the moment with the information we have.

[@ajg617]

If that is true, there should be some evidence of crew action prior to the FDR cutting out.

[@jamespeck6890]

No physical nor dna evidence of a bird strike! Did a pilot over react and hit the engine fire extinguisher which is confirmed in the photo with the white exhaust shutting down the engine that controlled hydraulics?

[@kait2972]

@@leeaf7 that's your interpretation and one I've thought of too. Adding to that theory is the fact we were told about a mayday call weeks ago but haven't heard of the existence of a prior call to inform atc that they were going around. However, the fact we haven't heard that atc call and that the call we heard included a go around isn't proof that it doesn't exist. For all we know, there was a call 10seconds earlier that declared a go around and we just haven't been informed yet. Also, the ads-b data could be interpreted to show they initiated a go around about 2 seconds before losing power to the recorders and about 8 seconds before their atc call. From the facts we have publicly available, we can't know for sure which came first. Hopefully, the south Korean authority will come out and clear up that language in the next day or two.

[@JohnSmith-w8x4j]

As a former pilot, I appreciate all the time and effort you and your team put into these videos. You are my final authority for aviation crashes. If I see other videos, I'm like, "I better go see what Blancolirio has to say about this." before I can believe anything else I see.

[@stevebalt5234]

Juan clearly has no ulterior motive and no proverbial axe to grind. He just gives his honest and well-informed take. Something that’s increasingly rare these days.

[@timoooo7320]

You’re welcome

[@tbone2416]

In a world of sensationalist media and ill informed influencers,we all need a Juan.​@@stevebalt5234

[@ramonbalderrama2881]

Amen

[@SteamCrane]

I don't think Juan has a team, just friends he can call to discuss questions. Just Juan in his living room with a microphone and computer. Maybe 2 computers. He just has an enormous amount of experience, both commercial and GA. Absolute best in the field.

[@AndreZA979]

I saw the news headlines this morning when I got to work but figured I would just wait till I get home to watch your summary, so much more informative. Thank you!

[@aristhought]

The line "HL8088 made an emergency declaration for a bird strike DURING a go-around" stands out to me. It is a bit unclear but perhaps most enlightening. Most initial reporting seemed to suggest that a bird strike CAUSED the go-around (causing many to speculate as to why they didn't just land, and why they tried to land again mere minutes after the fact). This report points to the plane having hit birds AFTER initiating, and in the middle of, a go-around/aborted landing, likely to avoid some birds they had visual on. What's notable is that a go-around requires retracting gear and flaps. The video of the bird strike/compressor stall that was filmed from the hotel seemed to show the plane with flaps and gear up (correct me if I'm wrong), which was initially confusing as that shouldn't be the case on short final. But it might make more sense if they were in a go-around config and attempting to climb. With all that in mind, I wonder if the sudden unexpected bird strike during a go-around process either caused significant damage (the mayday call may point towards that) while the plane was fairly low already (giving little room for error or time to act), or confusion/sudden work overload or a combination, which led to the plane being landed quickly afterwards with its gear and flaps still up. Looking at the report and the ADS-B data from Flightradar: 8:57:50 - Controllers caution plane about birds in the area 8:58:18 - ADS-B data shows a sudden increase in vertical rate and slight increase in altitude (the start of the initial go-around/aborted landing?). Likely due to visual on some birds. Sometime in the 30 seconds here: Gear/flaps retracted (normal for go-around) 8:58:50 - ADS-B data and flight recorder stops (due to bird strike? Possibly seen in the video filmed from the ground.) 8:58:56 - Mayday declared Unclear timing: The plane does not land/cannot land on Rwy 1 (since they had already aborted the landing, and are too high/fast), so it flies past and turns to try to land Rwy 19 (Further timings based on reports) 9:01 - Controllers clear the plane to land Rwy 19 9:02:57 - Impact with embankment Which shows: - Very little time between what may have been the start of the aborted landing (8:58:18) and the bird strike (8:58:50), giving the plane almost no time to have climbed much at all, and still at the beginning of a go-around when the bird strike happens - Very little time between the mayday call (8:58:56) and the belly landing (around 9:02). If they had sustained serious damage from the bird strike, they were unfortunately low to the ground, perhaps unable to climb or keep the plane in the air for much longer, and possibly had to try to turn onto Rwy 19 and try to put the plane down right then and there as their only option What's unknown is how much damage the bird strike did, whether there was a second one sometime during all of this. And if all that led to a complete loss of hydraulics, or enough damage that they couldn't safely climb/buy anymore time for themselves to assess the problem or lower the gear/flaps (manually lowering the gears on this aircraft takes time). It is deeply unfortunate that the loss of flight recorders for this time period means we might never know for sure what happened in this window. If I'm mistaken on any of these details, please let me know. There's quite a bit that's still unclear. Obviously, can't conclude anything without the final report so everything is just speculation at this point. Hopefully the final report can enlighten everyone a bit more and bring some form of closure to the loved ones. EDIT: I revised my comment for better clarity, thank you to the replies

[@JLange642]

Totally agree with your assessment. Having that 4:07 seconds of missing data would help solve WHY the plane belly landed, however- we already KNOW what destroyed the plane and killed the people.

[@MultiMrAsd]

Why they didn't land directly: Once a go-around is started the landing opportunity is missed. Once full throttle is given and the gear is up you are out of the glideslope and way to fast. You are going to miss the runway, even without engine power. That's the worst case scenario for an engine issue. Depending on the height at the event the only possibility might be an off-field landing. Landing in the opposite direction is only possible if the plane has enough energy left, which they fortunately had - or unfortunately, due to the design of that airport.

[@hayleyxyz]

Is there a checklist/procedure for dual engine failure in a go around? A few seconds of TOGA adds a lot of energy that will be hard to lose so close to the ground without training

[@SoulFLT]

Don forget pilot communication at 8:58:11 8:54:43 _ Cleared to Land RWY 01 8:57:50- Caution Bird Activity by ATC 8:58:11 - Pilots conversations "There are flucks of birds below AC!." Recored via CVR 8:58:50 - Lost FDR CVR 8:58:56 - Declare Emergency "Mayday." Fact.1 News reported that Muan Airport CCTV spotted The Plane got bird strike during Go around. Fact.1-1 During Go around, Aircraft did make clean configurations for Go around. Fact.2 ARAIB figured out species of the birds. It calls Gachang Duck in Korean. Which tends to fly together in a huge group. Through the time line(Only 39 second between pilots conversation and Lost signal of FDR CVR), I guess, 'They might got bird strikes when they are making Go around.'

[@Joseph55220]

Your chronology seems likely. It sounds like: they're doing final checks for landing, get the bird warning, one of them spot birds ahead, one of them calls the go-around (probably believing they can climb over the birds), as soon as the go-around is called - protocol kicks in (you're not debating it - you're going TOGA and shooting the missed approach), they select gear-up and start cleaning up the aircraft, they hit the birds (it seems more than likely they took significant/catastrophic damage to both engines), it then takes several seconds for the engines to roll back and then several more seconds for the pilots to process the instrumentation and assess just how bad the situation really is, they call the mayday, they decide/realize they are now too high and/or not configured for the landing and decide they have to stick with trying to come back around, and they do their best to pull it off. I know there's a lot of speculation there, but it seems like the most likely sequence of events, given what we do know. Without the flight-recorders, I'm definitely concerned that significant portions of the fact-pattern will remain inconclusive. I have no way of knowing if they crew ever attempt to put the gear back out nor can I say whether or not it would have helped them - but one thing that I'm curious about: if they lost power before the retraction-process was 100% complete, is there a hole in the fail-safe system that may have prevented a gravity-release?

[@philipjohnson1103]

Juan, I was told that the engines themselves collect a significant amount of operational data while in use. Could you do a video on what data the engines collect, how much is recorded while running, and when and how is this information sent to the engine owner/manufacturer. I understand that many or most of these engines are leased. Do they collect data even when they are not supplying power to the aircraft? I think this would be an interesting video for your audience. R, Phil

[@Tolpuddle581]

Same. I believe Rolls Royce monitor their engine telemetry via satellite

[@oldcynic6964]

@@Tolpuddle581 I'm not across the detail of MH370, but I seem to remember some talk of engine telemetry

[@LaggerSVK]

Also in tail section there is in some aircrafts QAR (quick access recorder used mainly for maintenance technics) and this could live through accident but I dont see any mention of it? Could someone enlighten?

[@bobrice3957]

The QAR is not located in the tail of aircraft I've worked on. It is usually located in a more convenient location for ease of access like the fwd electronics racks. It probably won't survive a crash with fire.

[@dougrobinson8602]

This is correct. The EECs, (Electronic Engine Controls) can receive alternate power from a dedicated AC alternator in the event of total electrical power loss. These alternators are permanent magnet generators driven directly off the accessory gearbox. They are not powered down if the fire handle is pulled. I'm not sure if the EECs themselves have non volatile memory that would record parameters after shutdown.

[@maxcorder2211]

I was a B-52 aircraft commander at age 26. I had less than 1000 hrs of total flying time and about 200 hrs in the aircraft. I was entrusted with a crew of 5 others and 2 nuclear weapons to deliver on a target in a country several thousand miles from the US. The B-52 at that time had none of the modern GPS avionics of today. During WWII we sent young men to war against the Germans and Japanese with even less time and experience. Today’s pilots have tremendously greater equipment, which is attested to by the incredible safety record of modern commercial aviation.

[@vancetilley7942]

Amen! ❤

[@frankowot4]

Thank you for your service Sir.

[@buniokowski3162]

Of course, the level of acceptable risk in military aviation is much higher than in commercial aviation. The frequency of accidents is also much higher. In the air force, the execution of the task is much more important than ensuring the highest level of safety.

[@maxcorder2211]

@@buniokowski3162 Exactly. The Air Force has an expected and acceptable loss rate of aircraft and crews in training and everyday missions. And much higher when in combat. I recall the expected loss rate for B-52’s in operation Linebacker II (N Vietnam) was 8%. Of the 200 airplanes available we lost 16, so we “hit the target” so to speak.

