737 Pilot Reacts to the JeJu 737 Disaster

[@ThomasBarnes-g5h]

Im a Retired Pilot from a major airline with 37 yrs of service. I’ve flown everything from 737 to the 777 with over 30,000 hrs of experience. You are Spot on with your commentary. I think the same thing as you.

[@jamesbond9810]

as a 0 hour experience Pilot I solute you.

[@Lalaland2045-n3f]

Not really spot on. Engine 2(right) is obvious of damages, but if you look carefully in the video, Engine 1(left) also has smoke coming out as if it was hit with birds as well. Argument at this point would be although speculating, whether both engines were damaged with no function by birds or whether the pilot shut off a better engine by accident. Either way would have caused the pilot to make the same decision of landing as soon as possible. And that wall…I don’t think we need to even mention what role it played in this entire catastrophe.

[@jacksun6897]

So, does the 737 have design flaws? My pilot neighbor told me that he would never fly on a Boeing 737 when traveling abroad.

[@Lalaland2045-n3f]

@ I think this incident started an investigation into Boeing 737 models. Not saying there was a problem with that specific Jeju plane, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re hiding something.

[@ThomasBarnes-g5h]

@ thx jack sun for inquiring Not going to comment directly for liability issues But there have been concerns throughout the yrs

[@ShaneJao]

I like how the video started directly into the content ! Great video !!

[@Digitalgems9000]

@user-otzlixr same lol

[@hemelinger7792]

Yes. And the only one explaining no times vs. time situation in literally 'no time' 😀

[@victortorres6308]

I concur ..

[@Matt-jv3mk]

I'm a 737 pilot. Another factor to consider in this investigation, in addition to everything Max A talked about, is the pilots' circadian rhythm patterns. They took off from Bangkok at 1911Z, or just after 2 AM local Bangkok time (ICT), or 4 AM local Korean time (KST, the pilots' "body clock" time). Assuming the Korean pilots' report times are similar to our own here in the US, they had to be at the gate about 30 mins prior to departure. Most pilots will set their alarms about two hours prior to report time in order to shower, dress, eat, and account for transportation time to the airport and getting through security. That means the Jeju pilots woke up (at the latest) at about 11:30 pm local Bangkok time, or 1:30 am local Korean time. Speaking from experience, that's brutal. It's almost impossible to get adequate rest when you're waking up a little bit after most humans go to bed. In our training on fatigue, we're taught that operating on reduced sleep is equivalent to a blood alcohol level that would make us legally intoxicated - yet airlines regularly schedule trips like these. At the time of the incident, these pilots had effectively been up all night. Even if they had gotten eight hours of sleep (unlikely), sleeping opposite a normal human body clock does not provide the same rest as sleeping through the night. It is likely that the Jeju pilots were hit with a complex emergency situation when they were operating in a state of significant physiological and cognitive deficit. Obviously, adrenalin did not compensate for it. Think about it, how alert would you be if you had likely slept pretty badly, then gotten up in the middle of the night, then sat in a chair with nothing much to do but try to stay awake for about five hours after departure, then were faced with a do or die, no-mistakes-allowed situation strapped to a chair in a cumbersome flight deck with a clamp (headset) on your head? This also may have been the second or third or fourth day of extreme early report times for this crew resulting in a compounding of fatigue. In light of the above, it makes a lot of sense that the pilots may have shut down the wrong engine. It happens. For example, in 2021, a 737 out of Honolulu shut down the wrong engine and had to ditch just offshore after experiencing engine problems immediately after takeoff. Luckily, both pilots survived (it was only carrying cargo) though the captain was seriously injured. Interestingly, that flight was also operating opposite normal human circadian patterns - it departed HNL at approximately 1 am.

[@HeartOverMind]

Underrated comment.. interessting and worth knowing explanation

[@ericantone8709]

Your comment makes a ton of sense.

[@gandydancer9710]

Obviously if you are going to run redeye flights you need to use pilots whose circadian rhythms are compatible with redeye flights. You don't want to start a job a 2am if you've been working 9 to 5, but if you've been working starting at 2am for a period of time and getting ~8 hr sleep before getting up in the late afternoon or evening you can be well rested at 2am. So I don't think scheduling 2am flights is itself verboten. In this case, however, I believe it was a new route. And airlines may anyway operate to the regs which may not take these factors properly into consideration. The berm that may have resulted in extra deaths (as opposed to causing the crash, which looks to me like probably pilot error, specifically a too-short return path) seems to be an example of building to the regs. It was 280 meters away from the end of the runway, which is legal most everywhere (not in the US, barely, which requires 300m, I understand) and it's not clear to me that a non-frangible structure above grade is specifically forbidden (again, outside the US which does forbid it at that distance), but being legal is not the same as sensible.

[@alfie5206]

Thanks for this information!! It makes perfect sense what you said. This could have been avoided if the pilots had a decent time to sleep without disturbance.

[@joetruth7823]

That’s two paragraphs of excuses. I drove a tractor trailer for a freight expedition company for six years. I was usually on call and worked at all hours in all weather with a hundred different load variables. If I had three shifts in a row, it was helpful because I’d become acclimatized to that. One winter the road workers in Ontario Canada were on strike and I had a load going through Detroit up to Toronto. It was ten hours of sliding around on a huge sheet of ice with a 53’ trailer trying not to jack knife it into multiple cars. Stressful- yes- but I had many years of experience and training which I relied on to get through it. The information I’ve read on bird strikes affecting Boeing 737-800s on final approach is to continue the landing. They could have- and should have- relied on their training and experience to do that, 6,800 flight hours for this specific pilot!- no excuses. This isn’t missing a dentists appointment or your wife’s birthday. There is no explaining away these two pilots choosing to go around too fast, land long with no gear down or flaps extended in the direction of a concrete barrier they both knew was there besides panic.

[@honeycake9111]

Love your video. I’ve seen a former pilot live streaming for 1.5hours talking about this incident and multiple other videos. You are straight to the point and make everything easier to understand

[@trainman1209]

No way, Jose. This fast talking liar is not thinking about what he is saying. Listen to the last part about the jet landing. How everything was working great. Spoilers out, blah, blah. Blah. He wants to be on TV. That's All, Folks!

[@genkishan]

@@honeycake9111 It’s great to have the pilot community respond

[@MyrnaYabut-d9t]

I think that barrier was a shit

[@emmeriankiwi6993]

My first reaction watching this was thinking this plane was just going to skid off the runway, few minor injuries. But watching it slam into a concrete wall, ending 179 lives instantly just sent shivers down my spine. There are so many questions to be answered.

[@DanOBrien-q1g]

actually it was the berm it slammed into but the wall was waiting too

[@thippharatwu9317]

Well but according to the map of the airport, there's a road and some building right behind the concrete wall and the fence of the airport, so I guess if the concrete wall was not there, more ppl would have died from this 😢 Landing with high speed in a short runway will just kill most of the ppl on the plane anyways even if there's no concrete wall

[@AlexG-p9y]

human stupidity! i am laughing thinking the discussion when the meeting for building the wall, one said we need a wall to keep DRAGONS inside., with SPIKE towards inside so whatever dragon escapes will be impaled...and another one more NORMAL guy: no thsi is crazy with spikes..a simple wall concrete wall will suffice! no dragon will escape no human either

[@ravimaythil3691]

Spot on commentary! Irrespective of any pilot errors (or not) / aircraft issues (or not), there needs to be a basic revamp of airport / runway safety standards: 1. No hard obstacles at the end of runway both ends 2. EMAS is a must at the end of runways both ends 3. Additional crash barriers (eg. Big Ass safety nets as you see on some aircraft carriers) at the start of the EMAS zone for smaller runways

[@kerlonslow-yk6sp]

l agree

[@mkhor7]

Apparently the airport had a recent report may2024 which said that concrete slab is too near to the runway

[@sebastienpetrein5541]

South Korea is still at war with the North. It means the concrete wall that surround the airport also have guards towers because this airport is designed to be used as an air force base in case of conflict, which means soldiers on guard duty in the towers along the concret wall. So please, people stop blaming the wall when the pilots have basically "eat" more than half the runway, haven't release the landing gear (it took only seconds to do, the "there is no time" is not a good excuse) and have probably make even more errors in their panic. The military wall or the embankment for the ILS (because of floods risks) aren't good enough scapegoats for me. Btw, the "brittle concret" do not work above 60 knots (the plane was clearly going above 100) and its efficiency is reduced without landing gears.

