What bothers me the most is the timing of the sequence. Go around I get. But why the rush to get back to the airport? If you had the power to climb for the go around you have the power to climb to a safe altitude to take ten or fifteen minutes to run all the checklists and reconfigure for landing. Did something happen (or was indicated) on that go around that convinced the pilots to land immediately?

This is why it's such a problem that there is no CVR or FDR data for that period, and why pilot training and their evaluations will be so critical IMHO.

Many of the posts i've seen by other commercial pilots are all asking the same questions- why didn't they continue the landing? Why did they do the go around? Did they attempt the go around thinking they had enough power to do so but they didn't actually take the time to check the output from both engines, and once they commenced the go around, they then realised they didn't have enough power to actually do so- hence the tear drop manoeuvre back to the airport as a panic rush job, and turning too early to actually be able touchdown near the start of the runway, and ending up half way down with no flaps, no slats & no under carriage & way too much speed.

And if they realised early on enough to do the tear drop manoeuvre that they didn't have enough power to do a go around properly, why did they do the tear drop manoeuvre instead of ditching in the water that was just 1100 metres from the end of the runway?

And all of us are assuming the bird strike is the only event that happened,

It was most likely the initial cause of the whole sequence of events that led to the crash, but my personal suspicion is that decisions & actions performed by the crew resulted all the other issues that occurred, which led to their following decisions that led to the eventual crash as it occurred (the number of times a crew has shut down the working engine and not the faulty one are way too many).

One rushed/panicked decision probably as a result of a startle response, results in further issues and their alerts and warnings which further cognitively overload the crew leading to further poor decisions and yet more alerts & warnings, and without plenty of altitude to give you time to stop & reset and go through the Quick Reaction Index then there's no hope of recovery...
I don't like to speak ill of the dead, but it's looking more & more like what would have been a landable flight simulator training scenario, becoming a tragedy due to crew shortcomings.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Just seen this, not read it yet, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/bird-feathers-blood-found-two-engines-boeing-jet-that-crashed-south-korea-source-2025-01-17/

Just seen this, not read it yet, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/bird-feathers-blood-found-two-engines-boeing-jet-that-crashed-south-korea-source-2025-01-17/

It will be very interesting to see what comes of the full engine examination.

The real head scratcher with this incident is the timing- 4 minutes before the crash, ADS-B and FDR and CVR all stop functioning- common factor in all devices- electrically powered.
Both engines provide AC & DC power, and there are battery backups for flight control systems.

The aircraft had enough power in order to climb (at least for a short period), turn around, fly back towards where they came from, turn around again and come in to attempt to land, all while maintaining altitude.
While the pilots decisions very well may have lead to the plane crashing instead of landing, it still begs the question- what happened to cause a system wide power failure, even though the engines were still producing thrust??? (one theory is surges causing both generators to trip out (tripping due to frequency excursion), overwhelmed with everything else going on, the flight crew didn't see or recognise that warning amongst all the others & didn't reset the electrical Bus breakers to restore that electrical power).


An interesting and very relevant thread over at PPRuNe (Professional Pilots Rumour Network)
Shutting down the wrong engine

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Shutting down the wrong engine is a repeating story on the Boeing 737...

... So why has that not been fixed?...


Meanwhile, we have no idea yet for this deadly example.

Fly safe folks?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Shutting down the wrong engine is a repeating story on the Boeing 737...

You really, really need to take a few deep breaths and think before you post.
Your personal prejudices really show up when you post on things you have an issue with. It's not just a 737 thing, or even a Boeing thing, it's every multi-engine aircraft in operation regardless of manufacturer.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Shutting down the wrong engine is a repeating story on the Boeing 737...

You really, really need to take a few deep breaths and think before you post.
Your personal prejudices really show up when you post on things you have an issue with. It's not just a 737 thing, or even a Boeing thing, it's every multi-engine aircraft in operation regardless of manufacturer.

+100

PooTin isn't making flying any safer.

Ryanair jet forced to abort landing over mysterious GPS ‘jamming’ near NATO border with Russia.

A Ryanair flight from the UK was forced to abort landing due to a mysterious GPS interference issue near NATO’s border with Russia.

The jet and it’s passengers – who were about to land in Lithuania – were forced to desperately divert to Poland, The Sun reports.

The flight – which departed from London’s Luton airport on Thursday – had started its descent into Vilnius Airport before it made a quick change.