[@eriklapparent4662]

That's fascinating !Sincere congrats from France.I read about WWII bombing raids in B 17 that not all pilots in command were able to navigate.They just followed the leader. Hi from France .

[@UCs6ktlulE5BEeb3vBBOu6DQ]

Its so nice to have technical analysis of events like this instead of the slop we get on the news

[@bobw53jrma]

If I had a nickel for every article I've read, or news reel I saw, that said that berm caused the crash, I'd be rich. . Soundbites. Simple solutions. Short attention spans, lack of critical thinking.. . Its never one thing that causes a plane crash, and that plane crashed long before it hit that berm.. But nope.. A lump of dirt and concrete that was off the end of the runway CAUSED the plane to crash.. Mission complete.. On to find the next sound bite. . And honestly, you really can't blame them all too too much, but you can still blame them.. Clicks and views and ratings make money.. Go for the quick and easy outrage, the simple explanation, and then on to the next thing. . But if you are here, and taking the time to comment, you know its not simple.. There is not ONE thing that caused this plane to crash, there were a lot of things, a lot of failures(either with systems, or procedures, or people, or most likely a combination of all of those) that lined up just perfectly (or not so perfectly depending on how full or empty you see the glass). . If you take out the lives lost, these plane crashes are fascinating to me.. Its like a mechanical and procedural and psychological mystery, and if you take out the lives lost, its kind of fun, and can't be explained in a 30 second sound bite.

[@UCs6ktlulE5BEeb3vBBOu6DQ]

@@bobw53jrma That plane crash is complexe because its not one thing that happened, its many things. But passing the plane through WinZip at the end of the runway was in my opinion the difference between few dead/injured and what happened.

[@bobw53jrma]

@ Absolutely, but it still wasn't the cause of the crash. If the ground wasn't there would be very few plane crashes and they would just fall forever.

[@fireflyrobert]

In Europe it’s not uncommon for airlines to take on newly qualified pilots with 300 hours total time or even less. The vast majority of these pilots will have done a full time integrated course to get their commercial licence and also will have completed a multi crew cooperation course. As a retired 737 training captain all the ones I flew with were high calibre and trained to a high standard and by the time they’d done 1,000 hours on type were first rate first officers in every way.

[@Objectified]

Yes, we know. We know the 1500-hour rule before U.S. pilots can enter the same type of program is onerous. We also know we're not talking about a European crash.

[@ynraider]

"Training costs money, cut it."- Ronald Reagon, possibly.

[@1964Mooney]

Long retired 737 Check Airman here. Questions- How did both gens fail and not both engines? Couldn't fly 4 mins without some engine power. Why wasn't the gear manually released prior to the runway- No power needed for that. With Loss of ALL A/C power my first action would be to start the APU. 4 mins was long enough to get it going. Granted they had a a lot going on but A/C power was needed most IF engines were running as they appear to be and no A/C power available. Sully started the APU before going swimming in the river.

[@pamshewan9181]

Absolutely!

[@charlespeterson7149]

Knowing the electrical setup of these 737's, if you were flying into an airport with bird activity, would you start the APU just as a precaution?

[@2Phast4Rocket]

3rd world airline pilot. The FO has barely a minimum requirement to apply for 121 service in the USA.

[@meofnz2320]

@@1964Mooney All very well, but have you ever been clobbered with a shock like this? We don’t know what they did or didn’t do yet, or the sequence of events.

[@rogerwilco4736]

Not sure if Australian regs have changed but less than a decade ago one airline there was putting people almost straight out of flight school with little more than 200 hours in the r.h seat of A320s

[@williamlloyd3769]

The South Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) announced the “Safety Improvement Plans for Airport Facilities” on January 22. After nationwide inspections, seven airports, including Muan International Airport, were found to be in need of improvement. Localizers will be redesigned to no longer present an obstacle to aircraft and runway safety zones will be enlarged. Lesson learned in blood.

[@19127bh]

All rules regarding flight operations are written in blood.

[@Kaimax61]

It's hecking funny that people keep blaming the pilots, when the deaths are attributed to the fucking concrete wall, not the landing itself.

[@southseasflying]

@@Kaimax61 By that logic the pilots are never at fault since they all eventually hit something. The fact is the plane wouldn't be in that concrete wall if the pilots' actions didn't get it there.

[@bartsolari5035]

@@Kaimax61 Yep! built to confine accidents within the AOA.

[@jennifercarr6918]

@@19127bh the same with ATC regulations.

[@Skidoo22]

That bird footage makes Hitchcock's The Birds look like a cartoon

[@Yenadar]

All of the prior reporting was "birds in the area" and "a bird strike" and "some birds." Most people think a few random birds. Not a wall of them. Changes the story quite a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if everything exterior on the plane was removed. Pitot tubes, AoA vanes, etc...

[@NicolaW72]

This airport was placed right into the middle of a bird sanctuary (it opened only in 2007).

[@johnwatson9518]

It was a flock of larger ducks, not birds.

[@Skidoo22]

@@NicolaW72 bird brained ?

[@Inkling777]

@@NicolaW72 Yes, and I have heard that was over a lot of public objections. Airports make the adjacent land very valuable. I wonder if that was a factor.

[@brownfloyd4389]

If they had a visual on a massive flock of ducks like in that video Juan showed us, it's natural that they would initiate a go around instead of continuing the approach into the wall of birds. Sounds like the CVR will give us more clues on exactly why they decided to go around as it was still operating when that decision was made.

[@KeithRowley]

In the video that shows the engine backfire, there is not that massive flock.

[@BayAreaTraveler]

the CVR and FDR stopped 4 mins before the crash. We'll never know why that decision was made.

[@_mailer]

I'm starting to lean towards the possibility that they did spot birds in their approach path (a noticeable flock) and thus initiated a go-around, but unfortunately weren't able to avoid them and then struck them during the spooling up process, when the engines could be more vulnerable to scooping up foreign objects and causing a crippling fault. that would line the crew up in a precarious situation, especially with both engines potentially getting disabled as a result of the subsequent bird strike, and a go-around now out of the question, where everything we know that happened after that now starts to make sense; as a desperate means to get the plane down with the limited energy they had left. What I'm curious about is if the crew had the time to stow the landing gear up during the go-around, and before the birds were struck, and that the subsequent loss of power meant they weren't able to get the gear back out in time, or that the belly landing was deliberate to shear off as much kinetic energy as possible.

[@shodancat1000]

@@_mailer that's an interesting point as to whether engines being at TOGA thrust when there's visual confirmation of birds during final approach might greatly increase the chance of birds being ingested (due to the massive increase in volume of air being sucked in.) however there's no way they intended to land with gear up - that makes it much *more* difficult to bleed off kinetic energy on touchdown, not less. we'll never know without having CVR or FDR data after the bird strike, but i still believe human error was involved during that high-stress situation.

[@mrpielover615]

@@BayAreaTraveler They may have made the decision to go around just before the CVR cut out. I'm sure the authorities are looking at that last minute of valid data closely.

[@ronhunt2477]

Hey Juan another great video - In your first video I commented that perhaps the crew shut down the wrong engine. Now with this information, my thought is that they possibly might have shut down the least damaged engine inadvertently putting themselves in a worse situation. What most people here don’t understand is how shocking, disorienting and confusing this event would have become in an instant. They went from a calm controlled normal situation to an environment of complete chaos, flashing warning lights, horns, bells, aural announcements, severe vibration along with disbelief and confusion in a fraction of a second. As you well know the first reaction in these situations is delay, as you’re trying to wrap your mind around the shock of what just happened followed by the rapid assessment of figuring out where to start addressing the problem. I imagine had both engines ingested a volume of birds they would have both been compressor stalling causing the power indications to be jumping all over the place making them virtually worthless in making any credible assessment of their condition. I think these pilots did one hell of a job with the impossible situation they encountered. As far as their flight time goes - few other countries have general aviation available for pilots to build experience like we do here in the US, however, from my experience in the past, in particular with the Asian airlines, their training culture is incredibly intensive and their overall safety record is a testament to that.. Thanks again for your continued information on this sad event.

[@JohnWoodall-k5k]

Very Exceptional report from Yuan once again. Yuan has that I have said before, This Gentleman goes through every bit of research, From the information being the South Korean (local authorities have determined and m ade public thus far to that related to the accident At this.moment, Yuan is making his decisions based upon that he had in front of him which appears to be not much at the moment. He comes through with Honest opinion and Not secondary Absolutes like some others do. Yuan is doing the Justified Right thing and is awaiting Further Information from the sigh A Synopsis when he gets it stands at that, Just that of a Synopsis which he will go through and will Determine the proper foundations surrounding how this Flight should have been handled by the Two Pilots and come to the Conclusion of a Case Investigation better than an NTSB Report and tell us what Happened and why. Very well put together ReportbbyvYaun on thatbhebandv(Remember) that he has in front of him right now and that would be scary for Passengers Flying.with such Arlines in these types of Countries where I would like to know the Ongoing Training Procedures and the simulator Experience if at all Any in a Simulator and if they do not possess one themselves and be put through such situations, Through this they maintain a Mandatory Status of Training and Knowledge of how to handle such scenarios.

[@blder56]

With that confusion coming on so suddenly it would have made me even more willing to get er down on the runway, right frickin' now!

[@johnfisher747]

Firewall the throttles and see if you have any power, there’s no time for niceties that close to the ground. My instructor said coax as much power as you can from a damaged engine if it means the difference between making the field or not.

[@TJasienski]

If the pilots initiated the go around before the bird strike, the electrical power was still there so it should be still heard on CVR that they are deciding to go around and data recorder should show increase in engine power and change of attitude, so this should be possible to establish what happened first, based on remaining flight recorder data.

[@user-yt198]

Exactly. FR24 data already shows "increase in engine power and change of attitude". Just we need to hear what they said to each other in the cockpit.

[@athgt6630]

@@TJasienski correct, and it should also be obvious in the FDR data.

