Harsh Jones

The 737 has 60 minutes of backup electrical power, supplied by 2 main system batteries. The the event that all fuel is lost, for both engines and the APU, there is an hours worth of electrical power to run all the electrical systems. The battery people are talking about in the news is something separate when the aircraft breaks up or is at the bottom of the ocean. That battery is there to run the pinger and is not relevant to an intact aircraft.

The engines are the RAT. The engines generate power when they windmill.

That is incorrect The 737NG has two 24 volt nickel–cadmium batteries, one main and one auxiliary, located in the electronics compartment. The auxiliary battery operates in parallel with the main battery when powering the standby system. The batteries can power all systems for 60 minutes. A dual engine failure does not lead to instantaneous loss of electrical power. The B737 flight controls are hydraulically powered. There are three hydraulic systems: System A, System B, and Standby. Only one main system (A or B) is required for hydraulically flying the aircraft, during normal operation they are both operational. The two main hydraulic systems have an Engine Driven Pump (EDP), which can continue delivering hydraulic pressure when the associated engine is windmilling. All three hydraulic systems are also powered by their own Electric Motor Driven Pump (EMDP). In case of dual engine failure the APU can power the electrical systems for the EMDPs, still delivering full hydraulic power. If the fuel has run out and the APU cannot operate, two batteries provide at least 60 minutes of backup power for the electrical systems. The EDMPs can be powered in this stage, however they provide a high load.

This is a compete fantasy. There is 2 main battery systems to run everything in the event that both engines , APU and RAT fail. Plus a wind milling engine can generate power. How could you possibly think that a 2 engine failure will lead to no electical power instantaneously? Even your car has electrical power after it runs out of gas

Now some ppl are saying that the dual engine failure caused all power to be lost. This of course , is nonsense. There is 2 separate battery systems in the aircraft that can run everything in the event that both engines are out and even if the APU is out. Wind milling engines also still can generate power. There's also some nonsense in the news about how this aircraft didn't have a data box battery. This is irrelevant. Those batteries are for when an aircraft breaks up and is sitting at the bottom of the ocean. It runs the pinger so the box can be found. It is not there to have power backup for when engines are out. It amazes me how many people think an aircraft will have no electrical power bevause the engines broke down.

Comments: I’m a mechanic for many years on 737-800. There is no reason they will stop recording, They work on battery power also The APU is a one flick of the finger start that takes around 30 seconds. No idea unless circuit breakers are pulled. This is very strange. That was always going to happen, the loss of face to have such a monumental cock up laid bare for the world to see would’ve been unforgivable.

I can accept that all of those things failed. And even with that , crash landing the aircraft is not the right course of action. Because that's what they did. It was a crash landing. I've watched hundreds of hours of flight crash investigations. I can tell who the commenters are who've barely watched any. It is almost comical that you think that a basic technical problem or even 2 or 3 serious technical problems would be grounds to crash land an aircraft. It doesn't work like that at all. Hey, no hydraulics. gotta crash land. Engine out , gotta crash land. 2 engines out , gotta crash land. Nothing short of uncontrolled fire in the flight deck is a reason to crash land. Things go wrong with aircraft all the time. And the reason flying is safe is because you almost never have to crash land.

He didn't mean that losing that engine means losing gear hydraulic pressure. That would mean there's no redundancy which is clearly untrue. Even with both engines and the RaT out , there's nitrogen charged accumulators. Im not trying to throw the pilots under the bus. I'm just stating the obvious. Things go wrong with aircraft all the time. And crash landing is never on the checklist.

He doesn't say that at all. What are you talking about ? He says that the primary feed for the landing gear happens to be on the same side as the engine that went out. He does not say that this means they couldn't get the gear down. Both sides are connected all the time. Both sides are redundant to each other At 23:30 he says it was quite "terrible airmanship and terrible judgment and there is NO reason to rush like this." And he says the 737 "flies beautifully" on one engine Then he follows it up by saying there's 20,000 bird strikes a year in North America alone. And then at 26:50 he says "all of this was apparently caused by very very poor decision making by the pilots" And you think a bird strike basically took a plane. Nonsense.

A former air-force pilot and current commercial pilots take. At 11:50 he says "have you run the numbers?". He meant that literally. You have to run the numbers.

There's no way that this happened. It just isn't possible. Anyone who's taken an interest in this topic and has watched some crash investigations knows that this isn't what happened. I wouldn't even fly if I thought this was remotely possible. Perfectly flyable aircraft have been crashed many times due to mistakes and unfortunate situations in the cockpit. South Korean Asiana Air 214 being a recent example. 3 captains and one first officer and they crashed an aircraft with nothing wrong with it. The investigation by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the (Asiana Air 214) accident was caused by the flight crew's mismanagement of the airplane's final approach. Deficiencies in Boeing's documentation of complex flight control systems and in Asiana Airlines' pilot training were also cited as contributory factors.[ And these pilots did not have a perfectly flyable aircraft. They had one engine out. Which is still a flyable aircraft but it just introduced a lot of variance for them. These pilots took off at literally 2 am. 2 am is the most out of sync time to be awake. Pilot error is more than likely the cause of the crash.

