Is a bird strike that fatal that the landing gear doesn't work anymore?
Plane Crash in South Korea
- Thread starter wr8_utd
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran discuss a horrific month of December and a depressing FOUR defeats in a row - the latest coming against Wolves and Newcastle.
They discuss how much blame is on Ruben Amorim and rank our squad against other Premier League teams.
Do we have any chance of avoiding defeat at Anfield?
It’s honestly weird to me that birds don’t take planes down more often if they’re actually capable of doing it. Kinda scary too.
I’m guessing it can only happen during takeoff or landing though given planes fly at a higher altitude?
I’m guessing it can only happen during takeoff or landing though given planes fly at a higher altitude?
I think it's ridiculous that they would put that wall there, I also think a lot of airports now have something to slow down planes after the runway that works like a gravel trap but I forgot the name.
As mentioned, it can result in damage to the hydraulic lines. But the 737 has a manual backup release system, in addition to having two seperate hydraulic systems and and a backup hydraulic reservoir. It consists of cables running all the way through the aircraft from the cockpit to the landing gear, a separate cable for each gear. I cannot imagine any scenario where all three of them could get destroyed by a bird strike.
Generally, yes, almost all bird traffic is way below the cruising altitude of jet airliners of 33000-42000 feet. There are a few outliers where birds however can be encountered in very high altitudes. The world record holder for a bird strike is 37000 feet. But I'd generally consider the chance of hitting a bird during the cruise phase as miniscule to nonexistent, depending on the region of the world you're flying in.
There is a lot of effort undertaken to keep birds away from airports as much as possible, but it just is not always possible. And while the risk is comparatively small, an aircraft can always get into a flock of birds a fair bit away from the airport.
I get it's probably very expensive but surely it should be mandatory soon considering how much money goes into plane safety
"A bird hit it" sounds like that Clarke and Dawe skit.
That speed it's sliding at looks like 400km/h +.
Terrible month in aviation.
Terrible month in aviation.
It takes about six seconds from it starting to cross the threshold markers on the runway to impacting the wall. At a distance of 320m between those two points, that means an average speed of 192 km/h.
It will have been close to those 400km/h at the start of the runway - a 737 without flaps and slats has around 200kts, or 370km/h, of landing speed.
Just saw a longer video of the crash with what looks to be the original touchdown of the aircraft. By drawing a line between the building this video was filmed from and what I believe to be the police hangar on the northern side of the airport I'd estimate that they only touched down already halfway down the runway:
That would certainly explain how they were still going that fast at the end of the runway if they missed the correct touchdown point by that much.
That would certainly explain how they were still going that fast at the end of the runway if they missed the correct touchdown point by that much.
What a tragedy, and what a tough month for South Korea. And a terrible month for aviation, indeed.
Looks that way. The pilot clearly wasn't able to slow down enough to even get the nose down.Just saw a longer video of the crash with what looks to be the original touchdown of the aircraft. By drawing a line between the building this video was filmed from and what I believe to be the police hangar on the northern side of the airport I'd estimate that they only touched down already halfway down the runway:
That would certainly explain how they were still going that fast at the end of the runway if they missed the correct touchdown point by that much.
More like week.. saw footage of a KLM and Air Canada plane trying to land without any landing gear earlier this morning, must have all happened in the last few days.
While a lot less loss in life there was also the DHL crash in Lithuania at the end of November and a Bombardier crash in S. America killing the pilots (all operated by professionals, deadly general aviation incidents happen weekly, more or less).
But yeah, horrible week too.
Was it a Boeing 737 max?
No, a Boeing 737-800, the plane generation prior to the Max.
The plane’s landing gear appeared not to have dropped down from underneath, and the flaps on its wings apparently were not activated for landing,
Could a bird strike do that? how?
So it's not the model with the many accidents?
It's not the 'famous' model from the past few years.
Ah, ok. Thanks
The north end has only the perimeter wall from what I can view in Google Maps, and a lot of what looks a mixture of land, sand, dirt, asphalt, and beyond the fence appears the same for mixture. The south end structure has a blast fence because there is a major roadway just beyond the perimeter, right? Surely ATC would know the barrier to the south could be a problem for an emergency landing. The black box recovery and subsequent investigation will hopefully reveal everything.
This Redddit thread has some good points and thoughts.
This Redddit thread has some good points and thoughts.
Also, is it possible the pilots realized the distance and speed on the runway and attempted to "take off" but was impossible?
