Twice failed take-off in Bangkok

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/passengers-fearful-of-crash-left-in-a-panic-after-terrifying-boeing-737-800-flight-fails-to-take-off-twice/ar-AA1wS9lw


.

I was on a flight out of Atlanta once that had two failed take-off attempts. We returned to the terminal and de-planed. Unnerving.

Many open questions on this South Korea crash. Very interesting.

I had read the plane, didn’t reach the concrete wall, but hit the raised berm. I was surprised a dirt berm would do as much damage as it did, but the picture below shows a thick slab of concrete on top. That would do it.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1735920177.jpg

It amazes me a modern runway would have a dirt bearm or concrete wall or solid building at the end of it . You have to anticipate at some point an emergency landing will be needed . I know there is only so much land available but shouldn't there be a gravel trap or catch net or something other than a solid object ?

Just seems really stupid to me . Common sense tells you this airplane had a decent chance of survival if it could have skidded a longer distance . Obviously no guarantees but a much better chance than hitting a solid object . I am interested to hear what the final investigation report states what happened .

Maybe the berm was there because of the busy highway beyond it?

You may be right but maybe a runway shouldn't line you up to hit a highway . And if the work around is for a aircraft to hit the bearm that is a fail in my eyes .

In the Juan Brown debrief he stated that the berm was installed to elevate the instruments to avoid damage due to regular flooding during typhoons. They need to rethink this.

They had multiple bird strikes. Both engines were affected. In the video that's on the internet showing the footage pf the plane passing overhead and significant surges on the number two engine (and 1 on the number 1 engine) the plane has already started its go-around. They had an initial bird strike, called out the mayday and stowed the gear and flaps, then had this second event.

They lost electrical power at some point, as several things went off-line and never came back on.

When they landed, number 2 was still spooled up and had significant exhaust plume visible, number 1 had no visible exhaust plume, so may have been shut down. A 737 will climb on one good engine, so maybe number 2 wasn't healthy.

When they went past the camera, you could hear at least one engine thrusting away and the number 2 reverser was at least partially deployed.

Because they initially touched down at such a high speed, I think they had 130-150 knots of speed left when they left the runway.

I haven’t seen the go around video. If they had one usable engine then this never should have happened.

Something caused the rapid return. Panic or loss of power. If they had second strike on number 2 after an initial failure on number 1 that would explain either scenario. Bad luck on the landing direction as the other end of the runway lacked the berm.

Start at 5:30 in this video:

https://youtu.be/jisuCIsjb-A

It was shot by a guy that was in a building near the shore past the end of the runway. It shows the plane mostly cleaned up in the GA, suffering multiple birdstrikes. Th initial birdstrikes were when the plane was on final, with gear and flaps down.

Thanks, obviously ingested a bird in the RH engine.

This is the altitude and vertical speed data of the initial approach. I've placed an arrow where I estimate the original birdstrike occurred. A little under a minute later they arrest their descent. The ADS-B data quits a short time later and never comes back on line.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1735936850.jpg

This shows the initial flight path descent overlaying a satellite view. The red arrow points towards the threshold of runway 01. View is looking east. The building where the GA video was shot is near the shoreline, west of the runway threshold. The plane wasn't quite directly overhead when the video was shot, keep in mind a second birdstrike occurred near where the guy was filming.

The blue arrow shows about where the initial descent was arrested.

The initial birdstrike is off the screen to the right (yellow arrow.)


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1735937626.jpg

Quite a few. At least 5 surges visible from number 2 in that one strike.

Some of the (enhanced) videos show really large flocks of birds, maybe smaller than the geese that they also have there. I think they may have initially passed through one of those flocks.

There's one broadcast on Korean TV that was taken from 4km to the left of the flight path that shows several flocks flying around as the plane passes by them.

One of the engines being recovered, I think it's number 2.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1735937970.jpg

Yeah how about a field of loose gravel or something else to decelerate…

If you get a bird strike on final approach, lined up with gear and flaps down, is the normal response to abort and go around, or to continue with the landing?

The EMAS system is common at US airports: https://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/incursions_excursions/emas

Also worth noting, the placement of the berm/wall and ILS would not have been allowed at a US airport.

It's a time/no time decision. Do we have an issue that we can resolve by running checklists on a go around or are there cascading events and unknown unknowns that suggest putting her on the ground right now, even ugly?

We don't yet know exactly what they were facing. Possible smoke in the cockpit, possibly both engines damaged, possible hydraulic failure. The more I review the various preliminary debriefs, the more questions I have. Clearly in this case the go around didn't work out but it is hard to speculate on the decision tree they were facing. I'd like to think that from a stabilized approach I would have just set her down, but I was not there in the moment.

No black boxes. This just gets weirder.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-boxes-crashed-south-korean-062123532.html