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.
I get it's probably very expensive but surely it should be mandatory soon considering how much money goes into plane safety
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.
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.
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).
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,
So it's not the model with the many accidents?
It's not the 'famous' model from the past few years.
Ah, ok. Thanks
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.
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.
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.
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.
All good!
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.
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.
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.