With the thrust reversers out on at least the right engine, and the damage they must have known they have already done to the engines sliding along the runway, they'd have to be incompetent and panicked to try.
There are regional and national regulatory bodies and they don't all adhere to the same standards.
You can see the nacelles intact. An uncontained engine failure within the main body of the engine that houses the hydraulics makes a real mess of things. What I can't explain is why the thrust reverser housing looks open, that shouldn't be possible with gear up.
I'd guess the reality is somewhat simpler. They hit birds, ended up with two failed/failing engines and kept the aircraft 'clean' until the last minute to maintain altitude and airspeed on a very tight final approach, then either ran out of time or simply got overwhelmed and forgot the landing gear.
It seems likely that there was a bird strike on no 2 engine - right hand.
And with a high workload, it wouldn't be the first time the wrong engine was shut down.
It also looks likely that the flaps were not set at the landing configuration (extended for lift).
What is evident is that the aircraft touched down well down the runway. It was not going along the centre of the runway, rather at an angle. And at quite a high speed.
And the aircraft looks to be slightly nose up as if they realised that the gear was not down were going to go round again.
There are also reports of smoke in the cockpit which could have also added to the confusion.
They were initially approaching on runway 01, but following reports of a bird strike, were told to go round to runway 19, which was the same runway but the other direction.
Looking at the footage it's crazy that there are two survivors with non life threatening injuries. Some bit of luck.
Apparently another Boeing from the same airline was forced into emergency landing due to landing gear issue.
Link
Questions should be raised about maintenance records as one of the possible causes.
Link
Questions should be raised about maintenance records as one of the possible causes.
Without landing gear on and on shorter runway even if they were the best pilots I hardly doubt the plane would generate enough lift to take off. That’s even if both engines were working.
From the video (it’s a bit blurry mind) neither flaps or slats appear to be extended if they suddenly realise it means the flaps should’ve been fully extended and then retracted to 5-10 deg upon takeoff attempt.
It seems like either mechanical fault(maintenance issue, hydraulic issue), pilot fault (not following landing procedures, panicked, trying to restart the engine etc) or likely both.
Before we start blaming the pilot, I would prefer to wait for the outcome of the investigation.
Yeah naturally. I mean these are most common causes usually, but it will take several weeks before we get the idea of what the true reason might be.
Possibly longer than that even. I'm seeing reports that the FDR suffered damage, while the CVR is fine. They might have to send the former to a data forensics expert to retrieve as much as they can from it before analysing it and formulating a preliminary report. Even under normal circumstances I'd expect them to take at least a month for the prelim, and about a year for the full report.
Yeah might take years of course, still considering the crash site is not somewhere in the ocean we might get initial reports earlier.
Still so many questions and mostly due to the high speed the plane landed.
Pilots have extended training for the belly landing and usually even if hydraulics doesn’t work planes have the backup with gravity gear extension. On top of that we don’t see emergency team on site so that they could apply foam, not that it would help much at this speed but still. From what I read the plane made second landing attempt and initially they chose the correct runway where the embankment would be behind them but the something went wrong and they chose 19-01 which was the wrong choice. The speed upon crashing was close to takeoff speed.
Usually belly landing doesn’t turn into tragic case, the most recent one I remember was the LOT one in Warsaw that but then the speed upon touchdown was nothing like what we saw on flight 2216.
The speed the aircraft landed at was normal for a no-flaps landing. They had to come in that fast or they would risk a stall. That one is no mystery at all, it's a natural result of the aircraft configuration at the time. Depending on the landing weight you'll end up at around 200 knots with no flaps on a 737. The real question you want to ask is why it was in that configuration. Specifically, what was the state of its engines, hydraulics and electrics.
As for the emergency services, they simply did not have the time to prepare the runway. The aircraft reported the bird strike at 8:59m and touched down at 9:02 - not nearly enough time for them, if the pilots had even warned ATC that they had no landing gear, something I've not heard a report about yet. The emergency services most certainly were being alerted and getting ready to go, but they would not have been visible in the camera as standard procedure is to wait near the end of runway the aircraft is coming from and then following behind it after it touched down.
There was no correct or incorrect runway. The wind was almost calm and thus did not matter, and as for runway 01 not having an obstacle to crash into... that's not necessarily true. The northern end of the runway and the area beyond it is currently a construction area as they're working on a runway extension. I don't know the exact state of it during the incident, but there's every bit of a chance of there being heavy construction machinery, ditches, mounds of broken-up runway slabs or other material, and other obstacles present at the time. That part of the runway strip and the runway end safety area are specifically noted as being "unavailable" from September 18th to April 30th.
