Jeju Air, South Korea

[Cap'n Jack]

Given the choice, I'd always book with a US, European, or Australian airline before I'd book with a third world airline.

Singapore airlines is quite good. As is Shenzhen airlines. New Zealand is also good. Air India seemed sketchy, but let's see if Tata has turned it around. China Eastern was ok. The CAAC (their FAA) seems to do good work in China, too. There are many other airlines I haven't flown on that seem to have an excellent reputation (Emirates, ANA, Etihad, Qantas, etc.).

 

[MauleSkinner]

There are many other airlines I haven't flown on that seem to have an excellent reputation (Emirates, ANA, Etihad, Qantas, etc.).

According to an FAA inspector who helped resolve a “lost logbooks” situation, Emirates frequently loses passenger bags that contain pilot logbooks.

 

[Hunter Handsfield]

It appears now that on the first approach, the gear was down, and presumably flaps were set for landing. I follow Flying for Money, and that was his conclusion. Apparently the bird strike happened during the approach. It appears it was the right engine, but cell phone video is often reversed when played. There is nothing conclusive establishing the engine displaying compression stall as being the right engine. Additionally, it could have been both engines damaged.

The crew executes a TOGA. Apparently the plane climbed well enough to maintain pattern altitude. It made an emergent pattern and approach, even though not configured for landing. Smoke in the cockpit, excuse me, flight deck? Was it a conscious decision not to lower the gear, or an accident? Was it panic? It looks like somewhat of a flare at the proper altitude for gear. Does that explain the extended float? Could they have deployed TR with asymmetric thrust? At that high speed, would it have been effective to stop the plane? Is there a similar embankment at the other end of the runway, i.e. would RW 01 have yielded better results? What was the emergent situation that required the teardrop return? A lot of mysteries....

To repeat a point I made above -- sort of lost in the side discussion of Boeing and SpaceX -- the nose-on video of the landing shows a clear heat/exhaust plume from the right engine (which had the visible evidence of compressor stall) but none from the left engine. (Featured in the Blancolirio and PilotBlog videos). Why not? Did it also lose power? If so, when and why? Also bird strike? Shut down by the pilots? Did they lose all hydraulics or was the clean configuration intentional?

PilotBlog, by a pilot who says most of his airline career was in the B737-800, says the desired landing configuration for dual engine failure is clean. Is that true? To me, that seems to make sense to extend the glide to make an airport, but maybe not for touchdown once the landing is "made" (?).

HHH

 

[SebIp]

That is a good theory. The video also made it look like they were in a slight right turn when it happened, but presuming it was before the first approach, no right turns were made.

Given the choice, I'd always book with a US, European, or Australian airline before I'd book with a third world airline.

Other then some known issue airlines, I don’t think we can just assume all western ones are good.

Air France which I just recently flew with had a few incidents in recent memory. One where they ran off the end of the runway at CYYZ and the other time where my former employer Thales supplied pitot tubes with insufficient heating.

And if I look at CADORS and do a search sometimes I do wonder how we don’t see more accidents. https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cadors-screaq/q.aspx?lang=eng if you do a search for large Canadian airport like Toronto, wow the number of taxi reportable incidents in just 1 month.

 

[MFE]

Considering it was a bird strike, I wonder if there was a cockpit intrusion that affected their ability to fly the plane.

 

[midwestpa24]

PilotBlog, by a pilot who says most of his airline career was in the B737-800, says the desired landing configuration for dual engine failure is clean. Is that true? To me, that seems to make sense to extend the glide to make an airport, but maybe not for touchdown once the landing is "made" (?).

Not that I have any experience, but I could imagine a dirty 737 with no thrust probably drops like a rock and a safe landing would be tricky if not dangerous. Granted in this case, so did a clean one.

A lot of larger and heavier aircraft, you carry power almost all the way into the flare. Otherwise you will arrive more than you will flare.

 

[Larry in TN]

I'm not sure where the suggestion to land in a clean configuration came from. It's not in our 737 manuals.

 

[midwestpa24]

I'm not sure where the suggestion to land in a clean configuration came from. It's not in our 737 manuals.

Is dual engine failure at low altitude in the manuals? I had thought it was mentioned when Cactus 1549 happened, that such a situation was not in the Airbus manuals.

 

[Hunter Handsfield]

I'm not sure where the suggestion to land in a clean configuration came from. It's not in our 737 manuals.

See PilotBlog, run by a pilot who says most of his (long?) career has been in the 737-800. His comment is in one of these two videos

, or maybe this one

.

As I've said before, I'm SEL only, no jet time -- I'm ready to be corrected if I misinterpreted these or any other comments on the subject.

HHH

 

[Hunter Handsfield]

See PilotBlog, run by a pilot who says most of his (long?) career has been in the 737-800. His comment is in one of these two videos

, or maybe this one

.

As I've said before, I'm SEL only, no jet time -- I'm ready to be corrected if I misinterpreted these or any other comments on the subject.

HHH

View attachment 136786

See the first of those two videos starting at 8:00 min.