[@Kodousinx]

Lol what

[@hb1338]

The data has not yet been fully analysed.

[@hb1338]

@@user-yt198 ... followed by a descent. Maybe the pilots were dodging birds.

[@michaelmcgovern8110]

Love your stuff: the detail, the knowledge and scholarship, and the excellent attitude. Thanks for showing me so much.

[@Gscalenut]

Already in the go round mode when the bird strike occurred would explain the flaps and gear retracted. Loss of electrical power to both DFR and CVR would imply less than idle power from both left and right engines after birdstrike. Minimal damage to left engine fan blades and the build up of dirt at the 6 o'clock position implies the left engine was barely rotating if at all on impact.

[@robinbennett5994]

You can imagine the pilots seeing a flock of birds like that video, and deciding to go around to avoid it, but too late.

[@paulholterhaus7084]

Yes...Birds brought this Aircraft down......Airspeed was high because of clean configuration/no good way to slow it down........Shit happens............Just stay in bed 24/7......Might live longer...but I doubt it..............Paul

[@hb1338]

The approach/landing video shows no heat haze from engine #1 at any point.

[@NicolaW72]

Indeed. And in regard to the pilots: Probably neither their training nor the memory items nor the QRH provided any guidance what to do in such a situation.

[@XTQ1179]

@@NicolaW72 They should have turned on the emergency engine but I do not know whether they tried or how long it takes for that engine to start or if that engine was operational at all in that aircraft.

[@overhead18]

A month of so ago I had a "murmuration" of starling pop up right in front of me on final, no way I was getting over it in a small plane. Had to turn out of final a little lower than I would like, not fun. However, figured there was no way those little bastards would still be around after flying out a mile or two and turning back into the downwind. Well, as you could probably guess as this point, they were there, popped out of the same trees or off the ground or whatever again on final again. No idea how I missed them, it was a wall of birds. No way to predict the movement. They move as a giant group, almost like one organism. The way they moved as a group was almost hypnotic, hard to explain. Anyway, decided to go to another airport, I was honestly a little rattled. I watched videos of the murmuration after, a very beautiful thing to watch...but not when one see's it from an airplane on final. I feel for the pilots and everyone impacted by this.

[@earlp6731]

About 10 years ago a murmuration came by the woods of my house and it was loud! I went outside and was blown away by the sight and sound of it. I could hear for about 20 minutes after it left my vicinity. Natural wonder. I assume flying into it would have brought you down. Glad you’re safe!!

[@beenaplumber8379]

I came in for a landing in a rented C-172 at Shawano airport in Wisconsin many years ago, and I didn't encounter a murmuration of anything, but on very short final I saw, lining the edges of the runway pavement, a big flock of very big sandhill cranes - MASSIVE birds (4' tall, 6-8' wingspan). They all had their bills up in the air, which I understand is a fear/defense posture, meaning if I went around, they might have all taken flight. They all held their position as I rolled out. Never seen anything like it.

[@overhead18]

@@earlp6731 Thanks, I am good. Flew the next day, just a reminder that things can happen that are out of our control while flying and people should be careful about being too harsh on pilots before all the details are known. I am sure, on the second attempt, if I would have hit the birds and crashed lots of people would have said "what the heck was that idiot doing going back for a second try?". That might be a fair question to ask, but at the time I was sure there was no way that would happen again. I sort of became a little obsessed with murmurations for a while (and sort of still am), they are incredible to watch....on video, not from the seat of a plane.

[@overhead18]

@ Not to say something that might upset some folks, but they are the "ribeye of the sky", incredible tasting bird. Also not something I want hitting the airplane I am flying, very large bird for sure!!!!!! I am glad you made it through, I think sometimes people that do not fly don't really get it, things can happen, split second decisions, random events...anyway, glad it worked out.

[@gardnep]

I read that your, now extinct (they got eaten), passenger pigeons, would form flocks miles long and wide with millions of birds. Hitting them would be like hitting a wall.

[@kristinwinter5006]

It is likely that the FO's time was his total time. Back in the 90's, I taught for JAL out of KAPC, which you might remember the flocks of Bonanzas. I remember one of the students from my first class sent me a post card after his first flight as a 747 FO and proudly proclaimed that he was up to 299 hours.

[@alexmelia8873]

Wow that is STAGGERING. My first job here in the states was a 172 and I had 750 hours! 1200 hours got me in a Part 135 PIC turboprop, 1500 into the regionals

[@pigdroppings]

If I remember correctly.......in western European airlines, going from primary trainers to passenger airliners is usually about 300 hours...and they have a good safety record.

[@fToo]

yes indeed. i'm not sure Juan was suggesting anything else, just that it's so surprising to American viewers.

[@DerCakeman]

Going to Airlines with CPL IR (ATPL frozen) is the norm in EU. Don't know who thinks flying circles for 1,200h makes you a safer pilot.

[@drewski5730]

@@DerCakemandifferent regulatory agencies do different things, who’d have thought?

[@DerCakeman]

@@drewski5730 different things aren't equally good, who could've thought?

[@planck39]

Mostly 400hrs and being ex military and flown before isn't an advance. Military mission oriented and no CRM and flown by yourself can mean that you have learned your self wrong things. As US pilots 1.500hr crop dusting or Part 91/54? A complete senseless rule!

[@Indiskret1]

Been waiting for your report most of this day. Thank you so much for doing such a great work!

[@johnfranklin8319]

Always waiting for the Blanco analysis.👍

[@keptaingreatski1304]

Per an article on CNN the South Koreans are replacing all of the same types of berms on all the airports that have them.

[@AKStovall]

band-aid for sure. yes, the berm was the reason for the massive loss of life, but the cement and cinder block wall on the other side would have done the same thing. look at the air crew and their unconventional methods of landing, failure to follow checklists, clearly not doing memory items. Stop worrying about the berm. that's just the final hole in the swiss cheese that lined up perfectly to end the mishap chain of events. look at the earlier stuff.

[@n.v.1258]

CNN, HAHAHA. MIGHT AS WELL HAVE LISTENED TO THE TOILET FLUSH. WOULD BE MORE INTERESTING 😅

[@cassandratq9301]

I would hope so.

[@YeongjunKwon]

@@AKStovall it is being done along with EMAS where there isn't enough clearway at the end

[@JariJuslin]

@@AKStovall : There is no certainty that it would have done the same thing. Cinderblocks are quite a lot more fragile than steel reinforced concrete, and the perimeter wall was also thinner than the localizer antenna base. Yeah, the fence would have hurt, it's possible it would have hurt less.

[@captmyq]

Hi Juan, if we look at the crash video closely, there are no birdstrike marks (blood/feathers) on the nose radome and windshield which should have been there if the aircraft hit a large flock of birds. It seems that the crew initiated a go-around to avoid the birds but ended up ingesting few in both engines on the upwind, just like Sully's flight and the engines' flame out. The crew then initiated a tear drop as the altitude was low and landed long and ended up hitting the wall. What doesn't add up was the noise of the running engines in the crash video, and since the engines had mud inside, which proves that they were partially running.

[@captmyq]

Edit: I watched the full video of the crash, and it clearly shows dust while the aircraft first made contact with the ground. Touchdown undershot the runway, but the aircraft went all the way till the end. I believe one or both engines had partial power.

[@jakebrodskype]

As a private pilot I've had close calls near flocks of birds. Even in a little bug smasher of an airplane, those birds can come up on you awfully fast, and I was in a cruise climb of 80 knots at the time. I can understand the difficulty avoiding a flock of birds at 160 knots. We don't know what may have been fouled up (no pun intended) as a result of ingesting those birds. It could be that key engine instruments such as temperature or pressure sensors were not all functional, even if the engines themselves were turning. It will be very interesting to read about what they find when they tear down those engines.

[@EdOeuna]

You can’t / don’t avoid birds in jets because, by the time you see them it’s too late. Also you’ll also rip the wings off or over stress something with the force behind the FBW (not 737, obviously). I’ve just had a near miss with 2 vultures, or something huge, on downwind at over 5000ft AGL. Nothing I can do about it, and my manual says to fly through them anyway.

[@432b86ed]

Glad to see this Juan drop. I don't even bother with other reports anymore.

[@Kathikas1]

I was watching a KZbin video this morning about a maritime incident in the Baltic and the presenter said “let’s do a Juan Browne and look at the facts” …!

[@johnstreet797]

that was Sal

[@DonaldAtherton-l7u]

I caught that too

[@XavierLignieres]

I think it is very important to point out that going directly from PPL-CPL/IR to ATP and first officer on a commercial airliner is very common outside of the US one could even say it has become the norm these days in much of Europe and Asia. As someone not from the USA I always find it interesting how a lot of Americans find this kind of career progress odd. I have freinds that went from PPL to FO on A320 in 3 years.

[@NoRegertsHere]

The training systems are set up that way as there is little general aviation

[@XavierLignieres]

@ GA is very much a thing but private ownership of aircraft is not so usually people just “rent” aircraft by the hour at aero clubs and there is definitely not the same GA aircraft owner culture you see in the US General aviation is more of a stepping stone or a hobby (in the same way say gliding or skydiving is in the US )in Europe at least from my experience. Only aircraft owners I know are people who bought “shares” in aero club aircraft to have less rental fees when they want to fly it.

[@Objectified]

We know it's common. We don't find it odd, we find it different, and we question whether pilots with as few as a couple of hundred hours to get their MPL are sufficiently seasoned to respond in an outlier situation. It's not that Americans necessarily think the FAA's 1500-hour requirement in and of itself is necessarily the best way to go about things, or that so many hours are needed, and indeed this is part of the reason why there are exceptions to the 1500-hour rule in the U.S.

[@Objectified]

@@XavierLignieres Renting time in a plane and buying shares in a private plane are also very common in America. The U.S. has a vast network of public and private airports supporting a massive general aviation infrastructure, generally lower operating costs, and much greater access to individual instruction. That's not an "America #1" thing, not saying one is better or worse than the other, that's just the way aviation developed here.