I am unsure why they were so quick to do a go-around after the bird strike. An aircraft is hit by birds while on final approach to land - should the pilot continue the approach or initiate a go around/missed approach? Having encountered birds, the question to be answered is "what is the damage to the aircraft and what effect will this have on the safe conduct of the flight?". The full extent of any damage, to the engines and/or the control surfaces and landing gear, may not be apparent until applying power, configuring, or manoeuvring the aircraft. It might therefore be the case that, if a go-around is initiated, the pilots rapidly find themselves in a situation where the runway is disappearing beneath them but the aircraft cannot safely fly a missed approach. Therefore, in the above scenario, it is advisable to continue the approach and land.

A pilots take which is similar to what I have been saying all along Surely I cannot be the only professional aviator wading through this thread thinking that the whole "berm debate" is...superfluous? In what world does landing unconfigured more than halfway down a runway carrying a tremendous amount of energy NOT have a bad outcome? While airport design of course has a role to play in overall safety, ultimately it is OUR job (speaking to other actual pilots, please, not simmers and enthusiasts) to keep the operation within the lines. This wasn't marginally outside those lines. In that light the endless ruminating about The Berm is pointless when I'd wager every actual working pilot is quietly mulling how they never want to perform this "landing", and wanting to know what combination of technical and human factors led to the aircraft being in the aforementioned state. The placement of the obstacle was tragically unfortunate but the allocation of discussion to it is astonishingly misplaced.

This is most likely what happened. An accident that will end up being similar in the way that they reacted to the bird strike.

Perfectly good runway ? The runway is only useful if you land within the minimum distance available. They weren't even close. That is one of the golden rules of airmanship. Why ? We can see with this accident why. So again, no technical fault, nothing, will be a good enough reason to do what they did. It is like aborting a landing after V1. The golden rule.

None of this technical stuff is relevant. Any pilot following any checklist would not have had any aircraft in this state at this part of any runway. If everything was lost (it wasn't, we can clearly see the aircraft was trimmed , flying inline with the runway), the procedure is ditching on water. The aircraft didn't just happen to descend to stall speed at this point in the runway. It was flown and landed there.

I will repeat, nothing justifies dropping the aircraft short on the runway like they did. Not even a 2 engine flame out. Whenever there is no other options left, ditching is the procedure. And it would be in their checklist. Pilots are supposed to be robotic and are trained to be. They would have followed the shoreline until they bled off sufficient speed and then ditch the aircraft. Ditching is a proper procedure in an emergency when there is no other realistic option: Procedures The flight crew must follow key steps, including: Broadcasting a Mayday call to alert air traffic control and rescue services Instructing passengers to put on life jackets and secure seatbelts Providing clear instructions on brace positions and emergency procedures Factors for a successful ditching The most important factors are the sea, ocean conditions, and wind, as well as the type of aircraft and the skill of the pilots. Survival tips If possible, ditch near a benign shoreline and seek out shipping if any are within range. Strap in tightly, protect your head and legs, and use soft items to restrain excessive movement.

They had functioning flight surface controls when they landed it. This is why the belly landing was trimmed, level and straight. If they did not have flight controls/hydraulics, the landing would have looked like the Azerbaijan aircraft. That aircraft had no hydraulics. And the only way they were steering and trimming the aircraft was with differential thrust.

The plane did not run out of altitude or air speed. They flew it to the ground and did not have to. You cant fly a plane from 2000 feet to 100 feet and then say you didn't have altitude or time to respond.

No. Unless the cockpit was literally on fire, no.

There is no circumstance where doing what they did was the proper procedural course of action. (other than fire) That is the problem. People keep bringing up a dual engine failure when we are just using that for arguments sake. It is much more likely that it was not a dual engine failure.

Even if there was a dual engine failure on final, the procedure is not to panic land the aircraft like they did. That is just not how any of this works. Ever. This is why every pilot on Youtube is just lost for words about this incident. There was a Canadian airliner years ago that ran out of fuel. It glided for 120 kilometers and landed without incident. There was an airliner with a dual engine bird strike and failure in Russia recently. They glided the plane 1 kilometer from the airport into a field. Slamming the aircraft down onto the ground on the last 3rd of the runway, not giving yourself enough distance to slow down is not an acceptable plan under pretty much any circumstance.

One thing that could have disoriented and caused the pilots to drop the aircraft was smoke in the cockpit. There is a recent report about bird struck engines causing smoke in the cockpit for the 737 Max with the CFM engines. This wasn't a Max but the engines were CFM. Maybe this is a possibility even though it wasn't a Max. But you can see light through the windscreen in the video so I am a bit skeptical of this theory https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/19/business/smoke-cabin-boeing-737-max-bird-strike/index.html

All airliners have hydraulic nitrogen accumulators that store pressurized fluid and provide backup power for various systems. Both engines could fall off mid flight and they would have hydraulics for hours. Hydraulic systems: Accumulators operate the main hydraulic system and the emergency system. Landing gear: Accumulators provide backup power for the landing gear. Brakes: Accumulators provide backup power for the brakes. Emergency applications: Accumulators provide backup power for emergency applications.

Because even with a double engine failure, he could have landed with flaps, spoilers and landing gear. Even with 2 engines gone, they still have nitrogen accumulator backups that pressurize the hydraulics. Plus some of the flight surfaces also have electric power backup. On the Hudson, Sully had hydraulics. His only concern was air speed and lack of it. The recent Russian airliner that landed in a corn field after both engines were hit by birds, also had full hydraulics.