this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
202 points (97.6% liked)

World News

39465 readers
2737 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (5 children)

This crash is very strange to me. No flaps (even if hydraulics fail, there's electrical backup), no gear (there's gravity extension backup), landed way down the runway (9000' should have been plenty, gear up landing has been done in shorter distances)... what happened?

My guess at the moment: bird strike made the pilots panic, they didn't ensure the plane was in the correct configuration when attempting the second landing, and tried to put it down soft and ended up going long?

What do I know though, I'm not a pilot, just a fan of disasters and flight simulation. Guess I'll have to see what blancolirio has to say.

Edit: Juan Browne, aka Blancolirio on YouTube finally posted a video on this, probably some of the best insight we'll get at this early stage.

[–] CMahaff 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't know enough to say if it's a valid theory, but I saw one commenter suggest this scenario:

  • Bird strike takes out 1 engine.
  • Wrong engine is shut off by the pilots by mistake (now both engines aren't operating)
  • Without engine power, hydraulic systems stop working properly
  • Pilots realize their mistake too late while trying to do a go around, try to land instead farther down the runway since they can't climb.
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I’m inclined to believe hydraulics were functioning based on the stabilized approach. The recent Azeri plane crash is what it looks like when you have no hydraulics. Granted, different planes, 737 NG has manual control, but it’d be difficult. Aside from a little shimmy the approach was good, especially considering they whipped a 180 after that first landing attempt on runway 01. The plane seemed to be well in control.

Also of note, there doesn’t appear to be any rudder applied on the approach, so one engine out seems to not be the case. They also tracked straight down the centerline so no asymmetric thrust. This would imply they either had both engines or no engines. I’m hesitant to believe both engines were out due to the speed they had after scraping down the runway, with the nose in the air.

I’m wondering if they got task saturated after the bird strike and quick go around 180, didn’t hear the “too low, gear” warning, then got spooked from the scrape and attempted a go around like that PIA crash. The initial tail strike happened way earlier on the runway, they floated for a long time after that initial contact.

Altogether very strange. Definitely a lot of Swiss cheese holes aligning in a terrible way. Very curious to see what’s recovered from the FDR and CVR.

[–] krimson 9 points 6 days ago

Way too fast as well it looks like. Maybe both engines failed and it was the last possibility to get it down. RIP. Last moments must have been awful, especially for the pilots who saw that wall coming ..

[–] Maggoty 1 points 6 days ago

I'm wondering if they were even able to setup properly for the second landing. Assume competent pilots and the wheels, flaps, and reversers cannot deploy. Was the second engine even actually working? The video we have is them already on the ground. So it makes me wonder if we're looking at the alternate scenario of having landed in the Hudson.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don’t think whatever electrical backup has enough power to deploy flaps at landing or near landing speeds.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

737 NG alt flaps work up to 230 knots, well above landing speed. Landing with hydraulics out is the primary function of the alt flaps system. It's really slow, however, so flaps 15 is typically the most they use.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I didn't find the speed rating for the alt flaps, but I was able to verify that it is an electrical system backup

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1481455

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

You know what? I like the C152 better. It’s color coded around the speedometer.

[–] Blackrook7 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Looks like I'm wrong.

[–] kautau 1 points 1 week ago

Not a 737 Max, but again, another Boeing plane whereas I haven’t seen a fatal airbus accident in ages. It may not have been the plane at all and may have completely been pilot error, but still doesn’t look great to see another fatal 737 accident