[@doryfishie2]

@@sebastienpetrein5541 Technically at war but not a hot one. Very unlikely to see a confrontation unless they get sucked into WW3 or some regional war. People used to be a little scared with sabre rattling up north, but in recent years the North is seen as a joke. China vs Taiwan is far more likely to erupt into an active conflict than N vs S Korea. Also Muan is right down on the southwest end of S Korea. The North is not really a concern in the airport's construction. Japan is more likely to be a threat if they make moves for Dokdo. "No time" to release the landing gear refers to manual release. It would take more than a few seconds. The release is situated behind the pilot seat, so it's not as easy as you assume. That is assuming they are unable to drop the landing gear the normal way. It's also possible they simply forgot as the situation was hectic. The wall would only not be a factor if there are further obstructions behind the wall, and that the plane would crash on something else anyway without the wall. Otherwise it's ridiculous that they built a wall at the end of the runway.

[@victorgrasscourt3382]

Without flaps and slats the landing speed was around 40 knots higher. No spoilers after touchdown. No attempt to use the rudder to change direction. Problem is coming in hot like that, the friction to slow the aircraft down was just the surface area under the engines and the tail. Like landing on three skids.

[@marcmelander1815]

What's your point re rudder ?!!

[@aluisious]

@@marcmelander1815 If you're headed for a solid object, try to steer somewhere else. Are you going to be in a dash cam video one day?

[@michaelshrader5139]

You do realize if you put rudder in it will yaw the plane putting a wingtip into the oncoming airstream lifting that wing up and flipping the plane in a backwards roll... right? Rudder function in an airplane is not like steering in a car, it doesn't have the effect of altering the machine's vector much at all. And yeah, they had little to no drag from the plane's contact points that plane was going to need a lot of space before it would slow down... probably was a really bad idea to build that earthen berm with concrete to support those antenna so close to the edge of the runway, it was a plane-killer in the making. But you know, hindsight is always 20-20. 😞

[@Onezmhu]

​​@@michaelshrader5139 iirc the ILS was elevated to still be operationnal in the event of flooding, but all antena have to be brakable by a plane hitting them, and somehow this was legal.

[@CreativeRC]

The plane was skidding very fast, 150 mph plus, close to takeoff speed. It had a lot of energy considering its total weight. The use of rudder (and hard aileron to keep the leading wing down) might have changed the angle of the plane, reduced some lift in the wing and introduced the side of the plane and rudder to the direction of travel to provide some air braking. Since there is no sideward resistance (like tires provide) to steer the plane away from the berm, the plane with it's high energy would likely have continued skidding in a straight line the only differences being angled in orientation and maybe a little slower.

[@FMJ777]

Concrete wall at end of runway was criminal

[@andy70d35]

No it was NOT, it was like that for a reason, this looks like pilot error, why no manual deployment of the gear.

[@goodcomrade4231]

Concrete structure at the end of runway is bad, but not as criminally negligent as pilots trying to land within 3 minutes after a go-around. They did not deploy landing gear or flaps, ended up landing too fast and too long, even without the concrete structure they would have run into the perimeter wall and likely people's houses.

[@josephshakal9017]

@FMJ777 even with no gear, why not use rudder and avoid barrier?

[@HashEclipse]

People are saying the wall was at the end of the run way yet didn't they come in from the opposite side? so on a normal landing that wall structure would be at the front of the runway right?

[@genkishan]

Criminal is a heavy word provided the airport design completely complied with their guidlines, maybe was more criminal to commit to land while still not been configured etc the final report will tell

[@eurooceania5562]

Im an in-service pilot working for Air Zimbabwe with 18 years of experience. I have flown the 777, 747 and the 737. The very first day I saw this video I thought as much as everything you've said. You are on point.

[@KoguryoKid]

Thank you for this very fine commentary and analysis. It may be the best one I've seen so far....and I've watched a bunch!

[@willnelson5692]

There is a wall at the airport boundary, but the jet didn't make it that far. What they hit was the localizer antenna array. There is a pretty good view of the localizer antenna from street view from the southwest. The antennas don't sit on a wall, but arguably something much worse. There is a very thick slab (reference news photos) maybe 2 feet thick and 10 feet wide on top of the approximately 12 foot high earthen berm. When the jet plowed through the berm it left the slab high up with the jet impacting the slab edge on. An immensely strong obstacle at a very bad height.

[@karlpriggee1033]

Engine sieze? From a bird strike? Turn off an engine? Concrete wall? They never hit the wall.

[@kerlonslow-yk6sp]

l agree

[@deed162]

Great job. I hope your message is heard around the World. Thanks

[@Grandpa_Boxer]

Thanks for super sharp and enlightening coverage of this sad crash.

[@beachem1]

Outstanding analysis. Love the professionalism you show. Thanks for the review 🫡✈️

[@robocobrabot]

Excellent analysis. Thank you for taking the time to put this together.

[@Wytnucls]

It seems to me that the aircraft in the video is already going around over the bay, with the gear up, when the number 2 engine gets flow disruption. The go around was initiated because of a previous bird strike, presumably in the engine number 1, during the approach on runway 01, leading to very reduced thrust to land on runway 19. Former captain A-340/330 and B-737 here.

[@zaratrusta79]

SPOT ON! People have been suggesting "maybe they shut off the wrong engine by mistake" but a very likely scenario (which I would bet on) is exactly what you described. As a former 737 pilot, do you think it would be conceivable to still drop the gear on the very last moment? Even without HYD, would the co-pilot be able to do it manually?

[@olivertwisted]

@@zaratrusta79 Not a pilot, but I think there's a good chance that by the time they were 100% certain they had the altitude to make the runway, they were almost on top of it and would worry that they could make contact with the ground while the landing gear was in mid-deployment. That would seem to be a far more unpredictable scenario (and not one trained for) versus a belly landing.

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Its completely surrounded by bird zones. Look at the chart. The worst place for an airport. Then they just recently upgraded it to international flights. Without much improvement. Greed and corruption. Disgraceful. They either need to relocate or fill in all those lakes of large migratory birds.

[@davethewave7248]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXnKgKmFYqiUsNE 5 minutes in is footage of the landing gear down on intial approach. If you were the pilot, had everything configured for landing, speed down, gear down and flaps depolyed... nearing the runway, very low altitude... would you have 'gone around' on a bird strike. Surely, the best procedure, with engines powering down, is to continue to land?? Was their 'go around' a knee-jerk reaction.? Here is the footage showing landing gear down on the initial approach to landing when the brd strike happened

[@olivertwisted]

@@davethewave7248 My guess... something in particular spooked them about landing that we don't know. Operating under the assumption they had one good engine, they wanted to take time to assess, go down the check lists and reconfigure rather than reconfiguring 'on the fly.' It was on the go-around attempt that they realized both engines were malfunctioning (or shut down wrong engine?) and don't have enough thrust. Now they go gear up to ensure they can make the runway. I don't think we have enough data yet to determine if this was a cascade of human errors in response to a relatively routine bird strike of if this was a heroic effort of airmanship cut short by an over-fortified ILS array.

[@Hee-o1p]

Thankyou you touched on the real issue when you said we are coming to a time that more pilots with less experience operating commercial airplanes.

[@nielst.3891]

Excellent disclaimer where you mention your opinion and let's wait for official outcome of pending investigations

[@OziBlokeTimG]

Nah.

[@honeybadger9425]

Definitely they usually a lot more complex than they appear

[@FP194]

It’s called avoiding a law suit

[@mikenn1734]

Your explanation is brilliant and I learned a lot from you. Very interesting. Very articulated. Excellent job. Thank you

[@tonys9579]

This is easily the best video breaking down this incident. Thank you 🙏

[@Eric-jo8uh]

Those poor pilots knowing exactly what was about to happen. Also think of the loved ones watching this happen. I shudder. May they RIP.🙏🙏

[@Feral6-h3g]

If I was the pilot with absolutely no control, I would have started running towards the back, but I guess in this case I wouldn't have run fast enough.

