FobTies said:

---

Maybe an "aviator" would have seen or known about that big dirt pile and crash landed elsewhere. But IF we find out the landing gear malfunctioned due to lack of maint or otherwise, not much else an aviator could do.

---

I am no pilot but pilots are supposed to in preflight go over destination airport so they are aware of potential obstacles. Probably another failure by the flight crew although that is probably well down on the list.

If so, you would think the airport might have some liability. A bunch of pilots continually documenting an obstacle as a safety concern that shouldn't be there.

Well, he could have landed somewhere else if the gear wouldn't drop

FobTies said:

---

If so, you would think the airport might have some liability. A bunch of pilots continually documenting an obstacle as a safety concern that shouldn't be there.

---

Yeah it's a horribly stupid design that lacks common sense.

I guess I remember seeing one video where one of the things contributing to a close call, I don't think a crash happened was some of the instrumentation for ILS I believe was solar power so since the airport had a lot of bad weather recently it had no power…

This is one accident investigation report I really want to read. Even with a bird strike and an engine out, the way it played out just does not make sense.

Just a guess at this point, but I believe that the pilots may have shut down the wrong engine after the plane ingested birds into the right hand engine (No. 2 engine). The sudden loss of meaningful thrust turned the plane into a glider and the pilots attempted to land without having the plane configured to land.

Or possibly both engines were affected but only the starboard one was visibly so, and the port engine was non operational, leading them to go around quickly instead of taking more time to set up. It could also explain why there wasn't gear or the change in flaps if they had very little power from one damaged engine and hydraulics go out before the gear can be dropped.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Or possibly both engines were affected but only the starboard one was visibly so, and the port engine was non operational, leading them to go around quickly instead of taking more time to set up. It could also explain why there wasn't gear or the change in flaps if they had very little power from one damaged engine and hydraulics go out before the gear can be dropped.

---

No they don't need hydraulics to drop landing gear.

Yeah, saw that in the video, but it helps. Maybe they didn't think they had the thrust to dare to drop it for some reason? Or maybe they didn't think they had time to manually lower it? CVR should reveal a lot.

Gear have uplocks. Pilots can manually disengage the up locks and the gear drop due to gravity. I'm guessing there is some locking mechanism that fail safe locks them in place after falling.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Or possibly both engines were affected but only the starboard one was visibly so, and the port engine was non operational, leading them to go around quickly instead of taking more time to set up. It could also explain why there wasn't gear or the change in flaps if they had very little power from one damaged engine and hydraulics go out before the gear can be dropped.

---

Isn't the gear on a 737 gravity deployed with a hydraulic throttle to control descent?

Do we think they had already started the go around when the first video from the hotel showing the bird strike was taken? I found the hotel on google maps and it's directly south of the airport, barely 1000m from the threshold of the runway: https://maps.app.goo.gl/24ji4kNwweg4frnB7
The balcony glass and scenery match so I think that has to be it. I was wondering if the video was mirrored given the touchdown video shows the right engine still running, but this seems to prove the video isn't mirrored and that was the right engine


Perhaps a secondary bird strike that just happened to be the one caught on camera?

Nothing of this makes any sense to me.

IF they pulled the fire handle for the #2 (starboard) then the reverse thrust doors should not have been open. I didn't know (and I from Blancolirio's video, he had to go digging for it) that they will in face operate without weight on wheel indication.

So did they think they were on fire? Did they potentially shut down the good/non-degraded engine? (There was a 737 years ago that crashed when the flight crew didn't know a new model had two air conditioning systems and shut down a working engine). Did they take dual bird strikes?

So were they a complete, Sully style, bi-lateral loss of power? Sure seems like they had plenty of energy when they came it. Would need to see their descent rate though. A dead stick should be a faster descent. Still, why not manually release the gear?

A whole bunch of unanswered questions here.

The reverse thrust lockout seems like a good idea since there is never a reason to reverse thrust in flight.

However, if the plane driver doesn't understand this, they might just press all of the buttons and run the throttles up like reverse thrust is enabled without the gear down.

Tag77 said:

---

I saw a TicTock clip of a passenger filming what looked like the left engine. The fire coming out of the back of the engine looked like the tip of a welder's torch. You could see the plane was skidding. Did the pilot forget to turn off that engine?

---

That sounds like the landing gear failure a couple days ago and the nacelle dragging the runway. If the camera pans to inside the camera with a kid on tablet undistracted than thats it. Not an engine fire.

SirDippinDots said:

---

FobTies said:

---

If so, you would think the airport might have some liability. A bunch of pilots continually documenting an obstacle as a safety concern that shouldn't be there.

---

Yeah it's a horribly stupid design that lacks common sense.

I guess I remember seeing one video where one of the things contributing to a close call, I don't think a crash happened was some of the instrumentation for ILS I believe was solar power so since the airport had a lot of bad weather recently it had no power…

---

If you google earth, even if that dirt barrier had not been there, would only have bought them another hundred yards maybe before crashing into a concrete perimeter fence surrounding the airport. At the speed they were going, does it really matter? Plane would have still crashed into an unforgiving barrier.

The plane would have slid right through that cinder block wall with a crumpled nose and kept going mostly intact. Maybe sheared off the wings, could have gotten messy but the fuselage I think would remain in one piece. Much smaller cars and trucks regularly crash through building walls and the occupants often escape major injury.

