Obviously, so many people have seen video of the attempted landings, so yeah that's kind of bizarre to claim that there was adverse weather.
South Korean 737-800 Crash
- Thread starter billt460
- Start date
Obviously, so many people have seen video of the attempted landings, so yeah that's kind of bizarre to claim that there was adverse weather.
From time to time crews mishandle an emergency and end up in disaster. I believe that's what happened here. Crews employed by major US carriers are among the world's best when it comes to handling problems safely.
The FAA would love to take credit for US airline safety, but in some ways our ability to move nearly 3 million people per day in complete safety goes back to our aviation culture from WW-II and before. Clearly our WW-II crews had to deal with emergencies regularly. The guys that made it home shared their knowledge. I had one WW-II vet start every class session with a funny statement: "There we were flying along Fat, Dumb and Happy, when all of a sudden"... And he'd launch into the lecture of the day. We learned how to think and maybe how to work through a problem.
Here in the USA, (Austraila, NZ and parts of Europe, France, Germany, UK) many of us grew up flying, designing and working on small aircraft, gliders, and helicopters. A culture of aviation that I believe translates to capability.
The FAA would love to take credit for US airline safety, but in some ways our ability to move nearly 3 million people per day in complete safety goes back to our aviation culture from WW-II and before. Clearly our WW-II crews had to deal with emergencies regularly. The guys that made it home shared their knowledge. I had one WW-II vet start every class session with a funny statement: "There we were flying along Fat, Dumb and Happy, when all of a sudden"... And he'd launch into the lecture of the day. We learned how to think and maybe how to work through a problem.
Here in the USA, (Austraila, NZ and parts of Europe, France, Germany, UK) many of us grew up flying, designing and working on small aircraft, gliders, and helicopters. A culture of aviation that I believe translates to capability.
I know it's kind of overblown, but I've heard pilots say that with enough training, flying a plane in routine conditions is relatively easy. When I was 14, it seemed like driving car would be impossible, but with just a little bit of time behind the wheel it became a lot easier. I'm guessing that's what flying is like (in 3 dimentions), even though a novice looking at a cockpit sees all the buttons, switches, and instruments and can't make any sense of it.
Some claim pilots are glorified bus drivers. But obviously it's flying in bad weather and the expectation of handling emergencies where the paycheck is justified.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Look, AF 447 was a study in bad procedure, poor training, amygdala hijack, and pilot error.
That doesn’t mean a computer can do a better job. In fact, there are many famous “saves” in which a computer would’ve utterly failed.
Sully on the Hudson is a prime example.
It’s too early to tell what happened in this airplane, but even if it was the crew, that doesn’t mean crew as a concept is outmoded or ineffective.
It would merely show that badly trained crews do not do as well as as well trained crews. Maybe you should fly on Airlines that do a better job of Pilot training.
Everyone presumes that all the airlines are completely fungible, that everyone is trained to the same standards.
And nothing could be further from the truth.
This, and other crashes, are clear evidence in the variability of standards, of training, of crew effectiveness.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
That was my point in quoting this article.
There are numerous factors affecting performance, from airlines, culture, etc.
Although studying culture is notoriously hard, and questionable, we saw in some accidents that hierarchical relations in Asian cultures do affect CRM.
My intention was not to show that computers can do a better job. However, that culture might have an impact on training and performance.
We don't know what the results will be in the end. Heck, they might have had some serious issue that required such a quick landing.
But, unfortunately, I think in the end it will be something along the lines of British Midland 92 or TransAsia 235.
Yeah - we are in complete agreement then, and I apologize if “you” came off as “You, Edyvw” - it was intended as more “you, traveling public…” have to realize that airlines, and their crews, are not all equal.
Everybody wants Sully flying, but then they choose airlines on the basis of price…and, well, that’s not going to get you Sully…
I suspect that this will end up being crew error, because that is the most logical explanation.
But, we need more information to know that. One of the things that I respect about Juan Browne (Blancolioro YouTube channel) is that he focuses on facts.