I also don't know if they had already removed the localiser antenna construction at the northern end, because that one's a construction similar to the south end - an earthen embankment with a thick concrete foundation inside and the antennas on top, the very same thing that absolutely shattered the aircraft at the other end of the runway. Maybe a bit lower, but every bit as devastating to an aircraft plowing into it at a hundred knots. Sadly the only video of the crash landing that really showed the northern end was not of a quality that let me see much, too far away and too blurry.
Interesting summary.
Not sure what your background is, especially related to the Boeing 737/800. But I have read comments from people who say they have experience of that aircraft and they were questioning why the flaps were in that configuration. Because some feel the pilot was trying to go round because the aircraft was doing what is termed a teardrop landing and was going to touch down too far down the runway.
But the investigation will determine this.
And please don't think I am against what you have said. Just stating what I have read.
Edit. Meant to say I was not criticising what you had said.
All good!
From what I understand what the pilots did was not a teardrop landing, but more that they changed course to resemble an airport traffic pattern. This is what a teardrop looks like:
You overfly the runway in the opposite direction to what you are planning to land in, then at some miles distance change course to the left or right, get some distance, do a 180° turn until you're near a direct line from the runway, and then turn another turn onto final, for an overall course-reversing turn. It takes quite some time to fly that pattern, way longer than this 737 took until landing.
The course the pilots flew here apparently looked like this, like they side-shuffled into said traffic pattern:
I do not think that they looked like they were trying to go around on their southbound attempt. To me it looks like they floated down the runway in ground effect for way too long in a combination of too much speed and caution, and then did not have enough runway left to actually stop. I mean look at this video. Nowhere does it look to me like they are trying to climb out again. And while it is very far away, it does not look like the aircraft has the flaps out while coming down either, so they did not abort the landing and retract the flaps when they noticed they were coming in too long, they never had them out in the first place.
To me, the big questions are why the pilots decided to abort the landing that they were already lined up and configured for in favour of a go-around, what the technical state of the aircraft then was, why they rushed the second landing attempt this much, and why the aircraft was configured as it was for that attempt.
Last edited:
The fact they went around on their first attempt, and then seemingly tried to get it to the ground any way they can on the next attempt, makes me think a bad situation probably got a lot worse in a very short time frame.All good!
From what I understand what the pilots did was not a teardrop landing, but more that they changed course to resemble an airport traffic pattern. This is what a teardrop looks like:
You overfly the runway in the opposite direction to what you are planning to land in, then at some miles distance change course to the left or right, get some distance, do a 180° turn until you're near a direct line from the runway, and then turn another turn onto final, for an overall 360° turn. It takes quite some time to fly that pattern, way longer than this 737 took until landing.
The course the pilots flew here apparently looked like this, like they side-shuffled into said traffic pattern:
I do not think that they looked like they were trying to go around on their southbound attempt. To me it looks like they floated down the runway in ground effect for way too long in a combination of too much speed and caution, and then did not have enough runway left to actually stop. I mean look at this video. Nowhere does it look to me like they are trying to climb out again.
To me, the big questions are why the pilots decided to abort the landing that they were already lined up and configured for in favour of a go-around, what the technical state of the aircraft then was, why they rushed the second landing attempt this much, and why the aircraft was configured as it was for that attempt.
All good!
From what I understand what the pilots did was not a teardrop landing, but more that they changed course to resemble an airport traffic pattern. This is what a teardrop looks like:
You overfly the runway in the opposite direction to what you are planning to land in, then at some miles distance change course to the left or right, get some distance, do a 180° turn until you're near a direct line from the runway, and then turn another turn onto final, for an overall course-reversing turn. It takes quite some time to fly that pattern, way longer than this 737 took until landing.
The course the pilots flew here apparently looked like this, like they side-shuffled into said traffic pattern:
I do not think that they looked like they were trying to go around on their southbound attempt. To me it looks like they floated down the runway in ground effect for way too long in a combination of too much speed and caution, and then did not have enough runway left to actually stop. I mean look at this video. Nowhere does it look to me like they are trying to climb out again. And while it is very far away, it does not look like the aircraft has the flaps out while coming down either, so they did not abort the landing and retract the flaps when they noticed they were coming in too long, they never had them out in the first place.