HHH

 

[Larry in TN]

Is dual engine failure at low altitude in the manuals?

There is a Loss of Thrust in Both Engines memory items and Non-normal checklist. The only reference to altitude is above, or below, FL270. This should be the same as the Boeing flight manual for the aircraft.

See the first of those two videos starting at 8:00 min.

In that video, he didn't say it was a procedure, a recommendation, or from the flight manual. It was his speculation that they stayed clean in order to stretch their glide. That is consistent with what we know so far though I don't think I'd try to make a 180 like that with both engines out, or failing.

I actually had low-altitude bird strikes and bird ingestions in both engines on final approach in, IIRC, a 737-8 MAX at about 1,000'. We heard a loud bang on the nose (turned out to be a strike on the nose gear strut) then started smelling the "burnt chicken" through the bleed air which indicated that at least one bird had been ingested into at least one engine. I was the PM and began monitoring the engine vibrating indicators and EGTs to watch for signs of an impending engine failure while the PF continued to fly the approach. As we neared the runway, an Express airplane was slow clearing the runway and we were a few seconds away from the Tower sending us around. If they had, I would have responded, "Unable, multiple bird strikes, aircraft in sight" and we would have landed. We both agreed that we were not going to trust the engines with go-around power. (Almost wish they had sent us around. It would have made a great video on YouTube)

If the bird strikes occurred after initiating a go-around, they were in a very bad position. If the engines started to fail, I would have found a place to land, fully configured, more or less straight ahead. The end result may not have been any better, but a touchdown at 140 KIAS has a lot less energy to dissipate than one at 190 KIAS.

Our airplane spent the next two days in maintenance. They borescoped both engines but didn't find any damage. They had a big clean up job and they replaced a number of components in at least two of the three landing gear struts.

 

[Sinistar]

They were able to climb after down to about 400agl on their planned approach. Planned a go around...which i would think would be back to same landing runway. But instead of go around on runway heading they stepped across the runway, selected the downwind runway and got that thing down real fast, like a power off 180. Hung in ground effect longer than planned. Copilot msybe have flown it (right downwind and base).

It's like they shut down a good engine or smoke or fire just wanted it down and now.

 

[Himayeti]

The glide ratio of a clean 737-800 is 19.5:1 (modern hang glider). With the gear down it's 7:1 (paraglider). With gear and flaps down it's down to 4:1, just slightly better than a wingsuit!

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-is-the-glide-ratio-of-a-c-WHP5MQ60SgmoSkEnhRMrKg

If in fact, they lost both engines, they made the RIGHT decision to fly it in clean! The proof is that they easily made it to the runway.

When learning to fly a sailplane, one of the maneuvers one practices is to land the glider without spoilers. In fact my test ride involved this procedure and I had to fly a similar pattern to the one the Jeju flight executed.

As taught, I used a sideslip around the pattern to bring the glider down quickly and aimed for the area before the threshold since a long glide due to ground effect was to be expected. My glider at the time had a 35:1 glide ratio, and I flew the pattern and landed it at 60 knots on an 8000 ft runway. I used up most of it. The Jeju pilots attempted the same maneuver coming in at 160 knots on a runway with similar length!

Assuming that they lost or had little power on both engines, they may have made two mistakes:

1) They landed far down the runway because they were never agressive with a sideslip to bring their 737 down early.

2) They chose the runway over the ocean or beach they had next the airport, underestimating the importance of ground effect at 160 knots on an aircraft with the glide ratio of a modern hang glider.

Capt. Sully chose an endless runway - the river for landing. And he chose the river over a possible return to an airport because he had glider training. Interestingly, he used a flaps 2 configuration for landing, decreasing his glide ratio by only 4 points, but allowing him to slow down the plane to 121 knots. I suspect that once he had the river made, he extended the flaps. Note how his concern was not only making it to a long (very long) stretch of something (runway or water) but at what speed he approached it.

Perhaps we should reconsider the training requirements for all airline pilots to include a glider rating.

We have two very different outcomes with regards to lives in these two bird strike incidents.

 

[Spinka]

The glide ratio of a clean 737-800 is 19.5:1 (modern hang glider). With the gear down it's 7:1 (paraglider). With gear and flaps down it's down to 4:1, just slightly better than a wingsuit!

With the speed they had it would have been no problem putting the gear down and at least flaps 20⁰. I've never done a rating without one landing with both engines out in the simulator. Interesting exercise in energy management. Works fine if you follow the glide slightly fast and delay gear and flap as required.

 

[Hunter Handsfield]

With the speed they had it would have been no problem putting the gear down and at least flaps 20⁰. I've never done a rating without one landing with both engines out in the simulator. Interesting exercise in energy management. Works fine if you follow the glide slightly fast and delay gear and flap as required.

Appreciate Himayeti's very informative comments. And agree with Spinka: why no flaps and gear when the runway was made? Returns to the questions of hydraulics and electrical systems, doesn't it?

HHH

 

[Matthew]

Capt. Sully chose an endless runway - the river for landing. And he chose the river over a possible return to an airport because he had glider training.