[@hannuorn]

Indeed, experience is not everything. Quality of training and company culture are much more important. Ryanair has been operating a huge fleet of 737s on very low-hour crews for years with an excellent safety record. There are many other similar examples. There are also countless accidents where a very high-hour crew FUBARed their way into a crash. Flying 1500 hours on small airplanes does nothing to prepare a pilot for flying a large jet. It may even be counterproductive as it provides an opportunity to accumulate a lot of bad habits that are difficult to unlearn later. You can only learn to fly jets by flying them, and everyone has to start from scratch. As far as I understand, the 1500 hour rule in the US was a knee-jerk overreaction to some fatal accidents involving low-experience crews.

[@TheAlphahirogen]

I flew in S. Korea for a couple years, Muan was one of my favorite airports to go to for training flights. The birds there will definitely form little flocks that just become little black/grey/white moving blobs. A few times I had a controller warn me about weather on their scope that was "just" a flock of birds. The bird warnings are very easy to get complacent about (on both the pilot and ATC ends) as they are so common at pretty much every airport in the country. This is one of those scenarios that is easy to see coming, but still surprising as it's a hazard easily dealt with on practically every flight...

[@HomesickforAlaska]

They claim the aircraft was traveling at 161 knots on a stabilized approach at the time of the apparent bird strike, (I have seen other reports that claim 144 knots) however the aircraft continued to fly and maneuver for an additional 4 minutes including a 180 degree turn and impacted the wall at approximately 166 knots after skidding down the runway for some distance, although at that speed they were flying down the runway more than skidding. I fail to see how a 737 can make those maneuvers, stay airborne, and INCREASE its speed without at least one engine producing significant power. It would also seem from the maneuvers that the aircraft was able to perform that the hydraulic systems were still functional which should have allowed at least the landing gear, if not the flaps, and speed brakes to deploy. It also appears to me that the aircraft performs a flare as they reach the runway which would make you believe the pilots may possibly have thought that the landing gear was down. I don't think there is any doubt that the aircraft hit birds, but so far I have seen no information that changes my initial thoughts, that the "cause" of the crash was ultimately pilot error. Hopefully this crash will cause ALL passenger aircraft to be retrofitted with battery backed up CVR and FDR as the FACTUAL answers to the ACTUAL cause of this crash could have saved lives in the future. As a side note, whoever decided to build an airport in a flood plain, bordered on all sides by major migratory bird sanctuarys is an idiot.

[@dabda8510]

> As a side note, whoever decided to build an airport in a flood plain, bordered on all sides by major migratory bird sanctuarys is an idiot. Experts objected, but a powerful politician of the national S. Korean Congress pushed it through to start because it pads his reputation. He was known as one of the most powerful politician at that time period.

[@timothystamm3200]

​@@dabda8510sounds like that's the base issue. They might have to decommission this airport because it's simply not safe.

[@bwalker4194]

Try flying into Oshkosh and having to hold over Green Lake at 1500’ with all the local bird activity.

[@patmayer7222]

Armchair,,,here,,😮imo,,,also,,,if the jet was gaining speed,,in the chaos,,,..were they hoping to get back up,knowing the length of runway,,and explains gain,..no flaps/ thrusts,,...trying to get up again( last resort)????????????????imo,...all our inputs can spark conversation,,,...( my idea),,,I'm sure others have added this hypothetical in there meetings,,,tnx,,pat& family..

[@phillee2814]

The R101 proved in 1930 that political interference in aviation is a recipe for disaster. Not much has changed.

[@LoseYourself001]

as someone whos doing atpl training in EU, here pilots are hired with 200 ish hours and put through a type rating and within a couple months in a 737. I think this is quite normal, nobody would have the money to afford flight training for 1600+ hours. 200 hours is already something that only relatively wealthy people can afford. Maybe in Usa you have differet salaries and you can afford a longer training. I'd say more than focusing on the hours, it is important to look at how pilots are prepared. 95% of the theory from ATPL is completly useless to a pilot, so you have a training that lasts a couple of years in which you spend so much time studying for theory exams that fill your brain with complete nonsense, and then very little time is dedicated to what's really important which is the actual flying and the being ready for any possible scenario in flight

[@lifeteen2]

Nope, we really don't have any good way to pay for the 1600 hours. Often people will become flight instructors and fly various small passenger and freight aircraft as ways of making small money while building up their flight hours, but it's a bad system.

[@SteamCrane]

@@lifeteen2 ...and getting killed along the way.

[@Ellie-rx3jt]

Worth noting that it's not 1600 hours *training* in the US, just 1600 hours *flying* Makes certain there are always a decent number of general aviation flight instructors around who really have no interest in teaching, as they're just racking up flight hours before they can quit.

[@weldonyoung1013]

Being a flight instructor probably beats being a freight dog in a general aviation aircraft where much more diverse weather condition can see demands for flights. Learning freight dogs could learn when not to fly though.

[@marclandreville6367]

When they get to the big jets, former general aviation pilots have to forget quite a few habits. A lot of general aviation pilots have difficulty with big jet scans/flows. The worse, I find, are some pilots who flew executive jets: all read and do checklists (as opposed to flow and checklist), slack cockpit and checklist discipline. Contract training establishments for executive/general aviation are often very forgiving (as opposed to airline training standards) because if they fail a client, then the client doesn't come back the next year. Low time pilots, recent graduates of airline training academies trained at the outset in multi-crew operations, often do better training for a big jet type ratings than a guy with 5000 hours of single pilot king-air time.

[@ericfielding2540]

Sad that so many people were lost. I hope they can find at least some things that can be changed to reduce the risk of a similar disaster.

[@user-yt198]

I know one already. Just notice that no passengers were lost in a similar situation on the Hudson.

[@redbullwithoutapause7835]

@@user-yt198 that was their only hope at that speed with no gear.

[@hb1338]

@@redbullwithoutapause7835 Unfortunately there was no river within hundreds of miles. Landing on the ocean is very nearly 100 per cent fatal because of the waves.

[@byronhenry6518]

We need more emphasis in airline training departments on bird avoidance. There isn’t much consensus on how to handle it. Don’t go around for birds, avoid drastic maneuvers just for birds, especially on an approach. The gear is down and the runway is right there. Just land and deal with it later. If you’re on climb out, it’s a bit different. If there’s room for normal bracketing maneuvers to avoid them without destabilizing the approach, sure. Otherwise I’m just running them over and continuing. Sorry birdie! I’d rather have to write up a bird strike than risk something like this. Another thing to maybe consider: Bird strikes at low thrust settings cause less damage. If you’re definitely going to hit and you can’t stop it, maybe reducing the thrust before impact can help save the engine. We need some scientific research on this and develop specific training for different bird strike scenarios.

[@SteamCrane]

I would postulate that 300 hours, all in a focused training environment with CRM, is worth more than 1500 hours flying packages solo and trying not to run into a potato plant.

[@I_Evo]

Agreed, not aware of any evidence that the flight training model operated nearly everywhere else outside the US produces worse/less competent aircrew than the 1,500 hour rule.

[@Objectified]

I would postulate that portraying U.S. pilots reaching 1500 hours as "flying packages solo and trying not to run into a potato plant" is as reductively ignorant as claiming they simply fly in circles on autopilot. And you do understand that once U.S. pilots hit 1500 hours they enter a 250-300 hour airline training program similar to the European MPL, yes? You surely aren't one of these gaggles of ignorant anti-American bigots who think ignorant things about all-things America, yes?

[@Objectified]

​@@I_Evo I'm not sure I can think of any other scenario in which 1,500 hours of flight experience across a diverse range of operational scenarios, weather conditions, and airports would be dismissed as inconsequential to safety, decision-making, risk analysis, and situational awareness-except when critiquing the U.S. system. The same seems true when claiming that the training models 'everywhere outside the U.S.' are of the same quality as one another, or even comparable to one another in measurable terms. It's always just "America bad, everyone else superior!"

[@I_Evo]

@@Objectified You mean as opposed to 'US right, the rest of the world? What's that does it even exist".Come on we know the 1,500 hour rule was a knee jerk reaction by politicians to the Colgan Air crash and backed by pilots unions for reasons of pure self-interest. It's been 10 years plus now since it was introduced where's the evidence that it's improved safety compared to comparable countries/regions?

[@EdOeuna]

I’m not American but I gained my first few thousand hours from flying parcels. Sure it’s a bad way to develop bad habits, but then a true professional, entering an airline, would recognise their shortcomings and adapt to the airline environment.

[@mikehindson-evans159]

Thank you; useful as always. Just for completeness (*NOT* a criticism, just adding info from Europe) the French outfit is known as "BEA" not BAE. Co-Incidentally, BAe here in the UK is our major defence and aerospace corporate. Thanks for the time which you devote to these videos.

[@johnvolk995]

The "Sully" A320 was taken down by Canada geese, which can vary from 5 to 14 lbs. each. It would take a very large number Baikal teals (about 1 lb. each) to be equivalent, but seems possible based on the density of the flocks that you presented.

[@AKStovall]

the 1 video I saw showed numerous birds in the #2 engine, and maybe 1 or 2 in the #1. Most likely not enough to completely take the engines out, but enough to add some pucker factor

[@dabda8510]

I saw S. Korean news showing a grainy security camera footage of the area just about the time of the accident, and yes there is a huge group of the birds flying around the airport.

[@hb1338]

You do not have the slightest idea how many Baikal teals it would require to bring down an aircraft.

[@scottbeyer101]

One of the things noted by others suggests there HAD TO HAVE been some thrust available. Think about it. They were (ADS-B) at 5-600 feet maximum, at 160kts. They managed to go around, land (sort of) and then depart the runway at 160kts. Maybe (likely) they lost both N2 generators but they did have some thrust. Man, they were configured and stabilized at 500 feet. Just plow through that cloud of birds and land. The insurance company owns those engines and everyone gets home. Signed, armchair QB.

[@rkan2]

Loosing both generators but still having such amount of thrust sounds very peculiar.

[@Dyson_Cyberdynesystems]

Absolutely they had power to get out of that configuration and complete the teardrop.