[@kevintrabert1922]

I don’t think the pilots had any idea what was going on. Although I’m no expert it is my position that one pilot was flying the turn around. Probably the co pilot because it wouldn’t make sense for the left seat pilot to make a right hand turn. The pilot was trying to restart the engine. Maybe to save face? Time got away from them and they didn’t succeed in either of their goals. The report will give us all the answers hopefully. I’m in the camp that both pilots were doing their own thing until the very end. They had two bites at the Apple.

[@ancientplayer3409]

@@Feral6-h3gthat would look so bad lmao

[@Rogue_Six]

@@kevintrabert1922 Even if the FO was originally the PF on this leg then it is standard procedure in an emergency that the control of the aircraft switches over to the CPT immediately. If they followed procedures correctly then the pilot took control of the aircraft right after the bird strike. All things considered, I believe they did the best they could. They managed to land on the runway and they managed to keep the wings level so the aircraft did not spin out of control or flip over (though, ironically, maybe a slight spin could have actually saved more lives, even if the aircraft would have broken apart). They just ran out of runway and hit that wall. It will definitely be interesting to find out from the report what happened exactly but my first impression is that the pilot did a good job under the given circumstances. A belly landing with level wings is not easy to accomplish in the first place.

[@kevintrabert1922]

@ I’m sure the captain would have at least put out some flaps. They had the speed and altitude to pull off the turn around. The captain would surely realize the gear wasn’t out. None of it makes sense. When the report comes out we will have our answers. No matter what the cause I’m sure it will bring little comfort to the families and friends of everyone lost.

[@sauls1168]

In the original video when looking at the plane from below when the plane is over head if you slow that video down you can see two occasions where the left engine puffs small white puffs as well as the right. It points to both engines were hit with the left engine damage and not working and the right engine damage and bearly working.

[@TheUrantia001]

how do you know that video wasn't taken 10 years ago?

[@TheUrantia001]

where is the metadata for all video footage will be the first question of the investigators..did this even happen as they say..

[@TheUrantia001]

remember convieniently there is no ATSB data for the actuall incident...convienient huh?..

[@John2801Walsh]

Excellent analysis. That reinforced-concrete wall at the end of the runway was criminal.

[@kevinblackburn3198]

There are concrete walls at many runways around the world. The pilots actions were criminal.

[@josephsharp9939]

Maybe let’s wait for an official report before impugning the dead.

[@Frankchiew59]

Ground crew told pilots to land aircraft in the opposite direction when they knew of the brickwall. Its criminal n negligence of ground crews!

[@alexlo7708]

@@kevinblackburn3198 No, they are just a thin cement on brick wall, not a concrete bunker like this.

[@meynardocustodio2477]

I have been involved in several airfield and runway designs but my experience is in lighting, approach, thresholds navigational lights, runways, taxiways, many are military and few commercial. Most of military designs are based on Military Manuals, UFCs, AFM, with counter checks withh FAA Regulations. Most military runways have longer grassed overruns, and if the end of the runway is closed to the fence, the fence are chain-link not concrete blocks. I believe chain link fence offer some sort of soft barrier unlike concrete blocks that gives hard impact. It is not on the manual but it is a good observation. @@kevinblackburn3198

[@michigandogman3060]

My 19yo daughter just flew back to NY a couple days ago, it was rough for her. Delayed flight put her behind, 8 hour lay over and on her final flight they did a go around. On the go around she started feeling sick and yep, she couldn’t find her sick bag and threw up on herself. Saving grace she had a pilot next to her who gave her his sick bag and then talked her through the last 30 minutes of the flight. Turns out the pilot was a former US Air Force trainer and he let her know it was no big deal as just about everyone he trained threw up in the beginning. He got her extra jacket from the overhead for her and got the stewardess to get her some napkins. Apparently it was a rough landing because of cross winds and he said he was glad he wasn’t piloting the plane that day ❤❤ much love to that man for stepping in and being dad for a while.

[@chuck9693]

I thought the comment was related to Jeju for a second

[@NetWit20]

This is the best analysis on this subject in my opinion because he describes what must have been going on in that 737 cockpit. I already knew about the landing gear and flaps question and the concrete wall, but now can see the complexity and unforgiveness of the 737 in an emergency.

[@rinzler9775]

When you consider that they probably could have just gone straight in and not done a go around, it's tragic. The tear drop go around had them with a tail wind and pointing at the wall.

[@ypw510]

Yeah - that's the weird thing. The pilot could have just landed. That being said, there have been tons of excuses about the airport design. Claims that they needed to reinforce the array supports for military purposes. Or that it had to be raised (without understanding that it's easy enough to make it taller without a mound or concrete). The stupidest was that the second attempted landing was in "the wrong direction" as if runways are only meant to be used in one direction (and your comment about the wind duly noted).

[@michaelshrader5139]

Hindsight is always 20-20. I imagine they were following their training of exactly what to do immediately following a bird strike... stop what you are doing, gain some altitude and circle around while getting out the correct procedures checklist to follow step by step. And there was no prevailing wind of any kind that morning, it's been reported there was no more than a 2-3 kph light breeze blowing so it was not significant.

[@michaelshrader5139]

@@ypw510 Well they could have just gone to a whole different airport, or they could have called in sick that night and not flown the plane at all letting another crew take it on! I mean, there's so many other things they could have done we could spend all day going thru the possibilities and get nowhere at all with it. Just saying. In hindsight only, yeah it is likely that their best bet would have been to have completed their initial landing from what we know right now... but they didn't know that, and if they had and it didn't go well and people still perished then we'd be here saying that well they should have aborted and sorted the plane out with the appropriate checklist before attempting to land the plane again! See my point? 😕

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

They had never trained for a no flaps/no gear landing, of course they were going to land long. Also they have never done gliding like Sully, so they got caught by ground effect and went very long. So it was always going through the perimeter fence onto the long flat mud road behind. However, the reinforced concrete berm 200m off the pavement meant survivors reduced from about 99% to 1%.

[@danburch9989]

One report said the winds were calm. Since they were coming from Thailand, a straight in from the south would have been the most efficient barring conflicing air traffic.

[@narvuntien]

I think with air disaters multiple things have to go wrong for a crash like this to happen. Red-eye flight, possbily thinking they had one working engine only to discover they aren't climbing on the go around, into having to make a quick descision instead of a calm checklist. There is the possiblity of smoke in the cockpit that is going to make you want to land really fast. And then the bloody concrete and earthern mound at the airport that turned a bad situation into a catastrophic disaster.

[@icare7151]

“Guaranteed death” fatal runway overrun excursion design.

[@hananokuni2580]

It's possible that the airport designers anticipated takeoffs and landings going in only one direction. Muan Airport is close to a large wildlife reserve that is home to thousands of migratory birds.

[@PerteTotale]

yes indeed, but this airport was a provincial airport until very recently. it should not been upgraded when this concrete berm with localizer was still there

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Its not up to international airport standards. They knew it, and hid the wall from the pilots charts.

[@hananokuni2580]

@@PerteTotale If it was a provincial airport, should Boeing 737s have been even allowed to operate from there? Methinks it's more of an airport for regional jets and turboprops if the airport has a 4000 meter runway. Heavier jets would have to operate with weight restrictions.

[@mmmqua]

@@user-pf5xq3lq8i Incorrect, it actually is in full compliance and within required regulation standards. We all wish it hadn't been there, but unfortunately, it was, and it was allowed by the set regulations.

[@H.A.R.D.B.O.I.L.E.D]

All the international Airport I've been to always had around half a kilometers clearance of runway end safety area (RESA) and the walls are pretty much just woven metal mesh that wouldn't even break your car if you ran it over... Muan International airport only had 200m clearance (140m to that mound) and its made of concrete, imagine that

[@sebastienpetrein5541]

South Korea is still at war with the North. It means the concrete wall that surround the airport also have guards towers because this airport is designed to be used as an air force base in case of conflict, which means soldiers on guard duty in the towers along the concret wall. So please, people stop blaming the wall when the pilots have basically "eat" more than half the runway, haven't release the landing gear (it took only seconds to do, the "there is no time" is not a good excuse) and have probably make even more errors in their panic. The military wall or the embankment for the ILS (because of floods risks) aren't good enough scapegoats for me. Btw, the "brittle concret" do not work above 60 knots (the plane was clearly going above 100) and its efficiency is reduced without landing gears.

