Moonlover

I found an interesting article on the BBC website this morning with regard to bird strikes. (see below) There's been quite a discussion with regards to whether there was a double engine failure or not. I do want to point out that an aircraft engine does not have to be 'stopped' to be regarded as an engine failure. If its performance is reduced to the degree that it can no longer provide sufficient thrust, then that's engine failure. Someone reported that they could hear engine/s running when the aircraft landed. They could well be right, but that doesn't indicate that there was sufficient thrust available. Heavy damage to the turbofan, which the first stage in these modern engines can seriously retard performance as that is where most of the thrust is generated. And couple of geese down the intake for instance could certainly do that. Could a bird strike have caused S Korea plane crash?

He was not even legally allowed to ride the Forza. Minimum age is 18 years for a bike that size. Parents/guardians asleep on the job again.

If it wasn't a duel engine failure, why did the pilot declare a MAYDAY? As you have said yourself, they could have continued to fly on one engine, which would warrant a PAN call, not a MAYDAY. Your argument has no merit whatsoever.

So I'll assume from this post that you are now conceding that there is a possibility that there was a double engine failure. Personally, I am convinced that it was a double engine failure. And that conviction comes not from all the technical arguments, but from the pilot's actions, especially his radio transmission. If the aircraft had suffered a single engine failure, he would have made a 'PAN-PAN' call and followed air traffics instructions to make a second landing attempt. But he didn't. He declared 'MAYDAY-MAYDAY'. That screams at me a double engine failure. 'Get me on ground NOW!' I shall await, with interest, the results of the enquiry.

Oh and one more thing I forgot to mention @Harsh Jones. 'The ailerons, spoilers, rudder, and elevators are powered by the A and B hydraulic systems. If both hydraulic systems A and B fail, control of the ailerons and elevators reverts to manual', Boeing still, very wisely, still install control rods from the cockpit to the control surfaces on the 737. https://www.aviationhunt.com/boeing-737-flight-control-surfaces/

And it wasn't at the same airport either!

There is a contradiction in your logic. Ponder this. If he had one good engine, why didn't the pilot continue with the normal go around and make a fresh approach, deploying flaps, spoilers and landing gear? As you yourself point out he could have done that with ease on one engine. Instead he chose to make a very hasty turn back and landed without flaps, spoilers or landing gear. Now that, in my mind adds up to double engine failure. Think back to the so called 'Miracle on the Hudson'. That event took 3 1/2 minutes unfold. It was a similar time frame for this incident as well.

Sakon Nakhon is, statically the coldest region in Thailand and right now it feels that way. Long sleeved sweaters and woolly hats needed in the mornings right now. Great for walking though. I'm out every morning at this time of the year. https://mysakonnakhon.com/the-coldest-place-in-thailand/#:~:text=While Sakon Nakhon is the,17-18°C).

Where has this been reported? The last I read the airport was closed until at least Wednesday.

No one knows for sure, but investigators will be able prove that one way or another. Reading the time line that @Georgealbert has just posted above, it does seem very likely that this was a similar incident to the so called 'Miracle on the Hudson, which I think most of us will remember. Multiple bird strikes resulting in double engine failure. That incident by the way only lasted 31/2 minutes from bird strike to slash down. Pilots do not have the luxury of time when these incidents occur.

If they lost engine power, which seems likely, then they loose hydraulic pressure. There is a ram air turbine which can provide emergency pressure, but that takes time to deploy and all this is happening at a very low altitude and time is of the essence. The undercarriage can be lowered manually, but that takes time and needs 'hands on' (see video) I doubt whether either were available to the pilots https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+does+the+pilot+of+a+737+lower+the+landing+in+an+emergancy&sca_esv=458614b49d3a637b&hl=en&source=hp&ei=9W1yZ4SGGuuP2roP-tTqwAo&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZ3J8BcyHI7l6TEmEHBY6M1IymqWpolpk&ved=0ahUKEwjE1NjynM-KAxXrh1YBHXqqGqgQ4dUDCBE&oq=how+does+the+pilot+of+a+737+lower+the+landing+in+an+emergancy&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ij1ob3cgZG9lcyB0aGUgcGlsb3Qgb2YgYSA3MzcgbG93ZXIgdGhlIGxhbmRpbmcgaW4gYW4gZW1lcmdhbmN5MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI-_wCUABYv-QCcAB4AJABAJgBswGgAeUpqgEFMzUuMTi4AQzIAQD4AQGYAjWgArMrwgIHEAAYgAQYE8ICDBAAGIAEGBMYRhj_AcICBhAAGBYYHsICBRAAGO8FwgIFECEYnwXCAgQQIRgVmAMAkgcFMjYuMjegB466Ag&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:335bd7ed,vid:paKC6MTvp7Q,st:0