I’m not sure about this. He didn’t exactly “choose” the river, the dual engine failure at low altitude chose it for him. He couldn’t reach a runway.

 

[kyleb]

Appreciate Himayeti's very informative comments. And agree with Spinka: why no flaps and gear when the runway was made? Returns to the questions of hydraulics and electrical systems, doesn't it?

HHH
View attachment 136837

I’d bet on the instinct that might have prevented the Fullerton RV crash - an immediate turn back to the runway. That’s a great instinct, but the Boeing crew desperately needed to reconfigure or otherwise manage energy as a second step.

 

[Himayeti]

I’m not sure about this. He didn’t exactly “choose” the river, the dual engine failure at low altitude chose it for him. He couldn’t reach a runway.

We'd have to ask Capt. Sully. From the movie, the FAA tried to show that he did have that option. Apparently some on simulators, were able to land it on a runway with the caveat that they were informed previously about the incident.

At any rate, clean landings for a Boeing on a runway seem to be out of the question for most pilots. A water landing close to the beach would have saved most if not all.

And yes, on short final they could have tried to extend flaps and gear if hydraulics were working. My bet is that they were so focused on making it to the runway that they were late on taking that next step.

Again, glider training would have made a difference.

The first time I ever made a no spoilers landing I was taken aback by how much you float down the runway. After a few tries you learn to become aggressive with your slips and aim for well before the threshold.

 

[Larry in TN]

Sully chose the Hudson. He considered LGA, TEB, and EWR, and could have made LGA or TEB, but getting to one of those runways at the right altitude and airspeed would have been very difficult. In my opinion, choosing the Hudson was the most impressive part of their performance that day. Flying airplanes of this size, we are wired to get the airplane to a runway. It was not an easy, or obvious, decision that the Hudson was the better choice without our benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

 

[Matthew]

Sully chose the Hudson. He considered LGA, TEB, and EWR, and could have made LGA or TEB, but getting to one of those runways at the right altitude and airspeed would have been very difficult. In my opinion, choosing the Hudson was the most impressive part of their performance that day. Flying airplanes of this size, we are wired to get the airplane to a runway. It was not an easy, or obvious, decision that the Hudson was the better choice without our benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Yeah. The options were “bad and worse”. He wanted a rwy, then took the best of the bad options.

That crew had a huge amount of experience to draw on and they made it work. I was next to an acro-coach that was helping another pilot work through a broken rudder cable in a Pitts. It broke during a competition maneuver. He was using my handheld and the two of them were talking it through calmly. “Make a plan, work the plan” was one of the comments I overheard. The US Air 1549 crew did that, too.

 

[Himayeti]

Sully chose the Hudson. He considered LGA, TEB, and EWR, and could have made LGA or TEB, but getting to one of those runways at the right altitude and airspeed would have been very difficult. In my opinion, choosing the Hudson was the most impressive part of their performance that day. Flying airplanes of this size, we are wired to get the airplane to a runway. It was not an easy, or obvious, decision that the Hudson was the better choice without our benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Agree 100%

Not choosing a runway was his most stellar decision.

And you can't argue with the results!

 

[Lindberg]

If in fact, they lost both engines, they made the RIGHT decision to fly it in clean! The proof is that they easily made it to the runway.

This is odd logic. Perhaps the fact that they landed halfway down indicates they made it to the runway too easily. They did, after all, kill almost everyone.

As taught, I used a sideslip around the pattern to bring the glider down quickly and aimed for the area before the threshold since a long glide due to ground effect was to be expected. My glider at the time had a 35:1 glide ratio, and I flew the pattern and landed it at 60 knots on an 8000 ft runway. I used up most of it.

How did you pass your PP-Glider checkride if you used most of the 8000' runway on your slip to landing demo? Like in this incident, your landing would have been good if it had been within the designated landing area.

 

[Himayeti]

This is odd logic. Perhaps the fact that they landed halfway down indicates they made it to the runway too easily. They did, after all, kill almost everyone.

How did you pass your PP-Glider checkride if you used most of the 8000' runway on your slip to landing demo? Like in this incident, your landing would have been good if it had been within the designated landing area.

View attachment 136850

Any landing you can walk away from is a safe one.

In this case, the runway was the designated area.

 

[Matthew]

Glider spot landings get learned early in a club environment. Nobody wants to have to haul the glider all the way back for a hookup for the next flight. Even with a garden tractor doing the work, that can be a long walk.

 

[172andyou]

Given the choice, I'd always book with a US, European, or Australian airline before I'd book with a third world airline.

As would I. No question.

Not sure how that's relevant to this discussion though, as South Korea is not a third world country. It ranks #33 out of almost 200 countries for GDP per capita.

 

[Lindberg]

Any landing you can walk away from is a safe one.

In this case, the runway was the designated area.

That's not the standard for airlines nor check rides. Regardless, 179 people didn't walk away from this landing. It wasn't a good one.

 

[hindsight2020]

And you can't argue with the results!

nonsense, this is POA. Give it 5 minutes.