[@H.A.R.D.B.O.I.L.E.D]

@@sebastienpetrein5541 *You're already blaming pilot error as if you already had the data from the Blackbox* Who are you? -Standard EMAS installation will stop most aircraft overrunning the runway at 70 knots, even more with fuselage and the 2 engine because: more surface area=more friction -Its not necessary to raise Localizer Array using huge mound of dirt with reinforced concrete on top as the manual literally say "should be frangible and mounted as low as possible."

[@brianharris706]

Your show is awesome man. This was a hard one. Good job with it.

[@duanesworld123]

I can't understand why they didn't continue with their initial approach. From the mayday and decision to go around, and time the plane belly landed was just over 3 minutes. No time to go through emergency checklists. There was panic in the cockpit IMO. Probably some inexperience as well. Very strange decision to go around. They were doomed landing in clean configuration almost half way down the runway. I'd imagine 50-70 kn over 150 kn landing speed. The localizers on that concrete structure is horrible. Should be break away ground level. So many errors.

[@Lalaland2045-n3f]

Here is the spec of that so called “wall”. Under that embankment which looks like it’s made only with soil are 19 concrete pillars in H x W x L measurements of 1.9m x 0.3m x 2.3m. And the concrete cap everyone is seeing is built on top of the 19 pillars with H x W x L measurement of 0.3m x 42m x 4.2m.

[@gerardmoran9560]

Great analysis! The 73 was my first captain assignment. Too many unanswered questions at this point: The spectator video seems to show some flap extension, did they retract them for energy management? I too considered the possibility of a shutdown of #1, was it deliberate? Was the APU running and if not, did they start it? In the end, the lack of EMAS and the presence of a reinforced concrete structure sealed their fate. Very sad event.

[@rsmith02]

Were they trying to stay in the air?

[@Kwntum]

Love your analysis and your unassuming approach to explaining aviation topics. Your clear explanations help make complex concepts accessible to everyone. Keep up the great content!

[@TCOLE-tc7vs]

Thank you for this - excellent job of breaking down the complexity of flying, configuration for landing and the pilot scenarios during trouble shooting.

[@JH-en6ql]

This is the best analysis I found. He's the only one that I've listened to that pointed out that the spectator video is not of a bird strike but rather of an engine restart failure. If that is the case, perhaps the bird strike was on the left engine, and the right was accidentally shut down, and then they attempted to restart it.

[@ivanjulian2532]

Perhaps. But you don't know for sure, do you?

[@erickborling1302]

But the analysis starts out incorrectly: claiming the plane hit the perimeter wall but it actually hit the localizer which was improperly stationed on an earthen berm topped by a concrete foundation. Blancolirio consistently does the best mishap briefs.

[@JH-en6ql]

@@erickborling1302 Ah, I see -- not a concrete wall, but rather an earthen berm with some concrete on top. Interesting, so many others are also reporting a concrete wall.

[@JH-en6ql]

So, news coming out is that one of the engines had had a problem of shutting down on its own. That was reported by someone who was previously on the aircraft. If such aircraft had that problem, why did they allow it to continue flying? And, is that why there is all the turmoil with the raids and preventing the CEO of the airline from leaving? Did the bird strike disable the good engine, leaving only the engine that had shutdown problems?

[@JH-en6ql]

@@ivanjulian2532 The current information we have: (1) One of the engines had shutdown problems; (2) One engine was disabled by a bird strike and exploded; (3) landing gear wasn't deployed; (4) authorities raided the airline offices and prevented the airline CEO from leaving the country. We don't know if the bird strike disabled the good engine or the engine with shutdown problems. But, I think it's clear what one possibility is: Bird strike disabled only good engine (left engine). Other engine (right engine) shutdown on its own. Pilot tried to restart engine, which is what we see in the video. Due to stress of both engines not functioning, pilots attempt quick tear drop landing. Pilots finally start bad engine, but due to ongoing stress, perhaps with trying to start engine, they fail to deploy landing gear. Airline offices raided due to their insistence in keeping jet with bad engine in operation. On top of all this, there is the shitty design of the airport runway with an obstruction that can itself destroy an aircraft, and the failure to include landing protocols that prevent landing in the direction of such obstruction. Seems like a multitude of failures coming together to provide a massive cluster fuck of a tragedy.

[@marcushillerstrom25]

The accident report and then Mentour Pilots video about this accident is going to be interesting. I can’t for the life of me understand why they aborted the first landing, made a super short go around and then tried to land without landing gear and flaps. Very tragic, RIP to all who perished

[@WANDERER0070]

Forgot to lower gear maybe ?

[@kikiryki]

Because they ran out of both engines, no power and no hydraulics

[@marcushillerstrom25]

@@kikiryki I hope we will know when the final report comes out. Landing gear is possible to lower with just gravity, but they maybe ran out of time.

[@kikiryki]

@@marcushillerstrom25 Several pilots said they didn't have time to pull those cables

[@Jamesbrown-xi5ih]

​@@kikiryki They very clearly still have at least some power. They were able to perform a hairpin turn, come back around and float over four thousand feet down the runway with thermal plume visible from number two engine. Also due to control inputs made by the aircraft prior to touchdown, and the fact that they made a stable belly landing tell me they still definitely had at least some hydraulic pressure.

[@Dstew57A]

Was waiting for this thanks Neo….such a tragedy….immediately when I saw this I though the landing was pretty “good” for a 737 with no wheels down and I thought OK they have a chance…

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

Well said, it would have been poor without the concrete barrier but way more survivable

[@cloedyy]

LOT flight 16 had the nearly same issue no landing gear but kept calm and came in a lower speed and also the ancle of the plane was a bit diffrent and weren't stressing it even they felt that pressure but kept still their nerves in check. Seems the pilots did panicking and lacking maybe going through the checklist during such situation. 😢

[@ypw510]

Was way too far down the runway though, but perhaps there was no other choice (another go around) if both engines were out or damaged. The stupidest things I've heard was that the landing was in the wrong direction, as if runways are only meant for a single direction. That, and claims that 9200 feet wasn't long enough for a belly landing and they should have diverted to an airport with a longer runway. Obviously if there's barely any power, they can't divert. And 9200 feet is plenty long if all the runway is used.

[@dropitdre]

A very good video. Well made and clear. Rest in peace to all of those who unfortunately lost their lives in such damming, tragic, circumstances. Bless those pilots, they did all they could do in the training they had.

[@lyolevrich]

that stupid concrete wall.....incredible!!!!!🤦‍♂🤦‍♂🤦‍♂ Totally agree

[@57Jimmy]

I think that thrust reverser may have just dislodged with ground contact. Just a thought…😢

[@RichGriffith-p1f]

I agree, I don't think it was providing much stopping power, if any

[@Neckromorph]

I'm no pilot, airport designer, or know much about aviation in general. But a concrete wall at the end of a runway is completely insane to me. I would think it'd be a requirement for there to be some kind of emergency stop area at the end of runways, especially at commercial airports. Zero foresight in that design, which led to the deaths of so many people.

[@dennismadigan2023]

There are run away truck lanes all over the interstate. There are special slow down and catch protectors at the end of drag strips and all pro cars must use parachutes. I think it would be a good idea to have a designated runway specifically designed to handle most if not all emergency landings. My prayers to all 🙏🙏

[@kenmolinaro]

The forgot to put up a "Don't fly into the wall", sign.

[@MandrakeDCR]

All they needed was a Deer Crossing sign, and everything would have been fine.

[@IainPSmith]

The concrete wall is made from cinder air bricks and would not offer much resistance to an aircraft. What did the damage was the ILS antenna system mounted on a 20 inch reinforced concrete block, high up on an embankment. Most of the aircraft never made it as far as the concrete wall around the airport.

[@kerlonslow-yk6sp]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 l agree

[@Richard.Cabeza]

Looking at the airport, there is another perimeter block wall very close to the wall they hit. There should be slow down sand barriers at each end of runways. Most highways have them to stop runaway trucks.

[@Fastvoice]

What you call for is EMAS, not a sand barrier.

[@Bigjohn7]

You said the one engine did have the thrust reverses on, so wouldn’t that rotate the airplane direction?

[@stylus2253]

Thank you for not showing the crash. First rate. (It's so heart breaking.)

