Airliner Crash Landing, South Korea - 179 killed

.

 

Preliminary Analysis ....... WHY ISN'T THE LANDING GEAR DOWN??? at the very least >>> THREE hydraulic systems PLUS manual gravity drop!



.
Blancolirio


.

 

Why were the gear, flaps and slats up, after the flaps had been down earlier?

 

Looks like he landed long, too.

 

And who put a concrete wall there for a plane to explode upon? Just seems dumb that it was a solid wall and not a standard security fence like most airports use.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Agreed. Why was the tail down? this keeps the wing lifting. If the nose gear failed , he should have had the nose down and landing flaps full down. I'm not a real ace but I think that I am but this looks like bad flying to me.

 

Here is the latest theory. Bird strike on approach. Engine malfunctions. Crew retracts flaps and does a go around. By mistake they switch off the wrong engine. Too low to do another fly around.Too late to restart or use the APU. Too late to pull lever to manually release gear. They head in and take their chances. Plane is too fast and ground effects down most of the runway. Plane hits the dirt at about 160 MPH.

Only 7 minutes from the bird strike until it hit the runway. High stress in the cabin.

The concrete barrier was there because there as a luxury hotel built on the beach in the path of the runway. I believe this airport is new and barely used so not much experience from the flight crews.

Of course we need the data boxes but it does make some weird sense.

 

A pretty good walkthrough of what may have happened:

 

Is this another case of placing an aircraft in the hands of computer operators and not pilots?

 

Refined speculation:

 

YES!

 

Just like San Francisco, except way more casualties.

 

whaaat??? ree-dik-u-lus! .......... cover-up!? .... conspiracy!?



.

 

huh never knew about Airbus 320 "Ram Air Turbine" that drops down to power a backup hydraulic pump, which the Boeing doesn't have.
Pretty cool.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

With loss of main power the Airbus can extend flaps using the main flap handle, whereas the pilot of an older Boeing needs to activate separate switches.
In addition to separate, backup activation system for landing gear.
Lot to keep track of while just trying to keep a wounded plane in the air long enough to set down somewhere relatively safe.

 

Boeing does have a RAT. It sounds like a P-51 when it is driven.

 

My understanding is that while larger Boeings have a RAT, the 737 does not.

(The RAT came in very handy on the "Gimli Glider" 767, which I now own a small piece of, thanks to PlaneTags!)

 

Airbus needs the RAT because the airplane can't be controlled without hydraulic pressure. Not so for the 737.

 

Does the 737 also have backup electrical hydraulic pumps that can be powered by the APU in-flight?

 

I'm not a 737 guy, so I don't know. But it does have a way to lower the gear without hydraulics at all, so I don't think there is anything that is absolutely critical to flight that is hydraulically powered.

 

and the RAT saved 306 lives on the A330, 'Azores Glider', in 2001. (65 mile 'glide')
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

Ram Air Turbine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine

.

 

The 737 has a special battery for the black boxes. Someone would have to hit the battery master switch to turn off that battery. Sounds like a lot of mistakes were made by the crew after a flock of birds were sucked into one of the engines, maybe both?

 

Video I posted above says both 737 and A320 have pull-wires near the floor in case of hyd loss that release gear and gravity does the rest.