Last edited:
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
I did not mean it was personal. I was just clarifying that it was not posted because computers are going to save the date; on the contrary, I am a believer that two people in the cockpit must remain, regardless of technological advances.
But to further clarify reason, that article has some good points about differences withing the Western culture. Who are recruits in France and or the US/UK? I take USAFA cadets to staff ride trips, and all of them come from blue collar or military backgrounds. They earned their place there with hard work (we could talk about some and their educational background/knowledge, but I don't fault them for that). On the other hand, in many cultures, being a pilot means status that has different meaning than here, and well-off families groom kids for that role.
Being married to an Asian, and being exposed to that culture, I can see potentially a lot of issues with CRM, which was the case in Asian flight 214 etc. It is anecdotal and generalization, but that culture of "father knows best, even if he is wrong" has real-life implications in these situations.
I agree, Juan does not want to speculate, but, this is not public, per se.
What also boggles my mind is that here we have the 10th largest economy in the world, technologically extremely advanced, and yet that concrete structure for ILS.
I've told you before when I did all my international travel I chose United because I believe the pilots are trained better, although I could have flown for less on some pretty respected foreign airlines and received better in flight service. Since we don't have a scorecard, so to speak, of a pilots training before we get on a plane, how are we supposed to know for sure? Serious question, with crew scheduling the way it is, how do you know the first officer who just sat next to you is really competent to a standard? I still do believe United has much better pilots, but is the Go Jet crew that gets me to a UA hub good too?
People pick on price because they just have to trust the pilot flying that day is trained well. With the lack of incidents compared to how many people are safely flown to their destination, I think the majority of crews are. I sure hope so.
As a follow-up to my "the pilots shut-down the wrong engine" assertion, YTuber Maximus Aviation latest video shows stills of the fan sections of the RH (#2) and LH (#1) engines:
Based on these photos, the LH (#1) engine fan section looks quite intact, compared to the destruction seen in the fan section of the RH (#2) engine, which implies the LH engine was not running at the time of the collision with the concrete-reinforced bunker.
Based on these photos, the LH (#1) engine fan section looks quite intact, compared to the destruction seen in the fan section of the RH (#2) engine, which implies the LH engine was not running at the time of the collision with the concrete-reinforced bunker.
Correct. Airport spotter video showed the 1st go-around with some pop & bangs from the RH engine exhaust as a result of the bird ingestion.
If you hit birds on final, and an engine fails, in the 757/767 just push up the power on the good one and land the plane.
It’s really not that complicated. I am willing to bet that the 737 manual says the same thing.
I question the decision to go around.
It’s really not that complicated. I am willing to bet that the 737 manual says the same thing.
I question the decision to go around.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
If I was landing at an airport with ( not talking about birds being mentioned on the ATIS as a general warning ) known bird problems , or specific warnings from ATC or pilots, I would start the APU ahead of time and would brief we are not doing any go arounds short final if we hit birds, even if we lose one engine.
A320 ( unlike the 737 ) has a RAT that automatically deploys ( takes 7 seconds ….batteries power until it comes online ) if both engines quit but it only powers limited stuff while the APU powers all the electrics. Anti skid isn’t available ( need a lot more runway to stop ) with just the RAT powering the electrics unlike when the APU is running.
Land off the first approach.
Suck in even more ( or higher vibrations ) when go TOGA.
Very bizarre accident made worse by the lack of data available to help figure out what the crew was thinking/doing.
While it’s too early to tell what happened with the B737 in SK , if the pilots of the U.S Airways Airbus 319 had tried to return to LaGuardia, it probably would have been a disaster. They were smart ruling all other tempting possibilities and just ditching.
That took calm , experienced decision making.
Edit: there is zero information or guidance from Airbus about how to deal with birds or cautions about doing a go around if you hit them on final.
It’s just common sense and the least risky thing to do if you hit them on final.
Land.