[@stevegredell1123]

Thrust reverser was deployed on one engine as well. I am not a 737 mechanic but I don't see how you can have hydraulics for that but not for lowering the gear...

[@Ellie-rx3jt]

Insurance might own the engines, but the company would still likely be very upset about the lost flight time while they're repaired. Strikes me that it's a bit like the statistic that says the best option for a footballer in a penalty shot is to send it straight down the middle. But it's rarely done, because if it *doesn't* work out, the person taking the shot looks like an absolute moron. So most footballers will aim for a corner instead, despite knowing it's less likely to work out.

[@lbowsk]

A good friend flew transports as Captain all over Asia while on furlough from a US-based airline. He flew for several new start-up airlines based in China, Japan, and VietNam. The stories he tells me about the FO's he flew with are enough to keep me off those airlines forever. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[@Jamesbrown-xi5ih]

I really enjoy flying with JAL and Skymark, so I'm interested in hearing about them.

[@lbowsk]

@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih JAL is a completely different animal. I am talking about all of the startups during the early 2000s.

[@joso5554]

We would have had a lot to think about along those lines if we had the CVR data. But without them, we won’t have any insight into the CRM.

[@t5ruxlee210]

The perimeter wall had a small section knocked down, possibly by a single post- crash detached engine. The real killers were the poured concrete monolith hiding inside the fake berm plus the equally deadly massive poured concrete base above it which was supporting the ILS array.

[@lbowsk]

@@t5ruxlee210 Disagree. The real killer was shooting off the runway with the gear up at more than 100 knots. Those guys appeared to be going faster off the departure end while landing than most planes do while taking off.

[@MrJeffcoley1]

That does make sense, they initiated go around after encountering birds, then hit the birds while doing the go around.

[@hb1338]

... or not.

[@frank_av8tor]

Here's a thought, initiating an APU Start takes just a couple of seconds. With the APU you get full electrical and hydraulic systems (landing gear / brakes / flaps) in case of a dual engine failure. Would this have made a difference in this case? We don't know for sure yet. Is it easy to think about this when sitting in a nice comfortable chair watching YT videos and drinking coffee? You bet. Thanks, Juan, for the update! Things are beginning to make a little more sense.

[@tomstravels520]

Initiating it takes a couple of seconds, waiting for it to be powered on and available can be about a minute or a bit more depending on conditions. Also on the 737 you have to manually connect it to the electrical system

[@alexmelia8873]

It takes 50-60 seconds to start the APU on the 737, plus manually bussing it up, and even then, you are only getting the electric driven hydraulic pumps with flow barely 1/6th the volume of fluid as the engine-driven pumps, so it would have taken FOREVER to drop the gear (normal extension) and flaps. Given the 2-3 minutes they had from bird strike to touchdown and the startle factor, we can see why it was overlooked, but even if they did do it, I don’t think it would’ve made any difference short of keeping the FDR powered

[@frank_av8tor]

@alexmelia8873 I'm not 737 rated, but my guess is noving the switch from Off to Start, then On shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 seconds (that's how long it takes on the B757/767). Yes, the full startup sequence takes about a minute, but that's automatic without having to do anything else. Just having the Gear and brakes might have been enough. As I said, I can't guarantee the APU would have prevented this accident, but if they had the gear down (no flaps), that might have been enough to at least minimize the forces on impact. I am NOT second-guessing anything or anyone I wasn't there and don't know the specific circumstances, the shock of the bird strikes at low altitude alone is enough to make anyone concentrate on just flying and not even bother with the QRH. Still having the APU makes a double engine failure much easier to manage. Time permitting.

[@frank_av8tor]

@tomstravels520 Does getting the APU generator on-line require matching cycles as in the B727? Or just a switch temporarily moved?

[@tomstravels520]

@@frank_av8tor no, just move switch to start position then it springs back to on

[@reggierico]

Hi Juan, I see that you've reached 1/2 million subs. That is fantastic! Congratulations on that and thanks for your continued expertise and outstanding briefings.

[@HushemFlupskluk]

A giant flock of Baikal Teal or multiple giant flocks of Baikal Teals close to the Muan Airport as the cause of this disaster appeared to me as surreal and just a chimera. But now it seems to be the reality. Still the reinforced concrete wall killed the passengers and crew. What a freak accident!

[@caha9583]

well they were going really fast in to that wall. Not sure at all the crash wouldn´t have been fatal anyways, due to some other obstacle further ahead.

[@economicprisoner]

@@caha9583 Probably depends if the outer wall was reinforced or not.

[@mrpielover615]

7:05 They got that data from the very last frame of the FDR data before it cut out. That's still on final where the FDR and CVR cut out, not at impact.

[@user-yt198]

1) It is from ADS-B data, not from FDR data. We don't have the FDR data yet. 2) He says they calculated it looking at video evidence. That part is questionable. It must be just an approximation.

[@pfeerick]

@@user-yt198 2) No, he said at 7:10 "We derived it"... he appeared to be talking about his attempt at calculating the speed... and I believe he confused this data from the report with the landing speed, not the speed at the time the FDR stopped recording, 4 minutes before impact. 1) "We" don't have the FDR data yet, but perhaps the investigators do? I honestly don't know... perhaps it was from the FDR, perhaps it was ADS-B, maybe from something else. Hopefully this will be come clearer as more information gets released.

[@DemersEvan]

Great video! Thanks for this update I been waiting!!

[@peterredfern1174]

Great update,thank you,hopefully all will come out in the final report .As usual safe flights mate,🙏🙏👋👍👍🇦🇺

[@HulkBogannn]

For reference - here in Europe if you do a full time "integrated" training course, you can get into the right seat of an airliner with 150 hours. 200 hours if you do "modular" training, completing the various ratings separately in your own time.

[@rogerlafrance6355]

Is simulator time logged or how much is common to get in the FO seat?

[@GLEX234]

Would risk your life on a surgeon with 4 weeks of training?

[@HulkBogannn]

@@rogerlafrance6355 it will include sim time for IR and type rating for the traditional CPL ME/IR courses. MPL courses have a majority in the airliner sim after basic training. The training is very intense and regardless of pathway, it's a high quality ~200 hours.

[@HulkBogannn]

@ that has no relevancy to this

[@JimmieBrown-sg8fq]

No one except US requires 1500 hours it’s stupid, just a union ploy to restrict pilot pool has zero to do with safety actually increases risk. Mentour channel has a great overview of this check it out.

[@johndemerse9172]

Fantastic update Juan. I wonder if the crew knew about the concrete wall (localizer berm) at that end of the runway. Cheers from CYYB.

[@NicolaW72]

That´s indeed an important point.

[@SteamCrane]

Might be why it was camouflaged with dirt.

[@danc2014]

@@SteamCrane because most planes would be on wheeles traveling at under 5 mph when the would hit the end of the runway. Not 100 mph on belly.

[@SteamCrane]

@ Some birds shouldn't result in 179 deaths. If the concrete block wasn't there, they would have continued and hit the much less solid cinder block wall. Possibly some deaths, but many survivors.

[@kasmageorge2714]

Do you think their care abt that? Bird only the right reason to blame for, so will no one will responsible,or lost thire job@@SteamCrane

[@matthewbeasley7765]

I wish they would have provided a bit of information about the last seconds of engine data before it was cut off. If both engines were showing very high EGT, crappy EPR and declining RPM, it sure would indicate bird strike damage. OTOH, cold and declining RPM means cutt-off. That would answer the question if it was a case of shutting down a good engine or did they lose both engines to the bird strike.

[@tomstravels520]

If the generators were both damaged and cause the recorders to loose power before the engines failed you wouldn't see much in the first place

[@EZ-df1cm]

@@tomstravels520 How come your reply is 6 minutes prior to the original comment?

[@tomstravels520]

@ that's broken YT comments section for you. Mine shows a 2 minute difference after comment

[@EZ-df1cm]

@ YT done bad. At least I know you're not a bot. 😀

[@scollyutube]

And both engines exactly simultaneously too seems strange......

[@prmath]

I really hurt for these poor souls and their families 🙏🏼😢🙏🏼

[@timoooo7320]

Can you imagine how happy they felt at first when they landed?

[@Chris-Nico]

Good job, Juan detailing the electrical busses on the NG. The Max is similar.

[@BelusTraveller]

Been waiting for this, Thank you, I just wonder If ditching in the water would have been better, I still don’t understand no gear down, I hope and pray 🙏 things are learned from this to prevent another such disaster, To many Souls lost, 😢God Bless

[@hb1338]

Ditching on ocean water is likely to be 100 per cent fatal. Landing on the runway was the quickest and easiest way to get the aircraft onto the ground.

[@himssendol6512]

Captain was air force pilot trained. I'm searching the korean sites to find more info on his total flight hours. See if the numbers are his total hours or "with the airline"

[@swang30]

I think they saw the wall of birds coming up and initiated a go around. They were unable to avoid the birds and ran into said wall of birds, causing dual engine failure and an immediate emergency landing. It sounded like they pulled up the wheels and flaps for the go around, and never had time to get them down before the landing. But everything after the CVR/FDR cutoff is speculative.

[@dabda8510]

After the accident, they found the page for emergency landing check list(I think?) RIPPED out from the binder. That one piece of paper somehow was not burned and was captured by local news camera footage and then recovered by the recovery team.

[@davethewave7248]

Going around on seeing birds increased not decreased risk.

[@naga2015kk]

SO INCREDULOUS that a page from landing check list was NOT BURNED in that inferno as well as duck blood stains and feathers were intact. South Korean government has credibility unlimited.

[@swang30]

Not if you thought you could avoid the birds. The default action is not to land in such a manner as to cause both engines to be totaled. If you don't think you can avoid it, then yes, it's better to just go in. But that's hindsight. They had maybe 20-30 seconds to see the situation, analyze it, make a decision and implement it. It's not a long time.

[@carlwilliams6977]

​​@@swang30Well said! Armchair quarterbacks lurk everywhere in cyber space!