The plane started lowering into the airport before it desperately lifted off again and flew 400 kilometres away into Warsaw, Poland.

A spokesperson for Lithuania’s air navigation confirmed the flight experienced a “GPS signal interference” and the quick decision was made by the pilot......

Shutting down the wrong engine is a repeating story on the Boeing 737...

You really, really need to take a few deep breaths and think before you post.
Your personal prejudices really show up when you post on things you have an issue with. It's not just a 737 thing, or even a Boeing thing, it's every multi-engine aircraft in operation regardless of manufacturer.

Nope...

Look again...

It should be the same risk of confusion for all multi-engine types...

So why has Boeing hit the news more often for that for their Boeing 737?

(And hence why that suspicion has been jumped on so early on...)

Could there be a problem (unnecessary risk/difficulty) due to the procedures and that long outdated 1960's cockpit?...


Fly safe folks?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Cockpit geography may well play a part in shutting down the wrong engine. The location of the "fire" switches is very different between the B737 & A320 families. In both types the main switches are in panels above the pilots and notionally accessible to both pilots. However it would appear that on the B737 these controls are a bit behind the pilots rather than ahead of them on the A320. In part this is down to the shape of the two cockpits, the B737 being relatively long and narrow when compared to the A320 which is generally wider. Crudely both aircraft have the same number of controls in the overhead area, in both the most commonly used controls are near the front, and the less commonly used towards the rear (one would hope that the fire switches are rarely needed). BUT it would appear that the A320 fire switches are more forward than those on the B737.

Here's links to pages that show how the cockpits are laid out:
B737 https://www.aviationhunt.com/b737-cockpit-panels/
A320 https://www.aviationhunt.com/a320-cockpit-panels/

And why? - Its all to do with the way the two types have been certified - by the time the A320 was being certified there was a greater appreciation of ergonomics, while the B737 was based on "frequency of use". It is worth noting that in both types the fire indicator is not close to the fire switches, so one has to "go on a hunt" for the correct switch. What isn't clear to me is, do the switches have repeater lights so making it easier to find the right one?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Shutting down the wrong engine is a repeating story on the Boeing 737...

You really, really need to take a few deep breaths and think before you post.
Your personal prejudices really show up when you post on things you have an issue with. It's not just a 737 thing, or even a Boeing thing, it's every multi-engine aircraft in operation regardless of manufacturer.

Nope...

Look again...

Perhaps you should only 1/7 are Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_caused_by_wrong_engine_shutdown

When you find that exhaustive list you are going to find most are going to be prop jobs. The problem of improper identification and/or control application is universal to flight and startle factor.

The problem of improper identification and/or control application is universal to flight and startle factor.

Yes. Completely so.

So why does Boeing keep to a known out-dated layout that doesn't help the pilots for difficult dangerous startling high stress procedures...

Why keep the dangers unnecessarily dangerous for the startled pilots?


Fly safe?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So why has Boeing hit the news more often for that for their Boeing 737?

Are you really that stupid??? Really???
I post about one particular issue- wrong engine shut down. And here you are claiming that Boeing hit the news more often for that issue- when it is not the case. Many of the incidents have been in turbo prop aircraft, which Boeing haven't produced since around the 1950's (i think it was).

As for the frequency of B737 incidents- it's the single longest production aircraft, so there are more of them flying more miles than any other commercial aircraft, and many of them are older than other aircraft & so are now still flying for companies in countries that have less than stellar maintenance & pilot training records.
Anyone with the slightest comprehension of statistics would be able to comprehend that even the safest of aircraft in huge numbers compared to the un-safest of aircraft in extremely small numbers would still have the highest absolute number of incidents in total. Even if it's number of incidents per year, or hours flown or miles flown is significantly more than the un-safest aircraft

And many of Boeing's issues have been over the last decade, only a very small percentage of their total production over the years. So even if their current safety record is way, way, way worse than even you seem to think it is, it makes up such a small percentage of their overall record that it is still an excellent safety record.

You really should seek professional help to deal with your extreme personal biases as they are definitely impacting on your ability to actually comprehend real facts.
You really do continue to make some ridiculous statements- this post & your previous one are perfect examples of that problem.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

The problem of improper identification and/or control application is universal to flight and startle factor.

Yes. Completely so.

So why does Boeing keep to a known out-dated layout that doesn't help the pilots for difficult dangerous startling high stress procedures...

Why keep the dangers unnecessarily dangerous for the startled pilots?