To me, the big questions are why the pilots decided to abort the landing that they were already lined up and configured for in favour of a go-around, what the technical state of the aircraft then was, why they rushed the second landing attempt this much, and why the aircraft was configured as it was for that attempt.
Much appreciated and again very interesting.
I am a retired engineer (military gas turbine). And so I have read many inputs like this with great interest.
All good!
From what I understand what the pilots did was not a teardrop landing, but more that they changed course to resemble an airport traffic pattern. This is what a teardrop looks like:
You overfly the runway in the opposite direction to what you are planning to land in, then at some miles distance change course to the left or right, get some distance, do a 180° turn until you're near a direct line from the runway, and then turn another turn onto final, for an overall course-reversing turn. It takes quite some time to fly that pattern, way longer than this 737 took until landing.
The course the pilots flew here apparently looked like this, like they side-shuffled into said traffic pattern:
I do not think that they looked like they were trying to go around on their southbound attempt. To me it looks like they floated down the runway in ground effect for way too long in a combination of too much speed and caution, and then did not have enough runway left to actually stop. I mean look at this video. Nowhere does it look to me like they are trying to climb out again. And while it is very far away, it does not look like the aircraft has the flaps out while coming down either, so they did not abort the landing and retract the flaps when they noticed they were coming in too long, they never had them out in the first place.
To me, the big questions are why the pilots decided to abort the landing that they were already lined up and configured for in favour of a go-around, what the technical state of the aircraft then was, why they rushed the second landing attempt this much, and why the aircraft was configured as it was for that attempt.
I think we will find that both engines were in trouble and that is why they rushed the landing. Id guess after they hit birds on the first attempt they shut down the wrong engine or lost the second some other way. They wanted to maintain altitude and airspeed so kept the aircraft as clean as possible and then ran out of time or forgot under the stress of the situation. It wouldn't be the first time it's happened that way.
I've certainly heard the theories about an erroneous shutdown of the wrong engine, or an unfilmed second birdstrike in the other engine, leading to them only having one half-working right engine. Personally I find the video footage inconclusive whether or not the left engine is still delivering any thrust or if it was shutdown already during the landing. It does not have the reversers open, that's for sure, but that might also have been caused by them bellylanding on the nacelles.
But even without engines, I'd still say that it would have been a grave error not to deploy what they could when entering the final with obviously more than enough energy left to reach the runway. Their clean configuration resulted in them floating down the runway for ages, and with the gear out they could have plonked the aircraft down without so much care early on the runway, utilising its entire length. With flaps, they could have landed slower, needing less runway. Landing clean just seems like an overall bad decision if they had any choice to avoid that.
But the original bad decision to me was not following through with the initial approach. Sure, under normal circumstances it is always a good idea to go around if you feel something about your approach ain't right. You're not quite established right on the approach, you're getting windshear, you don't have sight before you hit minimums, whatever - just go around, try again, rather than force anything. But when you've just suffered engine damage and are losing power in one or both engines? And you're already all configured and lined up for the runway, on your final seconds of descending to the runway, and only a little over 2km away? Just go through with it, unless the approach was completely botched already. Nothing gets better from staying in the air longer with engine damage.
But really, I should just shut up and wait at least for the preliminary report.
But even without engines, I'd still say that it would have been a grave error not to deploy what they could when entering the final with obviously more than enough energy left to reach the runway. Their clean configuration resulted in them floating down the runway for ages, and with the gear out they could have plonked the aircraft down without so much care early on the runway, utilising its entire length. With flaps, they could have landed slower, needing less runway. Landing clean just seems like an overall bad decision if they had any choice to avoid that.
But the original bad decision to me was not following through with the initial approach. Sure, under normal circumstances it is always a good idea to go around if you feel something about your approach ain't right. You're not quite established right on the approach, you're getting windshear, you don't have sight before you hit minimums, whatever - just go around, try again, rather than force anything. But when you've just suffered engine damage and are losing power in one or both engines? And you're already all configured and lined up for the runway, on your final seconds of descending to the runway, and only a little over 2km away? Just go through with it, unless the approach was completely botched already. Nothing gets better from staying in the air longer with engine damage.
But really, I should just shut up and wait at least for the preliminary report.
No, you should continue. It makes for a very interesting read to hear from those who have a fair bit of knowledge about such stuff, even if it is a bit speculative.