A giant berm of earth, however, can't just be crashed through. It weighs many many tons and the plane structure can't just push through it, so it crumpled and burned.

TexasRebel said:

---

The reverse thrust lockout seems like a good idea since there is never a reason to reverse thrust in flight.

However, if the plane driver doesn't understand this, they might just press all of the buttons and run the throttles up like reverse thrust is enabled without the gear down.

---

The throttles don't move with reverse thrust

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The plane would have slid right through that cinder block wall with a crumpled nose and kept going mostly intact. Maybe sheared off the wings, could have gotten messy but the fuselage I think would remain in one piece. Much smaller cars and trucks regularly crash through building walls and the occupants often escape major injury.

A giant berm of earth, however, can't just be crashed through. It weighs many many tons and the plane structure can't just push through it, so it crumpled and burned.

---

Likely still explodes into a big fireball. Also major differences in CMU block wall construction. At most they sit on CIP footer with embedded vertical rebar extending thru the voids, which are then sometimes filled with concrete. At minimal just mortared to each other.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Nothing of this makes any sense to me.

IF they pulled the fire handle for the #2 (starboard) then the reverse thrust doors should not have been open. I didn't know (and I from Blancolirio's video, he had to go digging for it) that they will in face operate without weight on wheel indication.

So did they think they were on fire? Did they potentially shut down the good/non-degraded engine? (There was a 737 years ago that crashed when the flight crew didn't know a new model had two air conditioning systems and shut down a working engine). Did they take dual bird strikes?

So were they a complete, Sully style, bi-lateral loss of power? Sure seems like they had plenty of energy when they came it. Would need to see their descent rate though. A dead stick should be a faster descent. Still, why not manually release the gear?

A whole bunch of unanswered questions here.

---

Sure looked from the video that the right engine (birds) was producing thrust on landing. Exhaust coming out heavily and when it landed I'm pretty sure one of the engines was still going strong.

Exactly. That engine was running.

I can't seem to get past the idea that this flight crew quickly got way out of bounds with their capabilities. I almost didn't care how many hours a pilot has. A pilot can fly thousands and thousands of uneventful hours but his or her career can ultimately be judged by a precious few minutes.

All current indication I've seen is a single engine bird strike with associated compressor stall. This would of course result in sitting an engine down and performing a single engine landing. These are most likely some quick memory items, then some very well rehearsed checklists. I'm pretty sure every simulator trip will do some single engine operations.

Do we know who was pilot flying vs who was pilot monitoring?

Them shutting down the wrong engine is still the only explanation I can think of for them to come in gear up, and even then they could have put the gear down

GAC06 said:

---

Them shutting down the wrong engine is still the only explanation I can think of for them to come in gear up, and even then they could have put the gear down

---

So hit birds, misread what the plane/instruments were telling them, shut down wrong engine, continue to observe problems, and subsequently got way out over their skis while going off script or down a rabbit hole of wrong checklists.

GAC06 said:

---

Them shutting down the wrong engine is still the only explanation I can think of for them to come in gear up, and even then they could have put the gear down

---

Dumb question, but if there was a massive hydraulic failure, would you have full brakes?

Short answer, yes and mostly.

There are the hydraulic pumps that are run from the engines themselves, then there's is an electric pump that can generate hydraulic pressure just at slower rates. Then there is an accumulator that holds pressure that can be used to apply the brakes.

JB!98 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Them shutting down the wrong engine is still the only explanation I can think of for them to come in gear up, and even then they could have put the gear down

---

Dumb question, but if there was a massive hydraulic failure, would you have full brakes?

---

Yeah they should have brakes even with both systems failed

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Short answer, yes and mostly.

There are the hydraulic pumps that are run from the engines themselves, then there's is an electric pump that can generate hydraulic pressure just at slower rates. Then there is an accumulator that holds pressure that can be used to apply the brakes.

---

Thanks to you and GAC. I guess even diminished braking is better than what they had. Just so strange all the way around.

A bit of info on the manual gear release on the 737-800.

There was an ATR crash a couple of years ago I think...the infamous one where the poor guy was live streaming the landing on Facebook.

A FULL minute went by front the time the first officer incorrectly feathered the throttles before they crashed. The PIC even remarked how the plane had no thrust and was struggling to maintain airspeed.

The PIC had asked for flaps but the throttles were feathered instead. I have no doubt some dumb crap went down by those two pilots in the 738.

Logos Stick said:

---

Dumb question perhaps... Why not reverse thrust?

---

Reverse thrust on starboard side appeared to be deployed.

PA24 said:

---

No landing gear, no roll out hence shorter runway needed.
Pilot came in too fast, IMHO

---

Landed with tail wind.

akaggie05 said:

---

A bit of info on the manual gear release on the 737-800.

---

Yes there re cables actuated by hand movement to release or lower the gear. YT pilot I subscribe to says he doubt they got to that on the check list.

JayM said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Dumb question perhaps... Why not reverse thrust?

---

Reverse thrust on starboard side appeared to be deployed.

---

Well, the ports were viewable, but the thrust vectoring panels had been sheared off, so that engine was contributing forward thrust and countering any friction of the ground slowing them down.

If reverse thrust is even an option with the gear up.