[@oldguydoesstuff120]

Even this fairly basic prelim report does a lot to help us understand what was going on. We go from a short video showing a possible compressor stall to a much broader understanding of the bigger situation. Once again we learn that a brief video cannot tell the whole story. We have to wait for a fuller investigation to really learn what happened. And we still need to wait for further information, even though we now know that this was a much more difficult situation than it might have seemed at first.

[@timd6717]

A few decades ago a USMC C130 struck a flock of geese during approach to NAS Glenview. The crew were able to land safely, then launder their pants. Not only did engines get damaged and some flame out, the airframe suffered tremendous damage. Nearly all of the windshield/windows were damaged with a few blown out. One of the leading edges (I forget which wing) was heavily damaged. The radome and radar antenna within were destroyed. Panels where dented and torn, some were missing when I saw it a day or two later. Blood and feathers were apparent all over. Over two dozen geese carcasses were removed from the airframe after the event. My point being, if JeJu struck a wall of fowl, there would be far more visible damage to the airframe in the video as is skids down the runway.

[@Exiles800]

Baikal Teal are only 16 ounces...However a number of them could damage an engine power train...

[@edmurphy2970]

Juan, love your channel and all your hard work. Would you comment on Avianca 052, the crash that happened 35 years ago today. I believe significant changes were made in communication between the aircraft and ATC. Thank you

[@trunkmonkey9417]

I think the wording is poor, but that the meaning was at the point the "MADAYx3 BIRDSTIKE" call was made, the aircraft was already on the go. (On Final, "BIRDS", initiate TOGA, Declaring MADAY) So, "the call was made during a go around" is correct.

[@hb1338]

Another possibility is go-round, birds, mayday call. I agree that the wording is poor, because it can mislead.

[@trunkmonkey9417]

@@hb1338 I do agree in "go around" birds. Both "work" in this case. And may make more sense. On final, sees birds below and well in front while on decent and glidepath intersecting between aircraft and runway. Initiate goa around and encounter more birds but not seeing them in time. Hoovers birds in both engines, calls Mayday on the go. same outcome. I really hope more eyewitness and perhaps other video can help. The survivors being cabin crewmembers, may be able to give insight as to when things happened based on what they felt the aircraft doing, engine sounds, thrust, loss of thrust, and pitch inputs. But, this mishap will still drive home airfield obstructions, hazards and perhaps give others in an unfortunate situation, some hope of a better outcome. In my lifetime, I have seen tremendous increases in safety from the time of transitioning from props to jets. (and a few things that make me scratch my head).

[@flyinkiwi01]

The airport was built in a river delta wet-land area with significant bird life, also on a seasonal bird migration route. Prone to fog and flooding (hence the ILS and the need for it to be raised out of seasonal flood waters). I wonder how many airports around the world are built in similar situations. Unfortunately, we may not get to learn much more about what happened on the day. I wonder if one or both engines were unable to produce thrust, or if one or both had reduced thrust, hopefully that can be determined. From internal changes and news in South Korea about airlines now being required to undertake additional inspections on type (understandable). But they stated they were specifically looking at, “such as whether airlines spent enough time carrying out maintenance and secured parts for repairs,“ it made me speculate if the aircraft had a number of existing ‘snags’ or active MEL (systems that don’t work, but are acceptable to still fly with as long as specific actions are taken, and rectification work is undertaken within a certain timeframe) entries. It appears South Korean officials suspect inconsistencies.

[@lars8102816]

What worries me is that I see a lot of attention during the investigation going to the birdstrike, but I see almost no reference to the landing gear not being down.. Why wasn't it down? Did they forget? No hydraulic power? If so, why no gravity extension? Did they decide it was better not to lower it?

[@wildzach]

One reasoning for it i heard was they wanted to guarantee they could make the airport by keeping the plane clean, but then once they made the airport, they wouldn’t have time to lower the gear and flaps. But who knows

[@dabda8510]

Don't you need hydraulic/electricity to actually apply brakes to the wheels? So maybe they thought belly landing was better option? Or they simply forgot about the manual drop release of the wheels? There is a video footage from the accident site of the emergency check list, specifically the page for emergency landing was found RIPPED out from the binder. They were in a hurry and had ripped out that page. Miraculous that paper was captured by a news crew footage and was recovered.

[@AKStovall]

clearly not losing speed after belly landing, the engines were still providing thrust. this mishap is 100% on the flight crew.

[@tomstravels520]

Because NOBODY has an answer yet. No good guessing what happened

[@SuperScott3000]

because a birdstrike in both engines negates their ability to follow standard procedure, so understanding the entire situation for the pilots will help be able to determine if their actions were "correct" or not. in this instance, they really need to work the problem from front to back, not back to front. nothing in this accident makes sense back to front.

[@slots1407]

As a previous data centre manager, it is inconceivable that the CVR and FDR are not powered by at least two totally independent sources simultaneously. All servers under my watch (around 2000 of them) had completely independent North/South power feeds from different municiple areas (plus of cource the local backup batteries (instantaneous) and generators ( 10 second spool-up). For any aircraft, this is an egregious oversight.

[@hb1338]

Why not compare giraffes with daffodils ?

[@thiswillprobhrt]

I’m not sure on the timeline of the video with the compressor stall. Given that there wasn’t an apparent flock of birds in the video… did they hit a second, more dense flock out of shot?

[@TobinTwinsHockey]

I had not thought about the possibility that they struck the birds AFTER initiating the go-around. That definitely changes things a bit

[@robbedontuesday]

It does not matter at all. According to the report, they declared "Bird strike" 60 seconds AFTER they lost all power. So the loss of power/engines/thrust was NOT due to bird strike... Go back and check it out.

[@timoooo7320]

Apparently it’s not clear yet

[@robbedontuesday]

@ apparently this is an official report... full of booollsheeet.

[@clister.]

many pilot see the engine when landing, one of them is look like still operational. that's what I call weird, so just it? all engine is gone? 🤔

[@zachansen8293]

it doesn't change not putting down the gear.

[@ChristianAkacro]

If BOTH engines were struck that can explain a lot about the sense of urgency and panic the pilots may have been facing.

[@shodancat1000]

yup. it doesn't entirely explain the tragedy that followed, but it's definitely a big hole in the swiss cheese model.

[@patshozo9158]

Yes, both engines failing explains the loss of CVR and FDR power. With both engines out and unable to restart with such low altitude, I'd find a way down to land - forget about trying to find the manual gear release....

[@F1SHY99]

@@patshozo9158 But would you not do a straight in approach ???? why would you risk a half assed go around and land half way down the runway from the other side when you can continue your final into a runway that you are already established. I understand your prioritizing landing over the checklist but why not prioritize landing on the runway you are on final to ?

[@28th_St_Air]

@@F1SHY99juan said they were on the go around during the bird strike and, in a previous video, he said that landing without gear down results in the plane uncharacteristically staying in ground effect much longer than normal, so that is why they did not set it down until much further down the runway than expected.

[@shodancat1000]

@@patshozo9158 that choice likely lead to the deaths of more than 170 people.

[@litreland764]

So sorry to the family and loved ones of the Koreans lost in the accident❤

[@jdbrown3695]

The video of the flock of teals was scary. If the pilots saw something like this I wonder if that precipitated a decision to go around? It will be interesting to see what comes out in the final report. Hopefully, it will address all the questions you mentioned, Juan! As always, thanks for you insightful analysis.

[@AlexandreMS71]

I think you missed the "Timeline" picture shown at 5:08 ... that explains the "go around" timeline and it is a little bit weird.

[@Turbojets_Channel]

As I hypothesized before, I still maintain they lost thrust in both engines. According to this new update, I believe the crew may have initiated a Go Around when they sighted the birds, and then they ingested them thus losing power to both engines and a subsequent dual engine failure resulting in a hasty turn back to the reciprocal runway.

[@ChristianAkacro]

Report does indicate both engines were struck. So that makes sense.

[@RonSwansons-0]

The engines were definitely operating during the attempted landing, (well the starboard one was at least). The nacelle was busted up but the engine was producing thrust, in fact it was screaming over and above the sound of scraping metal.

[@dabda8510]

That seems to be what happened imho.

[@fhowland]

Why try to do a go around then? Pilot error

[@paulbarnett227]

@@fhowland As stated by @Turbojets_Channel - they could have initiated the go-around to try to avoid the flock but then hit it anyway. From that point they were doomed.

[@petervautmans199]

When we trained at Sabena 1988, we started on sf260, then after some150 hrs, including aerobatics, transferred to Embraer Xingu and then directly onto 737, with less then 300 hrs total

[@SteamCrane]

...but that was hours of training. Most of the 1500 US hours is on your own.

[@Objectified]

@@SteamCrane And then you enter an airline training program similar to the European MPL.

[@williamdavis7432]

Well, they hit a concrete wall at 180 mph (impact force of about 82 g). It doesn't seem likely that any amount of training would alter the results of such a crash. As for the birds in question, teals, they're known for flying in large flocks (thousands of them). And it's no secret that jet aircraft generate lots of intake suction. In general, then, the planning for this particular air terminal seems suboptimal. In any event, thank you for another outstanding update & analysis!

[@mapleext]

Yes, that berm in that position was a killer. Too bad it took this for them to be replaced. 😢

[@dabda8510]

There are 4 wetlands/etc where the birds next/congregate around the Muan Airport. It was well known, and some experts opposed locating the NEW airport there due to bird strike danger, but were overruled by local politicians who wanted their name shown with the airport. The particular national congress man who pushed it to start was as the most powerful congress man at that particular period.

[@44R0Ndin]

@@dabda8510 And now he has egg on his face (Specifically duck egg, and pun 100% intended). I'm extremely disappointed that bad things like this keep happening until they claim some number of lives, but that's how our human minds seem to work, "It's all fine until someone dies, and only then do we take a moment to learn about how our hubris killed innocent people." It's actually worse these days, the people responsible for such decisions aren't subject to immediate and absolute removal from any sort of decision making position in government, which is what SHOULD happen. I mean, it's pretty simple, right? "If your decisions lead to people dying, that means you were either incapable of handling the office you were assigned, or you were prioritizing factors other than safety when you made that decision, in either case meaning you are unfit for office."