Without knowing what the problem with the aircraft was it's not possible to judge whether a diversion was feasible. Only the guy in the hot seat was able to make that call. Sully put his airplane down in the Hudson because he had no other option. Runways were offered to him, but he judged none of them were within gliding range. The NTSB actually tried to make a case against him claiming that he had made the wrong call, that he could have made it to a runway. They were eventually proved wrong by several pilots who attempted a 'dry' landing in a simulator. None could do so. A pilot will always attempt to land on an airfield where he knows that rescue and recovery services on hand. He would never ever choose a landing on water unless he had no other option. US airways was a very, very rare exception

As I've ready said, (in the part of my post you chose to ignore) if it hadn't been for the badly sited concrete wall this was a survivable landing. The pilot did very well.

It's at least 30 years ago that I originally read 'Pillars of the Earth' by Ken Follet and what a fabulous book it was. It was only quite recently that I discovered that 'Pillars' has now morphed into a trilogy known as the 'Kingsbridge trilogy'. So I set about reading all 3 books at the beginning of the year and enjoyed them all. And then a bigger surprise came to my attention. There was now prequal known as 'The Evening and the Morning' set at the end of the 11th century which I also gobbled up. And to cap it all there is also sequel, 'The Armour of Light', set in the 19th century. I've read all these books this year and enjoyed them all. 30 years to read a series of books. Wow: that was fun!

2 minutes after being told to abort his landing due to birds, the captain declared a 'Mayday'. Mayday doesn't mean 'I want to go to bathroom', it means' I need to get this aircraft on the ground NOW!' No diversions, no foam, (they don't do that now anyway) 'on the ground now'. I've just watched the Korean News video releases. The sickening aspect of this incident is that the pilot made a very good job of getting that aircraft down in what were, obviously very harrowing circumstances. And if it wasn't for that concrete wall they probably have all survived. Very, very sad indeed.

There's been talk of engines problems due to bird strike. This could well lead to a high cockpit work load resulting in the pilots forgetting to lower the gear. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened.

That was my thought too. That X video did clearly show that there was a 'cough' from the starboard engine. We all like to think that pilots are super human and would never forget to lower the undercarriage. Then there's the real world.

All modern jet aircraft with wing mounted engines (that being the vast majority) will touch down on the engines rather than the belly if the undercarriage fails to deploy. It's actually part of the overall design. It protects the main fuselage from damage and reduces the risk to passengers. (providing the aircraft comes to a halt of course)

Brokers may be 'a dime a dozen' as you say, but brokers don't set the rules. It's insurers who do that and if they have, collectively decided to 'shut the door' on us oldies, then there's nothing the brokers can do about it.

Unfortunately for us oldies, insurance companies use statistics to assess risks, not genes, (which I suggest would be a rather intangible way of going about it anyway) I still ride a motorcycle, quite competently at 78 years, (something I attribute to skill and experience rather than genes) But despite my albeit self assessment of my abilities I am unable to obtain additional insurance beyond the compulsory requirement. Just one of the many irritations that can potentially spoil our day as we age. If we let it.

Roojai do not insure drivers. They are brokers and if they cannot offer insurance to us who are 75+ it would seem obvious that they have already done the searching that you suggest.

The first and most important factor when rendering assistance is the safety of one's self. You're of no use to anyone, least of all the victim, if you if forget that rule. Every training course I've ever been on has emphasised that.

An interesting topic to ponder. I have to admit, even as a trained 1st responder which I am, I would be very reluctant to put myself in danger on a fast highway until professional help showed up who could at the very least, control the traffic. Good Samaritan Law Protection

Come and spend some time in my nearest city @BarBoy. You won't see any motorcyclists using the sidewalks. The sidewalks are so bad even pedestrians don't use them!

As I have already indicated in an earlier post, I do not discuss politics, be Thailand's or any other nation's. Including my own. If that is your desire, please go and find someone else to annoy, pester, hold discourse with.