[@trainman1209]

I think most of us would rather see the reality. Instead of not remembering anything.

[@patrickculleton9939]

​@@trainman1209no thank you. We know how it ended. There is no need to see it from our armchairs.

[@SymeonPhronema]

Thank you for sharing your experienced thoughts, Max. Great video!

[@BustaHymen]

+1

[@ron4255]

My first incident as crash fire rescue in the Marines was a bird strike on a tav8. Shattered the windshield. Pilot landed fine. It was my first day. Back in 2003

[@danielch6662]

Well, if the snarge hit the pilot in the face, could be fatal.

[@bakkerem1967]

What baffled me from the beginning is that a plane with asymmetrical thrust(reverse) engaged was NOT yawing on the runway. On touchdown, there was not thrust from either one of the engines.

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

Interesting thanks for watching!

[@pigmoonk2545]

Still having thrust likely. The point to drill down is the decision tree of the pilots.

[@gazza2933]

Psrdon? 🇬🇧

[@benjaminpohl3104]

At that speed asymetrical reverse would be easy to counter with the rudder.

[@djurispijker3519]

As shallow as their glide path was there was definitely engine thrust. Also, with high speeds like theirs rudder effectiveness would be sufficient. With the amount of speed/energy that they left the pavement with, impacting a "regular" localiser structure would have resulted in deaths too. Perhaps not as manny but for sure a significant amount.

[@ahmedbilalkhan434]

Have a look at Seattle Tacoma runway 16 R end where there is a localizer antenna and a large ditch at about 300m from the paved runway end. The regulations do not require an obstacle free area beyond 300m from the end. Also check Los Angeles Runway 06L where there is ditch just 120m from the paved end

[@charlestoast4051]

It doesn't add up. If they had the energy to do a go around, they had the energy to land from that initial approach to runway 01.

[@kevinkerlin5603]

True

[@andrebello4191]

They might have had the energy, but how much control did they have of their plane and hydraulic systems

[@user-yt198]

If you think that they were already going around when bird strike happened, it adds up. They were warned about birds during approach.

[@tommloye4626]

Standard procedure on a bird strike while landing is to continue the planned landing.

[@MartinOReilly-mb4um]

What was the experience of these pilots? If they had kept calm and continued a controlled landing they probably would have made it.

[@geonerd]

I don't think the manual gear extension mechanism is all that bad. It looks like a ~20 second task. I assume the right-hand pilot can reach the box and handles with the left hand while seated?

[@VaSYA-pb3xh]

Yes, it would definitely save them. They could even brake manually. But they did not manually release the landing gear. And they killed almost everyone.

[@4325air]

There is a Holly wood film that is so parallel to this Jeju 737 mishap. "Fate Is the Hunter" was made back in 1964, starring Rod Taylor, Glenn Ford, and Susanne Pleshette. After the failure of BOTH engines of his passenger jet during a night take-off, pilot Jack Savage (Rod Taylor) successfully belly lands the plane along what initially appears to be an open stretch of dark beach. However, the jet is still sliding along the sand when a pier suddenly appears out of the darkness, and the jet uncontrollably skids into the pier, exploding and killing all but one aboard, stewardess Martha Webster (Susanne Pleshette)...Early in the investigation, it is discovered that one engine failed after ingesting a seagull, while the other engine is mysteriously mechanically sound (after detailed inspection), yet it had stopped operating immediately after the bird strike in the first engine. Glenn Ford, as chief pilot of the airline conducts an investigation into what many think was pilot error by Rod Taylor. The initial opinion being that Taylor shut down the wrong engine. I recall watching the film when it first came out, and it is a real thinking-person flick, devoid of senseless violence and that sort of thing. Great plot twist at the end. Still watch it from DVD every couple of years.

[@rofo2107]

The problem with that particular Jeju 737 800 started on route to china and it was engine failure as far as i know. Supply chain is causing shortage of spare parts for many turbofan engines on the market nowadays. I doubt Jeju technicians repaired the engine in 2 days properly, it is impossible as it is not a normal standard repair, so we have good probability this flight which ended in the wall with 178 fatalities flew with one failing engine in questionable technical shape and the other engine was possibly destroyed in the birdstrike. It is consistent with video footage, with one engine backfiring and pumping because of compressor stall (right engine) and the other engine completely out (left engine). In such situation Boeing has not any backup for many hydraulic systems including flaps and spoilers, hence the high landing speed without flaps. As there was only one damaged engine available and it was destroyed completely after the touchdown, there was not thrust reverse so the doomed aircraft overshot the runway and ended in the concrete wall. It doesn't sound as a pilot mistake at all. It sounds as a problem with airplane design, airport design and maintenance and spare parts availability on the market. And it looks like maintenance crew greenlighted faulty engine in the air. We can expect they will try to blame pilot and mask the true reason.

[@michaelshrader5139]

@@rofo2107 Uhhh, last I heard reported that previous diversion had been due to a passenger problem and not a mechanical problem with the plane.

[@michaelshrader5139]

Ok but as I have heard it reported, this plane flew thru a "wall of birds" and not an isolated lone bird.... it's therefore reasonable to assume both engines may have ingested large birds. As 1 of the pilots can be seen with his hand up as if bracing against the instrument console as the plane skidded down the runway, it may also be that that single frame of the video is actually showing a pilot trying to hold the windscreen up because it too had been struck by a bird and pushed partially into the cockpit. It's just far too soon to go to blaming the flight crew for shutting down the wrong engine and dooming this flight, we just do not have any evidence pointing to that right now friend. We need to give the flight crew the benefit of the doubt, at least until more facts emerge proving otherwise. ps. Have you ever been driving your car and had the power steering pump fail? I have.... and I am here to tell you, you can still steer the car without a working power steering pump but it's a 2 handed job and it's very difficult to turn the steering wheel! Now, imagine what it would be like to fly a passenger jet liner with little or no hydraulics! Yeah, it would take both pilots fighting the controls tooth-n-nail with everything they got I'm guessing! Just saying... people need to think this stuff thru a little more before making off the wall comments casting blame on the pilots, because hindsight is 20-20 and we do not know for certain just what condition that plane was in during the final moments of that flight. 😕

[@mmmqua]

​@@rofo2107 What??? You don't know what you are talking about. The incident 2 days prior, on the way to Beijing, was due to a passenger's medical emergency.

[@mlb3135]

Thankyou! Not only was this a good explanation of what likely happened, your getting directly to point on each thing you discussed should be a template for how youtubers do videos. There are so many out there that go on and on and on and on and on and on about next to nothing before even getting to the key points, that I simply end their videos (long before the end is reached) as a waste of time.

[@miketexas4549]

Retired Microsoft Flight Simulator captain here. Spot on analysis, so many unanswered questions.

[@matthendricks9666]

The wind was VAR / 2 . As calm as it gets.

[@Dutchbird757]

Fellow 737 driver here. Could it be the nbr #2 engine looks like it selected reverse but instead it took the brunt of the touchdown and buckled the front and back of it? Look at that top deformation on both sides of that split? And look at the other touchdown video. IF it is reverse then there is your answer. They believed it was the good engine and shut down the wrong engine. Still no excuse for no gear and no flap. Go-around until landing on the opposite runway in 3 minutes. That is fast. What sealed their fate is rushing and no gear. The wall just cemented it. No pun intended. They exited the runway at near 150 mph… They had full directional control judging by the manoeuvring to align. You can see it is a right teardrop as the Captain (likely) slightly overshot the centreline, corrected it twice and then realised he was too high (turn was too tight) and had too much energy. Hence landed halve way down the runway. Had the FO pulled at least the manual gear handles, selected Alternate Flaps to at least 15 there would have been a different outcome. Wrong decisions here and startle effect in one example. Just my cents and hope to be proven wrong. P.S. with 10K+ hrs on the 737 it is not unforgiving. Exactly the opposite I’d say. It is simple by design and to operate. And with the old school design what you see is what you get. No computers to intervene. Just mechanical cables

[@andis9076]

I was wondering if the reverse kick in only for right engine, the plane should stir to the right but it went straight.

[@burakoner7973]

The vertical video could be mirrored. Usually in social media video is mirrored after the upload.