[@shodancat1000]

it's still not that simple. if the crew made the mistake of forgetting to lower the gear, or mishandling manual extension, then crew training could have indeed been a big part of why they impacted that wall with so much energy.

[@gasdive]

​@@shodancat1000 yep, exactly. And more aviation experience would have assisted in energy management. Compare it with Sully, who had a feel for managing aircraft energy. They had two engines out, but were effectively on the downwind for the opposite runway, high and fast. That's not a bad situation to be in as double engine failures go. Maybe it's my bias as a glider pilot, but that's a situation where you should be able to get the aircraft down intact.

[@PaulP567]

The JeJu jet passed over the video camera and out of sight over what appeared to be a highway bridge some 2200 ft from the runway threshold. At that point on a normal 3 degree approach the jet would have been at 165 ft AGL and 8 seconds from landing. The plane in the video looks much higher with flaps down, at least partially, and wheels up, i.e., configured for a straight ahead go-around. Thus the bird strike we see in the video happened well after a go-around had been initiated. The question is why a go-around was initiated in the first place? Had the -plane already had a bird strike or was it simply avoiding an observed flock? On the wheels-up touchdown on the reciprocal runway the bird-struck (observed) engine was still delivering thrust while the No 1 engine was not. If anything the plane was accelerating down the runway with enough speed to generate lift from the wings and negate any frictional retardation. It left the runway at about 160mph, somewhat above its normal landing speed. What had happened to the No 1 engine? Why could a running No 2 engine not have delivered at least a modicum of hydraulics and electrical power? If on a go-around the crew had shut down the wrong engine (after the observed bird strike) it might explain why they hauled the jet around in a teardrop manoeuvre, somewhat in a panic I daresay. It might not have been instrument-obvious that the No 2 engine had been struck and not the No 1. It was after all delivering thrust. Anyway, mysteries still abound. I think it will be resolved on a balance of plausibility's with the best plausibility being the answer.

[@donallan6396]

" when you have eliminated the impossible , what remains no matter how implausible, is the truth".

[@reneegregory2933]

Thanks for the excellent reporting! You haven't discussed the ADSB data and their descent path prior to the bird strike/mayday call. There is supposedly ADSB data that shows them briefly at a 1200 fpm descent and at 450' agl only 2 nm off the end of rw 01 followed by a climb. If this is the case, they may have begun a MAP prior to the bird strike and somewhat explains the clean wing. Are you not trusting of the ADSB for some reason?

[@tonamg53]

That is because he was kinda putting the blame on both pilots already from his previous episode and analysing the ADS-B would’ve proving himself wrong so he is just trying to ignore it… This is from my own observation because he usually use ADS-B data analysis in his reporting but in this case it is mysteriously not mentioned in details at all…

[@Johnoftheshire]

The percentage of guys who would proceed to land with an engine failure on final after hitting a massive flock of birds like the one depicted versus the percentage of guys who would go around - in real time (no 20/20 hindsight) - is 50-50. If the pilot had proceeded to land, and birds knocked out his remaining engine causing him to crash short of Runway 01, people would ask why didn’t he just go around?

[@hb1338]

There is a strong possibility that continue to land was not an option. 1) Bird strike after go-round initiated 2) Stabilised approach lost 3) Company policy mandates go-round. In any case Boeing landing configuration allows the plane to reach the runway if both engines are lost.

[@EdOeuna]

I’d land every time, following a late bird strike. Boeing even instruct this in the FCTM. Being unstable isn’t really an issue either because you’d pretty much always still have sufficient stopping performance. I’d also not jink the aircraft to avoid birds as this would be pretty pointless.

[@yucannthahvitt]

Juan, the hours of experience are nearly meaningless. I'll take a FO with 500h TT flying military helicopters over one who left flight school and did his remaining 1,200hrs on pipeline inspection or banner towing any day. It's not the time you do it's what you do with it. 1,200hrs of riding a bicycle to work and back doesn't make you a MotoGP racer. The quality of training and mindset/capabilities of the candidate make more difference than the hours.

[@TheSateef]

its a shame they havn't released a transcript of what they do have on the CVR

[@josephmaughan1635]

In your photograph of the engine full of dirt with a man crouching next to it the yellow goo that you see on the inside of the engine is the remnants of the bird, learned that by working in the engine shop at Hill Air Force Base many years ago.

[@teebob21]

mmmmm, freshly rendered duck fat, om nom nom

[@Exiles800]

I think it might be possible that when the A & B electrics went down the #2 engine was stuck in partial power default that could not be controlled because of the lack of electric inputs...This, and the lack of drag from the gear being retracted, led to an exacerbation of the ground effect that then caused an uncontrollable Nantucket Sleigh Ride in to the berm...This would explain the bizarre lack of any slowing in the crash landing...

[@nlagas]

Sorry but it needs to be said again. You are one of the best channel on KZbin. Keep the very good work, its is very helpful and informative. We learn together with you. Please stay sponsor free. Cheers from Patreon

[@TheMotoRockers]

These pilots had quite a bit of time in this equipment - despite having lower initial hours than what we're required to have. I'm not sure how much of a role that played in this accident. If your engines are taken out by birds, there's not much even a well-trained pilot is going to be able to recover from.

[@Chellz801]

They do this so they don’t have a shortage of pilots. It’s better to have currency within an airline that is training you with crm versus 1500 hours with potentially learning bad habits. It makes sense and helps ppl start their careers earlier and also helps with retention of talent long term. I don’t think this will be much of a factor it’s surprising for American audiences but it’s also done in western European countries as well and many of their safety records are very good.

[@drewski5730]

@@TheMotoRockers the F/O despite his low total time, met the requirements to be an F/O in the US. Also. He had much more time on type than an F/O meeting the minimum standards in the US.

[@gordo1163]

@@drewski5730 Exactly. Which pilot has more experience at 1500 hours, the typical US cfi/cfii at a pt 61 school or a 737 FO that started at 300 hours? I think I know what the answer is.

[@drewski5730]

@@gordo1163 I’ve flown with both types and can personally say both paths can be good or bad, it depends on the individual and their learning environment. More often than not though the instructors are worse than the pilots who started doing charters in small aircraft, or the ones that started as F/O’s.

[@TheMotoRockers]

@@Chellz801 I agree completely. Like I said - I’m not sure that played a role here but Juan kind of made a big deal about it. I’m of the mind that training in the actual equipment you’ll be flying is going to be better than flying the garbage at a flight school just to build hours.

[@sncy5303]

I don't know... I was always taught in flight school that if you see birds in your way, you just continue with your approach and you don't try to evade or go around, since the birds will have it way easier to get out of your way than you out of theirs, and since it would mess up your stabilized approach if you tried to evade. Not sure how those Jeju air pilots are trained though...

[@phillee2814]

Did you have the vast and dense flocks of teal to content with that they had though? Context is everything.

[@davethewave7248]

Yes, going around to avoid birds just increases risk, does not reduce it. Birds are still in the area... and now the pilot is relying on powered up engines with reconfigured plane etc. Whichever way you slice and dice it, the pilots should have continued to land.

[@Relkond]

There's birds, and then there's birds. Is there ever a density of flock that pilots may want to avoid, as a matter of common sense?

[@phillee2814]

@@Relkond I don't think there are any formal studies, but as a matter of common sense, I'd say that if it's easier to see the birds than the ground beyond them, I doubt it flying through them would be good. If there are so many that they damage flaps and slats, you'll find yourself suddenly below stalling speed on one wing, too near to the ground to recover even if the engines still work.

[@EdOeuna]

For me the Boeing FCTM says to plough through the birds. Going full noise on two engines will do far more damage than flying through at low or idle thrust. The aircraft won’t stall following impact with multiple birds.

[@terryloubelle]

Juan, the aircraft seemed very much in control on short final before touchdown. This makes me believe that they had hydraulic power and were NOT in Manual Reversion. This would mean that at least one engine was operating but this contradicts the loss of AC power. In your professional opinion, were they flying in Manual Reversion?

[@thebiffer100]

Juan, were you ever told by your airline they recommended that when bird activity reported in the airport area to flip on both radars? I used to follow that procedure especially on departures, not exactly sure what is it supposed to do. Maybe some rf frequencies help scatter a flock?

[@prestwickpioneer3474]

I worked for a flying college and we trained many hundreds of cadets for major airlines from ab-initio into the right seat of airliners with no issues. Our courses were tailored for this and were 16 months long. If done right it works well.

[@krisvette5874]

Thanks Juan. Great video. It seems clear (to me) that even if the Localizer Embankment wasn't there the same disasterous endstate would have occured, when the aircraft hit the solid security wall surrounding the airfield. So the embankment location changes nothing in this tragedy perhaps? Do we need better run-off at airports....as factored into the landing outcome in 1989 at Souix Gateway Airport of United Airlines Flight 232 (corn fields)?

[@SteamCrane]

No. The concrete block berm tore that airplane apart, but the wreckage blew right through the cinder block wall. Would have resulted in a much lower death count.

[@Objectified]

The security wall would have given way to the plane relatively easily versus the mass of concrete under the earth of that berm.

[@wallyballou7417]

Why don’t the FDR and CVR have backup batteries in them?

[@theaviator06]

Boeing saved one billionth of a point on margin by not adding batteries.

[@MaVaLa-um2lu]

It was not a requirement in the past. It is now.

[@theharper1]

@@MaVaLa-um2lu I was surprised to read that it's only the CVR which has a battery. The logic is that with most systems down in a dual engine failure, there's nothing for the FDR to record?