A320 ( unlike the 737 ) has a RAT that automatically deploys ( takes 7 seconds ….batteries power until it comes online ) if both engines quit but it only powers limited stuff while the APU powers all the electrics. Anti skid isn’t available ( need a lot more runway to stop ) with just the RAT powering the electrics unlike when the APU is running.
Land off the first approach.
Suck in even more ( or higher vibrations ) when go TOGA.
Very bizarre accident made worse by the lack of data available to help figure out what the crew was thinking/doing.
While it’s too early to tell what happened with the B737 in SK , if the pilots of the U.S Airways Airbus 319 had tried to return to LaGuardia, it probably would have been a disaster. They were smart ruling all other tempting possibilities and just ditching.
That took calm , experienced decision making.
Edit: there is zero information or guidance from Airbus about how to deal with birds or cautions about doing a go around if you hit them on final.
It’s just common sense and the least risky thing to do if you hit them on final.
Land.
Last edited:
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Preliminary report is out. Bird DNA found in both engines:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y6j32p7lxo.amp
Which begs the question: why not going with initial landing?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y6j32p7lxo.amp
Which begs the question: why not going with initial landing?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
We will never ( how can investigators ever find out without the CVR ) know why the pilots felt it was safer to do a go around but it probably had something to do with the pilots noticing birds BELOW the aircraft ( flock of birds ).
They either had already sucked those ducks into both engines on final or when they when they applied TOGA thrust on the go around ( we don’t know for sure where the birds hit when they said they had a birds strike….could have been the nose or windshield……we just saw signs of a compressor stall on the go around….maybe that’s when the ducks got ingested ).
A lot more engine problems when flying with full thrust after ingesting big birds versus flying with low power like on final approach with the intent to land.
It’s easy for me sitting here enjoying my large coffee and bacon and eggs to arm chair speculate, but that’s my educated guess.
8:57:50 a.m. – Air traffic control gives “caution – bird activity” advisory.
8:58:11 a.m. – Jeju Air pilots are heard talking about spotting a flock of birds under the aircraft.
8:58:50 a.m. – The aircraft’s flight data recorder (FDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) stop recording. At the moment both blackboxes stop recording, the aircraft is flying at the speed of 161 knots (298 km/h or 185 mph) at an altitude of 498 ft (152 metres).
8:58:56 a.m. – Flight 7C2216 pilot declares emergency Mayday and tells air traffic control the aircraft is on a go-around due to bird strike.
9:00 a.m. – After initiating a go-around, Flight 7C2216 requests clearance to land on runway 19, which is by approach from the opposite end of the airport’s single runway.
They either had already sucked those ducks into both engines on final or when they when they applied TOGA thrust on the go around ( we don’t know for sure where the birds hit when they said they had a birds strike….could have been the nose or windshield……we just saw signs of a compressor stall on the go around….maybe that’s when the ducks got ingested ).
A lot more engine problems when flying with full thrust after ingesting big birds versus flying with low power like on final approach with the intent to land.
It’s easy for me sitting here enjoying my large coffee and bacon and eggs to arm chair speculate, but that’s my educated guess.
8:57:50 a.m. – Air traffic control gives “caution – bird activity” advisory.
8:58:11 a.m. – Jeju Air pilots are heard talking about spotting a flock of birds under the aircraft.
8:58:50 a.m. – The aircraft’s flight data recorder (FDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) stop recording. At the moment both blackboxes stop recording, the aircraft is flying at the speed of 161 knots (298 km/h or 185 mph) at an altitude of 498 ft (152 metres).
8:58:56 a.m. – Flight 7C2216 pilot declares emergency Mayday and tells air traffic control the aircraft is on a go-around due to bird strike.
9:00 a.m. – After initiating a go-around, Flight 7C2216 requests clearance to land on runway 19, which is by approach from the opposite end of the airport’s single runway.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
At 8:13, Juan indicates the bird type, a Baikal Teal, and shows a random video (taken in South Korea - go figure) of how these birds behave in a flock. Yikes, that's ALOT of birds!
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
Very interesting.