[@michaelshrader5139]

It was reported like 2 days ago that witnesses on the ground observed the plane fly thru a "wall of birds" on it's initial approach to the runway... why would you not think both engines likely ingested large species birds severely damaging the engines? This assumption that there was still 1 good solid running engine and that the pilots screwed up and shut it down by mistake, seems kinda biased against the pilots of that plane if you ask me. Now if the black box data shows that 1 engine went to running very poorly while the other was still running normally and was then turned off completely by commands from the cockpit, then yeah somebody screwed up and they were screwed at that altitude they did not have time to restart the good engine and the unhealthy engine wasn't producing sufficient power to do much good... but we don't have that sort of info at this point. And if the pilots seemed to be in a rush to land after having aborted an otherwise well set up approach after having flown thru a "wall of birds", can we not just assume they probably had very good reason for rushing to get the plane landed safely? Finally, no gear no flaps no spoilers only 1 possible thrust reverser maybe activated but doing little good.... heck, sounds to me like the hydraulic system was dead as a doornail by the time that plane touched down and went to skidding along the runway towards it's doom. Seems like a good excuse if you ask me... or am I missing something? 😕

[@jamesclerkmaxwell8020]

Everybody was probably alive up until the collision with the wall. This wall is the elephant in the room

[@AlienGamer38]

Your not a pilot cause pilots never say they drive a plane you should delete your comment

[@charlescanton4740]

Airliners are designed to land in a high drag configuration. Why, in this case, was this landing done clean? No flaps, no spoilers, no landing gear? CVR transcript is going to be interesting..

[@yagop8719]

Thing that i dont understand the most was that the control tower agent and the pilot both agreed to land it on the opposite side of the runway. If the plane landed on the right side of the runway, it could avoid the concrete wall.

[@dansegelov305]

The approach video that shows the bird strike was filmed in vertical and uploaded to social media. It's therefore perfectly possible that the video is flipped/mirrored and what we are seeing is the number 1 (left) engine suffering the stall, not the number 2 (right.)

[@pedrosura]

My plan on landing is to land even if you lose an engine. We practice this maneuver on the 737 on the sim. Flaps 15 Flap inhibit Ab Max Speed plus 20 kts (from target) This is in our manual. But they may not have this in their procedures

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

Thank you for watching!

[@pedrosura]

@ Great channel and analysis Max!

[@zaratrusta79]

Yes, but what if you lose two engines?

[@ak2nda695]

I'm not a pilot or anything, but why do a go around if they were coming in to land? If my car was losing or lost power, I wouldn't try to drive up a hill.

[@pedrosura]

@@zaratrusta79 If you lose 2 engines you are landing

[@t1000eg]

It seems to me the engine scraping along the ground has opened the cowling making it look like it's in reverse ?

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

That could be as well, it was providing some thrust prior to landing though

[@t1000eg]

@ it's definitely a strange case the engine could've been spewing out heat from fire damage.. kind of reminds me of the Kegworth air disaster just up the road from me here in the UK.. the crew accidentally shut down the good engine leaving the aircraft to limp back on its damaged engine which sadly didn't end well..

[@ralfb4411]

I thought reverse thrust could only be activated after confirmed touchdown (wheelgear touchdown confirmed) and because gear was not deployed, that means you can be right. I am not an aviation expert, just following it with interest. Perhaps damaged engine on the right

[@zaratrusta79]

@@Cultivation144 ive read that eyewitnesses confirmed the landing gear was down on initial approach. The last recorded speed on flightradar also suggests flaps were previously deployed. Furthermore, flightradar suggests the early loss of data (compared to other flights on that airport) suggests also electrical failure. All of this suggests dual engine failure. I would bet that left engine had already taken a serious bird strike before the short bird strike video.

[@markdoldon8852]

Its open BEFORE the plane touches down.

[@oldgeezerproductions]

With the data we have available, I think it is reasonable to assume that there were a whole cascade of errors made inside the cockpit, if avoided, should have had the aircraft safely stopped far from the berm. What I am rather sure of is the initial abort landing decision was a fatally bad decision, subsequent decisions only got worse and everyone's fate was sealed at the onset. There is an Old Saying that I am rather found of: "decide in haste, regret at leisure," except the pilot(s) is (are) beyond all regrets.

[@kikiryki]

Not errors but both engines failed which left them with no options at low altitude but to land immediately

[@oldgeezerproductions]

@@kikiryki How do you think they had the ability to abort the landing and then make that loop around to come in at the opposite direction? They were in configuration to land in the beginning and they should have landed then or if that wasn't practical, glide out over the water and soft land there as Sully did. I'm sure it will come out that the pilot(s) panicked and made a whole series of very bad decisions.

[@kikiryki]

@@oldgeezerproductions Sully was at 3000 FT when declared emergency, not at 500 FT

[@michaelshrader5139]

@@oldgeezerproductions So you are saying they aborted their initial landing just because they thought it would be cool to do that teardrop turn-around and "grease" the plane in on the runway in the wrong direction then? LMFAO! ROF! It's simply amazing the amount of unfounded bias AGAINST these two pilots. I mean, if it turns out that they screwed up and shut down a perfectly undamaged engine then they screwed up and there is precedent because this has happened before in fatal crashes... but right now, that's a pretty damning assumption you people are making without waiting for any hard evidence! If you are wrong, your comments are going to make you look like a pretty sorry person friend. Just saying.... I'm giving the flight crew the benefit of the doubt until such time as there is some data proving otherwise. ps. Engines to my knowledge do not simply stop turning the instant they suffer severe damage, often it takes a little time as parts chew on other parts and tear themselves up inside... it's entirely believable that they still had good power right after having flown thru a "wall of birds" that damaged BOTH engines, and that the left or #1 engine tore itself up enough to stop running entirely within 90 seconds or so afterwards... remember from hitting the birds to touching down on the runway only 3 or 4 minutes has been reported to have passed, so this all went bad for them really fast!

[@oldgeezerproductions]

@@mmmqua No I don't, but your assumption about me says more than you think and it's not good.

[@embfixer]

I really don’t think the thrust reverser is open, I think it is the cowl that is open. If you watch around :31 seconds as it passes the camera, it looks more you can see the curvature of the cowl. Follow the curve of the cowl and it meets up with the translating cowl which wouldn’t happen if the sleeve was rearward.

[@dayanand1190]

Cut to the chase in the first second of the video. This is the best way to create videos. No like sub notify nonsense. Liked and subbed.

[@chris_jorge]

Imagine the pilots feeling relief because they touched down on the belly to then see a wall in their path . Heart breaking

[@Julie-hf4ch]

wouldn't the pilots know that airport very very well after thousands of hours flight experience?

[@robbedontuesday]

@VeganWega nothing makes sense... They presumably had no hydraulics to action flaps/slats but they manage to make a 180º turn in record time, and land aligned with the runway (again without hydraulics) with tailwind which is a curse for an emergency landing, without landing gear/breaks...

[@Benjamin-em4nh]

I don't think they felt relief. They would have known how fast they were going and how much runway they had left.

[@thetoolmat8632]

They saw a berm not a wall, they believed right up till they were destroyed that the berm world be a rough obstacle but never thought it would completely destroy their aircraft…someone explained the airport used cheaper concreter that dried solid vs what is required.

[@Tarheel13]

They didn’t feel relief. A belly landing is extremely dangerous.

[@gregbanchy2643]

They were (apparently) in a stabilized approach when they ran into the birds. I haven’t seen or heard anything which suggests the go around was necessary and it only bought them 2 or 3 minutes and (tragically) a concrete wall that wasn’t at the end of the runway used on the initial approach. Sad.

[@bs838]

Not sad, negligent.

[@davethewave7248]

And looks like the landing gear was deployed in this footage ... 5 minutes in: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXnKgKmFYqiUsNE

[@FReidham-o5m]

It was n above ground Concrete pedestal pad for the ILS antennae…

[@fazole]

Some airline training programs emphasize rote procedure. If engine fails on approach, must go around and run checklist.

[@nicholasespinoza9610]

In the bird ingestion video, look closely and you will see a tiny puff of smoke come from the number 1 left engine. It appears that both engines were damaged, and the full extent was not known until after the aborted first landing attempt, realizing that one engine was off and the other damaged providing limited thrusts the pilots determined they needed to put the plane on the ground fast and purposely kept the plane slick so they could glide for a as long as possible and preserve energy. I think this plan would have worked if not for antenna localizer berm at the end of the runway. RIP to all those that lost their lives.

