Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Major Nikon

(36,921 posts)

23. They were able to climb which means at least one of the engines was making power at least initially

Reply to EX500rider (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 31, 2024, 10:28 AM

Dec 2024

There's evidence of a compressor stall on one engine, but not the other. Seems possible, if not likely the other engine sustained damage which is why they opted for an immediate return. What I think happened was the other engine had massive blade damage and was vibrating so badly they didn't know how long it was going to hang in there. In that situation I would have done exactly as they did which was to initiate an immediate return and if you think the other engine is going to fail on short final you don't put the flaps or gear down. I think it's entirely possible, if not likely they did everything right. Regardless what doomed them was the very stupid airport design.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

179 dead in South Korea's worst plane crash in years [View all] EX500rider Dec 2024 OP

Maybe South Korea need to have Falconers to work the Airports Oneear Dec 2024 #1

Video of the /landing/crash: EX500rider Dec 2024 #2

Mayday went out 4 minutes before the crash. LudwigPastorius Dec 2024 #13

Looks like flaps are down in the bird strike/compressor stall vid EX500rider Dec 2024 #14

Yeah I suspect there may have been some tunnel vision over engine restart... EX500rider Dec 2024 #15

DEAR GOD!..Didn't they have time to foam the runway?..I guess probably not. chouchou Dec 2024 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author bamagal62 Dec 2024 #10

In this case foaming the runway would have extended the slide, not helpful in this case IMO EX500rider Dec 2024 #11

Tragic. bamagal62 Dec 2024 #12

The left vid here seems to capture the bird strike in the right engine: EX500rider Dec 2024 #4

Some speculation that the gear up was a oversight: EX500rider Dec 2024 #5

The video of the crash is horrific. Jacson6 Dec 2024 #6

Another view of the landing from the other side EX500rider Dec 2024 #7

If it's Boeing . . . Richard D Dec 2024 #8

737-800 has a generally strong safety record, largely due to mature technology. EX500rider Dec 2024 #9

I'm thinking electrical problem jmowreader Dec 2024 #16

That would require no engines, no APU and bad backup batteries? EX500rider Dec 2024 #18

737 pilot gave a synopsis: EX500rider Dec 2024 #17

It's pretty much a given more people would have survived had the berm not been there Major Nikon Dec 2024 #19

While i agree... EX500rider Dec 2024 #20

The antennas almost certainly were mounted on frangible supports Major Nikon Dec 2024 #21

Yeah but they were already on approach.. EX500rider Dec 2024 #22

They were able to climb which means at least one of the engines was making power at least initially Major Nikon Dec 2024 #23

I understand them wanting to keep the hull clean to extend glide... EX500rider Dec 2024 #25

From the time of the mayday call to crash was only 2-3 mins Major Nikon Jan 2025 #27

Well I'd say as soon as possible would have been before the go around.. EX500rider Jan 2025 #28

This was posted over at Airliners.net: EX500rider Jan 11 #30

Crazy year for air crashes RazorbackExpat Dec 2024 #24

Very sad Demovictory9 Dec 2024 #26

Well the crash investigation just got a lot harder: EX500rider Jan 11 #29