Oh for %%^#&k sake!
WTF do you single out Boing for an issue for which their aircraft are in the minority of incidents. If you were really concerned about safety, you' be pushing for the ergonomics to be improved on the aircraft that have the highest incidences of issues.
Oh, and BTW- even on those aircraft that have had such changes implemented, wrong engine shutdown still occurs.

Here you are, not understanding the most basic of facts- the major cause of the issue is not one of cabin ergonomics, but human behaviour under stress.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

There is the Boeing Marketing excuse that out of all the millions of miles that Boeing aircraft have flown over the lifetime of the company, the chances of one of those miles being the one to kill you is a 'million-to-one' chance... You take your chances?

Except... It isn't the miles that kill you. It's getting onto that particular doomed flight...

So... How do the flight numbers compare?... (I believe that Boeing doesn't do so well on that for the Boeing 737...)


Regarding the problem for the pilots for shutting down the wrong engine on a Boeing, read for yourself from the first page of a DuckDuck internet search:

• Boeing 737 - Kegworth - Why would experienced pilots shut down the wrong engine?
  
  
• Transair 737 ditching inquiry reveals pilots’ uncertainty over failed engine
  
  
• Boeing 737-800 - Investigation Blames Pilot Error For Smartwings Engine Shutdown Incident
  

Also, this came up which highlights the dangers of poor ergonomics:

INADVERTENT ENGINE SHUTOFF PROMPTS F.A.A. ORDER ON BOEING 767'S


Enjoy your Marketing spin?

There is no denying that the Boeing cockpit follows a 1960's layout that has been shown to be deficient compared to the latest and safer cockpit design. Over half a century of deadly learnt lessons continue to be ignored by Boeing for their 737...


Fly safe?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Now...

Did this spook the pilots in South Korea?...


FAA Examines Boeing 737 Smoke Risks After Bird Strikes
wrote:

U.S. aviation regulators are examining whether pilots of Boeing's 737 Max planes should take new precautions, following two incidents in which planes were filled with smoke after large birds struck the engines...

... In both instances, damage to the fan blades ... “These engine failures occurred during a critical phase of flight and were further compounded by the immediate presence of smoke and fumes associated with the severe engine damage entering either the flight deck or the cabin through the air conditioning system,”...

... A spokesperson for Boeing said the planemaker is working with the authorities that are investigating the incidents. “We continue to follow regulatory processes..."

Fly safe folks!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Here's links to pages that show how the cockpits are laid out:
B737 https://www.aviationhunt.com/b737-cockpit-panels/
A320 https://www.aviationhunt.com/a320-cockpit-panels/

Thanks, for posting these URLs!

There is the Boeing Marketing excuse that out of all the millions of miles that Boeing aircraft have flown over the lifetime of the company, the chances of one of those miles being the one to kill you is a 'million-to-one' chance... You take your chances?

Except... It isn't the miles that kill you. It's getting onto that particular doomed flight...

And you ignore all the other incidents on non-Boeing aircraft.
You really are beyond reasonable hope.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

And you ignore all the other incidents on non-Boeing aircraft.

Please look that up to compare comparable passenger airliners and freighters. There is a very good comparison chart out there on the internet that highlights the differences between old and new designs, Boeing and Airbus and others.

All very illuminating...


Fly safe folks!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

All very illuminating...

Like Tesla's that drive onto railroad tracks because they look like roads. That's what happens when you put a computer in charge. And the computer can't figure out the error was a few decisions ago, it blindly thinks everything that happened in the past is correct and can't revisit its decision chain.

The startle factor is huge, like 99% huge. FAA ATP's must retrain on a fairly frequent basis. Other countries, who knows.

Dead foot, dead engine, but what happens to that if the yaw damper is on?

BTW if they pulled the bottle wouldn't there have been some rather obvious signs? If we are hearing about bird feathers in the engine ...

I fully think when the electric failed on both sides the panic set in - too many simultaneous problems - we have a runway in sight, get this bird on the ground. And none of us knows if they were watching hydraulic pressure drop fast because of ruptured lines.

This gives a very good summary of why that 1960's installed cockpit is going to continue to be manufactured for decades yet:

What Will All-Boeing-737 Airlines Do When There Are No New 737 Variants?


There's some very good comments in that article.

What does it take to take advantage of 60 years of improved operations and improved safety?...

Or...


Fly safe folks?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)