[@otterspocket2826]

I thought I saw something from the No1 engine too, but it's difficult to be sure. They may have thought they were just dealing with losing No1, not realising No2 was also damaged until they tried to power up on the go around.

[@ypw510]

There's been speculation that a working engine was shut down in a panic.

[@mmmqua]

Eyewitnesses have also said they heard loud "bangs" or "explosions" PRIOR to the event in the video with engine #2, so its very possible they could have taken a bird(s) in engine #1 first, before what was seen on video.

[@dirkdex]

I usually don’t watch videos like this, but yours was super-well presented, clearly summed up with your knowledge and experience, and easily agreeable on many points. Get rid of all stupid walls at the end of runways and make the planes more pilot friendly, especially in emergency situations.

[@rangelso]

When I saw the video for the 1st time I actually thought that pilot was trying to go arround it was traveling so fast

[@dwarfer1]

i’ve not seen a single comment referencing that some tiktok videos are mirrored, maybe the bird strike was on the left engine all along

[@jerryreynolds7159]

Curious if the pilot's actions were similar to the 737 accident at East Midlands, UK in '89 where the wrong engine was shut down.

[@KrisRam-yu1gp]

i was trying very hard to recall the airline name. i guess i heard this case from mentour.

[@Benjamin-em4nh]

​@@KrisRam-yu1gpI think British Midland

[@tonyhawk123]

Yeah. Apparently there were signs of which engine had a failure, and the system was switched around by Boeing and the pilots assumed it was the original config.

[@Rogue_Six]

Unlikely because the procedures, as a result of such previous accidents, have been altered to the point that it is almost physically impossible to shut down the wrong engine. In an emergency, no one in the cockpit is wildly flipping switches like in the movies. Shutting down an engine is one of the most trained emergencies and it is done in a calm and professional manner, following the checklists. If the pilots stick to their routine then it is simply not possible to shut down the wrong engine. Usually the CPT is flying in an emergency (even if the FO was previously the PF) so the FO is the one preparing the engine shutdown and as the final step he is putting his finger on the engine switch but he's not pushing it. The CPT, after double checking and calling out again which engine number is going to be shut down, then uses his own hand to depress the FO's hand on the switch so they both depress the engine switch simultaneously. That is why I believe it is much more likely that both their engines were damaged by bird strike and that there wasn't an accidental shutdown because an accidental shutdown has been made all but impossible. There is so much double, triple and quadruple checking (including multiple callouts of the engine number) involved with shutting down an engine that it would be double extreme gross negligence on both pilots side if they somehow managed to pull that off.

[@tentacle218]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster

[@johnbrooks2564]

Reminds my of Sully's 2009 glide landing where his first action was to enable aux generator. If this crew had aux hydraulics, they likely would have had landing gear, flaps, airbrakes and a far more survivable landing. Pics show 737 had gear and flaps deployed during bird strike, so aircrew changed to clean config to make the teardrop turn, but without hydraulics did not have time to reconfigure for landing manually. High landing speed plus ground-effect plus concrete mound 'before' the runway was an overwhelming cascade that resulted in disaster. This should have been another miracle landing if airport had been designed for overrun of a reverse-direction landing.

[@Hemifan4266]

737...​@@erikwellerweller8623

[@michaelshrader5139]

@@erikwellerweller8623 So what, the pilots just panicked and forgot everything but made a perfect touchdown in the center of the runway though at too high a speed and with nothing engaged to slow them down.... I find that, unlikely. It seems more likely to me that both pilots had their hands literally full just trying to control the airplane enough to get it back to the runway, and they were desperate to get that plane back on the ground safely as the aircraft was dying around them and on the verge of becoming a flying brick! If both pilots are hands-on struggling to hold the controls, then who exactly was expected to pull the gear release cables behind the pilot seat in the floor???? Cockpit doors have been kept closed and locked since 9-11, and only the 2 pilots were in the cockpit. Just saying... we also have no actual evidence that the pilots did anything but their very best to get the plane safely back on the ground. 😕I eagerly await some info on the cockpit voice recordings and the black boxes data, that will tell us a whole lot about what the flight crew was dealing with and whether that plane was flyable or not those last few minutes of the flight! Just saying.

[@michaelwhite8933]

It does have 3 separate hydraulic systems plus cable manual reversion for flight controls

[@francesca4966]

Lors de la collision on ne voit pas le train déployé sur la vidéo.

[@kikiryki]

Sully was at 3000 FT and Korean at 500FT with limited or no thrust to climb... No time to choose

[@darrenbalbuena6033]

I remember the Sully movie,He was investigated by the aviation authorities in the US for not turning back in the airport but when I watch your video now I understand that Capt Sully do the right thing as a pilot. The cause of the engine malfunction is also bird strike in Capt Sully case. All of the passengers and crews were saved from the disaster..because they land in the waters. Time and No Time is a very crucial decision..Im not a pilot ,but man thanks for this video.

[@phoe8523]

Thanks for explaining ground-effect and tailwind. That´s a factor they had to deal with. I have read many comments, blaming the pilots to bring the plane down too late. There was a cruel accident back then in Greece and ground-effect was everything that prevented the plane to crash in the middle of Athens. (Also the way the Caspian sea-monster flew)

[@Ongily0]

They designed that slab of concrete wall to uphold the localizer antenna from the very beginning of the airport construction in 2007. Int' aviation law including the domestic law clearly stated the antenna or any of the facility in the vicinity of the runway should be designed and made to be fragile and easily destructed for emergencies. They have not only failed to follow the guideline, but they made it STURDIER in 2023 from the aftermath of typhoon as some of the antenna had fallen and broken. Muan airport installed a 40M long concrete on top of the concrete walls buried under the dirt so that it will never budge to any exterior shockwave. In order to avoid the constant maintenance they chose to throw in a hard, thick CONCRETE to save budget. Utterly ignorant to design and implement this that costed 179 innocent lives. May them rest in peace.

[@thegunnylingus4751]

This was one of your best videos. Thank you for not showing these people dying and thank you for your insight.

[@Cruiser007]

I'd love to hear Captain Sully's take on this. He lost both engines on take-off & still managed to have enough control over that Airbus 320 to glide her down to the water. Something just doesn't add up in this JeJu crash. The go-around don't seem right. I seriously doubt they lost hydraulics. I'm leaning more towards panic, confusion, argument or fatigue.

[@PaPaHome]

Looks like human error played a large role in this accident, just my guess. We'll see the final report when it comes out.

[@steveswell1]

Sully is a pilot, not a "systems operations specialist" and can fly an aeroplane under stress. I'm flying Asiana to Seoul on the 20th. Stats say air travel is safest just after a major incident. Lordy. :)

[@dextermorgan1]

​@@steveswell1Except there have been 3 or 4 major incidents recently.

[@hoverbovver]

I wonder if the old problem of asian hierarchy happened here with the junior pilot not able to challenge the senior pilot's bad decisions.

[@WillEDC]

That’s why he is the goat and maybe part luck. He did the impossible

[@DanDan-s1x9b]

As an aeronautical amateur I find out once more that you are the absolute illuminated guy giving all the propre keys to read the case. Thanks for this analysis, precious.

[@NicolaW72]

Thank you very much for this very informative and concise debrief of this horrible and very tragic event! May indeed all the relevant people, responsible for airport design and piloting an aircraft learn from it!

[@seyahtan24]

True. Whoever designed and put that damn concrete wall there should go to jail. Stupid ass design. Even the pilot agrees that placing the wall there was damn stupid.

[@gowoke_gobroke]

Why does everyone want everyone else to go to jail? Did you have a good time in jail yourself?

[@poker_18rs92]

I mean, they came back around & landed in the opposite direction? And they belly-landed halfway down the runaway? Didn’t anyone at ATC communicate that they didn’t see any gear-down & about the hazard of landing that direction with the barrier at the end of the runway?

[@nikosatsaves3141]

Or "you going too fast buddy"

[@kwokmingng4548]

Thanks for the video. Happy New Year

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

You're welcome, happy new year!