[@conorjuarez5847]

@@theaviator06 Boeing doesn't design the CVR or FDR. As far as I know, the Blackbox has been manufactured by Honeywell for quite some time. The main reason battery backups are hesitant is because there are 3 types of batteries that could be used. Lead acid, Nickel Cadmium, or Lithium Ion. The first two are huge batteries. I've worked with the lead acid batteries from an MD-80, which are heavier than most car batteries. Lithium Ion batteries aren't trusted enough in aviation to be used in such an important component. I can imagine, at least for built-in batteries, how a catastrophic event could occur and damage the recorder.

[@LaggerSVK]

At the beginning I thought it will come mostly to piloting error like switching of the good engine but now I am more inclined that this was really a bad bird strike accident. Is there any possibility to get data recording as pointed out here in comments? ACARS or QAR?

[@christopherrobinson7541]

Not all airlines install ACARS,I suspect that the accident aircraft was not equipped. The QAR was probably installed on the flight deck and was most likely destroyed during the crash.

[@sonnyburnett8725]

Juan, I thought one of the best considerations you made on your first video was the back side of the clock departure time and length of the flight. Arriving in daylight after hours of night flight has a negative effect. There has never been such an accident of the 737 before leading many to believe it was a combination of pilot fatigue and error ending with a deadly obstacle. Tragic event.

[@k53847]

The 1500 hour rule is stupid. The pilots involved in the accident that resulted in that both had over 1500 hours. And EASA doesn't have this rule, most pilots are hired there at under 400 hours, and not many crashes in Europe.

[@skyboy1956]

But then there's that Indonesian airline . . . that buys brand new 737''s and puts them in the junkyard pretty quick.

[@FoxtrotSierra]

​@@skyboy1956 but if it works safely in other parts of the world, that says more about the quality of training. They don't necessarily need a lot more training, they need better training.

[@gregoryschmitz2131]

The key point in all of this is listed below. They flew 4 minutes, at least maintained altitude and did a 180 deg turn. Run the numbers and that is 10-15 miles flown. You don't do that without a fair amount of power be it from one engine or two. The baffling aspect not explained is how one or both engines kept producing power but the electrical output was gone from both.

[@randomgeocacher]

A generator can be out while the engine is (partly) working. The generator is a specific part close to the air intake / cowling. If it or its cabling is severely damaged, it will not generate power, regardless of what the engine is doing.

[@garyhalmbacher6875]

Ingesting a bird or birds could cause an engine transient. My understanding is that if gen is out of voltage or frequency spec, it will automatically trip offline. Even if gen comes into spec again, pilot must manually reconnect. Remember that with AC power, gens would have to be same frequency AND phase , so only one gen is used at a time unless grid tie inverters are available. To my knowledge, they are not on aircraft but available for grid synchronous solar inverters.

[@TheFlyingPlectrum]

@@garyhalmbacher6875 Although not common these days I did fly an aircraft where we coupled AC generators by synchronising them after engine start. We could trim the gen until it was in phase with the other then bring it on line. We did this with two pairs of gens . Not relevant in this case. However it's normal for generator control units as use on aircraft to monitor for over/under voltage and frequency as well as line to line and line to earth faults. If the engine is surging then it's quite possible for the gen to trip due to either frequency or voltage. This would require a generator reset to bring it back on line.

[@hb1338]

@@randomgeocacher Generators quite frequently trip out, even though the engine is delivering useful motive power - engines can recover from a compressor stall, but getting the generators restarted/reset can be extremely difficult.

[@maxmackinlay618]

In previous videos Juan advocates for a reduction of training hours and wanted American G.A pilots fast tracked into Airlines. He felt 1500 hours is excessive and many types of G.A flying to dangerous for inexperienced pilots. Much safer to have them accompanied by an experienced captain.

[@blancolirio]

I still do. I'm just telling you the facts here in this update, not my opinion.

[@blancolirio]

My opinion is to return to the 500 hour requirement to get on with the airlines.

[@combcomclrlsr]

The go around before strike theory seems odd -- until you see the wall of birds video. Imagine you see that wall. Naturally you try to go around to avoid it but it's too big and you hit it. I think that's what happened.

[@davidwebb4904]

4:20. I know English isn’t your first language. It is clear there was the bird strike, then the go around, and then called the mayday. Aviate, navigate, communicate.

[@theonlywoody2shoes]

Sadly we can increase the death toll to 180: Son Chang-wan, the president of Korea Airports Corporation from 2018 to 2022 - responsible for the berm updates at the end of the runways, appears to have taken his own life.

[@kryark]

Thanks for the updates. I appreciate your objective sharing without the too-frequent sensationalism accompanying many other media reports (social & mainstream). My daughter is interested in flying and is in the early stages of that journey. I share and discuss many such observations with her to instil a safety first and "outside the box" mentality, which I hope will keep her and anyone who flies with her safe. It sounds like this began as a well-controlled approach that abruptly degenerated when a massive flock of these ducks launched/appeared. The flock's appearance triggers a go-around, but that occurs too late to avoid the flock altogether. Loss of engines (and lift) demands an urgent turn for the runway, and without adequate time to manually release the landing gear, they belly land. It probably would have been a less catastrophic outcome had it not been for the localiser antenna structure. If they lost engines, would they have made the runway if they'd left the turn for it later? It would be interesting to learn if there were indications of massive bird casualties in the area below where the telemetry cut out. This would support the presence of a large flock having been intercepted by the aircraft. Thanks, subscribed.

[@jimsmith2763]

Love your videos Juan. You are so much more professional than some of the lowlifes who try to exploit tragedies by jumping to immediate conclusions. I'm sure you know the main culprit I'm talking about.

[@StratMatt777]

The only explanation for landing flaps up and gear up is: #1 Failure to start APU #2 Failure of F/O to pull the three cables to gravity drop the landing gear. I'm posting only because I am SUPER curious who the guy is who jumps to conclusions.

[@christopherrobinson7541]

@@StratMatt777 The undercarriage is operated by the A hydraulic system, which is usually pressurised by the No 1 engine hydraulic pump. If that fails then it can be pressurised by the No 1 electric motor hydraulic pump. This requires a 115V 3 phase 400Hz supply, which come for the AC Transfer Bus 1 and is backed with the Transfer Bus 2. These buses are energised by the IDGs (engine driven electric generator) on each engine and from the APU. In addition the undercarriage cannot be deployed by gravity. The Flaps & slats are operated by the B hydraulic system, which is usually pressurised by the No 2 engine hydraulic pump. It that fails then it can be pressurised by the No 2 electric motor hydraulic pump. This requires a 115V 3 phase 400Hz supply, which come for the AC Transfer Bus 2 and is backed with the Transfer Bus 1. These buses are energised by the IDGs (engine driven electric generator) on each engine and from the APU. There is no further backup for the flaps & slats. Without engine power and AC power the flats & slats and the undercarriage could not be deployed normally. There was not time to start the APU nor manually extend the undercarriage

[@charlesbreen4252]

Just a few questions. Were there any flights that safely made a landing just prior to the jeju flight? If I understand the procedure, the aircraft should be configured for landing prior to the outer marker. The video of the compressor stall could not have been taken from the runway because you detail the aircraft would have still been over water, so maybe it was while on downwind after the go-around. Last, did the FAA mandate those aircraft to be modified in the event all electrical A/C powered was lost that the recorders were to be powered off the battery for 10 minutes?

[@tomstravels520]

Only for aircraft built after 2010, this aircraft was built in 2009

[@Cam77891]

Looking at the video where you can see the flameout it was recorded with the camera near vertical. That makes perfect sense that they were going around already when a birdstrike hit.

[@tomstravels520]

That video doesn’t show a bird strike it shows a compressor stall. Plane may have already hit the birds before video started. Hence the reason why the aircraft was filmed in the first place

[@I_Evo]

But we've absolutely no idea where in the flight path that was captured and as the other poster says the video shows a compressor stall (yes likely as a result of a birdstrike) but not necessarily the actual moment of the birdstrike.

[@Jason-BMWM5]

Did they attempt a go around and hit the birds? That’s how it reads. Why not just land the aircraft when it’s already configured? That’s the 64 million dollar question.

[@tomstravels520]

It says they hit the birds during the go around. As in they initiated the go around and then hit birds

[@Jason-BMWM5]

@ Which begs the question, why do the go around when already configured for the landing? As Juan says even if they hit the birds just land the aircraft irrespective, why induce more potential problems.

[@drewski5730]

Clearly it seemed like a good idea at the time…

[@tomstravels520]

@ If you were driving your car and you had a car coming towards you on your side of the road would you choose to stay in your lane and hope they move back to their lane in time or would you swerve to avoid them?

[@rkan2]

Rumour has it that this is the way crews in Korea are trained...

[@awboat]

Baikal Teal are beautiful birds.

[@chrisbradley1192]

4:15 Very bad wording by the ARAIB by not making clear which came first; the go-around or the bird strike. I suspect it was the bird strike as the recorders had stopped by the time of the mayday declaration.

[@geofiggy]

JB, did you see the maiden test flight of the XB-1 from Boom Supersonic?

[@christiangavrila]

It took Captain Sully only 2 seconds from the mayday call to start the APU. Unfortunately the passengers were not lucky now and 3 minutes was not enough.

[@user-yt198]

To be fair, we don't know if 1) They didn't try to start the APU already 2) They have an operable APU. In theory, contrary to A320, 737 does not require APU and that is why it is not in MEL. On the other hand I agree that Miracle on the Hudson was a similar accident. His aircraft helped him a lot.

[@bartsolari5035]

Training and standards and not racking up time...

[@jamesreynolds4220]

@@user-yt198 Sully had 2800 feet of elevation and put the plane down in 3 1/2 minutes with zero thrust, they could not re-start the engines. The Korean pilot had the runway in sight. If the Korean PIC knew the gear was up and he could not get flaps down he should have known he could not stop on the runway. He should also know about berms, for there are several in Korea. Runway or water, which would you choose? Trying to avoid birds in a large jet when in landing trim (yes, I have 20/20 hindsight, and slept at a Holiday Inn) turned out to be a fool's errand - perhaps this incident (and Sully's) will find it's way into all PIC training. The Koreans are very bright people. If I were one of them I'd be demanding the airport be dug up and replaced with a golf course.