[@mauriziofilippini6774]

Every airport has some obstacles at the end of the runway sooner or later. If you descend too early in panic, you do NOT make a wide turn to extend the landing gear, you do NOT activate the flaps and you only use the last 1/3 of the runway, taking it in the opposite direction; the same thing would have happened in all the Italian airports I know. We will see the results that will explain everything, but from what we see, the embankment where the plane hit was the least of the problems, a few meters later there would have been the concrete walls delimiting the airport.

[@LouEssick]

Great analysis and to the point. 757/767 pilot instructor.

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

Awesome, glad to have you on the crew 😎

[@marekmachaj9067]

Can thrust reverser open without weight on the landing gear? Isn't there a switch on the landing gear that prevents reversing while in flight?

[@StarJar58]

On some airliners. But 737 can reverse below 8ft radar altimeter.

[@sam-sunghater]

stupid question: can the thrust reverser "gills" be opened by external force like dragging on the runway?

[@johanstruwig3815]

stupid answer, don't you have anything intelligent to say?

[@littlefluffybushbaby7256]

@@johanstruwig3815 A little harsh. If you're not someone with much knowledge of aviation it's a fairly logical question.

[@craigblackhall6847]

I appreciate your analysis and did not realize that the 737 was that difficult to manage - especially in critical conditions. The burm/conrete barrier at the end of the runway (19 I think) is mind blowing. Thanks for your input.

[@PatrickLipsinic]

It was a dirt berm with a concrete top that mounted the localizer antenna that it hit that destroyed the plane.

[@oldmech619]

I disagree that the right engine reverse was partly deployed. I believe what we are seeing are the engine fan and core engine cowling coming apart from the impact, weight, and skidding The reverse takes RA

[@oldmech619]

I disagree that the right engine reverse was partly deployed. I believe what we are seeing are the engine fan and core engine cowling coming apart from the impact, weight, and skidding The reverse takes RA

[@oldmech619]

On the bird strike, it looks like the bird when through the fan section and not the core. There is a lot of white and a bit of black. The white may have been from a compressor stall or parts of the bird because of the white stuff. I would say the bird only went through the fan section. There should not have been an engine failure. There would have been no compressor stall. The engine should have remained fully operational. Engine failure due to bird strikes do happen but are very rare. There is a report that there was exhaust plumes as the plane was landing. This pilot went totally nuts. As the plane was on short final, he had the speed and time for the gear. 1:12

[@edwoo1005]

@@oldmech619 Mike Tyson famously said "Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face" The investigation will find out whether the pilots panicked and made a series of unfortunate mistakes or not. My guess is yes.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

The aircraft crashes into the ILS antenna that sits an a man-made hill , not the brick wall.

[@재앵-q3o]

It was built by MUAN local construction company. Pilot were holding the strrring wheel at the end. He did his best.

[@aerofoca]

Im reminded of the case of the gimli glider where they ran out of fuel due to miscalculation and ended slipping a 767 in. It was actually fortuitous that they dropped the gear because the nosegear being deployed and collapsing allowed then to stop much faster and short of disaster. Again in a time critical situation I can understand. But im wondering why once they were aligned they didnt at least deploy the flight spoilers to add with dissipating kinetic energy killing ground effect and assisted frictional braking and reduced drag especially coming in hot and clean ? But again I think it wouldve been survivable too without the concrete barrier. Horrific stuff to watch

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

thank you for the comment, Please share!

[@tonamg53]

One of the best advice I’ve heard if you have to do a crash landing… is to fly the plane all the way until you touchdown on the ground and keep the plane in your control for as long as possible. I think these crews absolutely did that. They flew the plane right up to the last seconds… until it hit that wall. The wall which was not marked on any charts at all… And the way it was covered with dirt and grasses… kinda camouflage it with the scenery. It was literally a stealth wall.

[@tonamg53]

@ No, it’s applicable for all size of aircraft so you don’t stall and allow the gravity to land the plane for you. Also, it’s common sense you want to be in control of your plane as long as possible… it’s bad when gravity is flying the plane…

[@markdoldon8852]

A stealth wall with giant bright red antennas running its full length? AND the location is marked on their landing charts, but they never took the time to review that information for runway 19 (as opposed to 01, their original choice)

[@tonamg53]

@@markdoldon8852 The antenna is bright red. The antenna is marked. The antenna is not what forced the plane to suddenly stop. The antenna is not the issue. And No, the antenna doesn’t come bundled with a pre-built reinforced concrete wall at the base.

[@GetOutsideYourself]

There is a new photo showing it on approach with flaps out and gear down, meaning they were later retracted.

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

I know they were down on their first attempt to land not sure about the second

[@markmd9]

Probably they retracted them to go around but shot down the wrong engine and lost hydraulics. Then panicked and didn't had time to do the checklist.

[@bpuaz]

​@markmd9 that to me sounds like the moat likely situation they seemed badly trained also it's possible they forgot about the gear all together their has been documented cases of crew ignoring audio and visual warnings before

[@phredd_07]

Where is that picture???

[@user-yt198]

Most people misinterprets the timeline. They were on approach to runway 01 with flaps out and gears down. ATC warned about bird flocks. They decided and initiated go around. They retracted gears and flaps. At bird strike they were already parallel with the runway. They lost engine #1. Engine #2 was also damaged and hardly generated thrust. Electric power lost. Hydraulics lost. RAT non existent. APU maybe non existent or no time to start. Maybe smoke in the cabin. They contacted with ATC and decided an immediate landing to runway 19. They executed teardrop turn and aligned with the runway. No spoilers, no gears. Due to ground effect they could only land further down the runway. You know the rest...

[@AndrewMacRae-di3jv]

There was a famous incident many years ago in Canada where an Air Canada flight ran out of fuel due to an error that was made and they were forced to land with zero fuel and no engines .. luckily the pilot was an experienced glider pilot outside of his profession as a commercial airline pilot and he was able to use his gliding experience to help to slow down the speed of the plane on the approach which likely saved the lives of everyone on board . it was known as the Gimli glider. He landed the plane on an abandoned military air strip in Gimli, Manitoba Canada with no engines and no fuel by using a gliding technique and keeping the plane on a slight angle on the approach ..

[@davehoward22]

Even as someone with no pilot experience,he put the plane down at whats clearly a very high speed

[@justaguy2356]

I had so many questions....this video was so helpful and informative! Thanks for your insight!

[@Dragon-gl1rw]

What do birds hitting the left engine have to do with the landing gear's failure?

[@Adam-mj5hl]

My guess is that they had dual engine failure, so the pilot wanted to ensure the plane had maximal ability to glide, and deploying the landing gear would have affected the plane’s aerodynamics and impeded the its ability to glide.

[@Dragon-gl1rw]

@Adam-mj5hl 🤣🤣🤣

[@Dragon-gl1rw]

@Adam-mj5hl Let us wait to see whether the investigators can find any roasted bird feathers in the engine.

[@littlefluffybushbaby7256]

@@Adam-mj5hl I think this is a plausible answer. Another video, done by a 737 pilot, showed the difference between a clean glide path and that when configured for landing. One is that of a paper airplane. One is that of a brick. I exagerate for effect, but the difference is big. If the 737 was, in effect, a glider and they'd already been on approach, they didn't have an awful lot of height to play with. Especially after the 180 turn. So they may have had concerns about actually reaching the runway. We will no doubt find out.

[@Adam-mj5hl]

@@Dragon-gl1rw I don’t understand your comment. Do you not think birds being sucked into the intake of an airline jetliner’s could cause dual engine failure? On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549, an Airbus A320, lost power to both its engines after striking a flock of birds shortly after takeoff from La Guardia Airport.

[@jimwong8056]

Please look at the left engine at 1:30. Looked not aligned.

[@gregchavez1534]

Anyway. I was impressed by Max's breakdown of the flying component of this incident. He's absolutely mistaken about the role of the ILS berm, but airport design and ICAO standards are not his expertise. So... liked, subscribed. Nice addition to my pilot chorus.

[@paulk5455]

First of all, thank you for your services as an Air Force pilot to protect our country. I want to commend you for a very good video explaining everything. This is an excellent evaluation that avoids prematurely blaming the pilots for shutting down the wrong engine. They might have, or they might not have. The video of the undercarriage indicates engine two suffered compressor damage, but the footage could be mirrored. This might explain why engine two was still running during the landing.

[@Ch1n4Sailor]

Good insight!! Finally something from a Military pilot!!