richard_smith237

I agree... this is exactly what the 'berm structure' looks like to me... A thick concrete 'raft' sitting on top of the 8-10 ft earth berm - so that the Approach Landing System (ALS), is raised to 'runway level'. I'm assuming that the end of the runway had a downhill dip which is why the lights were raised - though I'm not sure why they wouldn't extend the framework for the lights instead. Perhaps someone in a position of authority at the airport thought building the berm was the solution - As pointed out by the expert witness (in one of the videos) this would be criminally negligent if it was for cost saving measures.

Do you reckon they are still there now, or removed already ?

Your comments contradict logic and suggest you believe the aircraft was fully operational, other than the landing gear and it was pilot error to land halfway down the runway without flaps... And no.. Ditching in the water is not preferable at all: the choice of where to ditch depends on the unique circumstances of the emergency. Pilots are trained to assess these factors quickly and make the best decision to maximise survivability for everyone on board. Why would any pilot ditch in water when there is a perfectly good runway nearby ? You will of course mention the berm now without understanding that this would not have been thought about, and without seeming to accept that this was an emergency, possibly without both engines, without hydraulic power to the flaps, without landing gear and without time to run these check-lists you keep mentioning.

Not fully - they had partial control of the flight surfaces - they could not extend the flaps for landing.

I'm not sure thats correct LL... They 'are' interlinked... the ruling was that they cannot withhold your Tax document even if you have outstanding fines. Thus: when renewing your Tax the DLT can see the fines registered to your car, the DLT will even instruct you to pay the fines. But, they can't use your Tax document as leverage to force you to pay the fines.

Linking to Tax renewal is somewhat of a grey area - they can only legally link to the tax renewal after so many warnings of a unpaid fine. .. so it is linked, kind of, but they can't withhold your tax documentation (officailly of course - what happens for most of us reality may well be different). I think the issue is kind of like the 'non wearing of helmets' issue - the amount vehicles blowing through M-Flow without making a payment is too great, the task of recovering fees too overwhelming to target people individually, so they try and frighten people into paying. In reality - if the law enforced payment of these fees and fines upon tax renewal time - then it would be more effective and better for the general good of everyone as the M-Flow aids traffic flow compared to M / Easy Pass. Then, fines for no tax need to be far greater.

Of course, my comments were 'pie in the sky'... However, who would have imagined 10 years ago that Private Schools would be targeted to fill a short fall ? My 'what next?' is not such a huge leap of the imagination.

Its astonishing - other countries have had such a 'flow toll systems' for decades... how is this a struggle ? To prevent queues at busy times, all toll booths should be the 'flow system' instead of barriers. If people don't pay - refuse their tax. If cars are untaxed, confiscate them - of course, easier said than done and it involves actual work. But with todays modern systems, surely the systems can be interlinked.

Well, to play devils advocate, if it was me, that is exactly what I would be doing and saving myself £24k a year. I wonder how many parents of SEND pupils will think the same way. After confirming that the local State School cannot provide. There is also the option of enrolling in a Grammar School. In my view, this should be the primary choice for parents. Grammar Schools inherently filter out those who rely solely on privilege, ensuring that all students have met a rigorous academic standard by passing an entrance exam. This places the cohort among the top 10% of the country, having successfully met the stringent 11+ requirements. However, this topic diverges from the issue of paying a 20% VAT on education. That said, a significant challenge with Grammar Schools today lies in the increasingly fierce competition for admission. One wonders at what point a Labour government might implement policies targeting Grammar Schools, branding them as elitist for segregating students based on intelligence. Would their meritocratic foundation be viewed as incompatible with egalitarian ideals? Perhaps they might decide to address future shortfalls in state education by imposing fees on Grammar School students, arguing that they are receiving privileged treatment. This is one of the issues with such a government - its difficult to know where they will stop. Farmers are getting shafted, old people are getting shafted, private students are getting shafted...

Back at you - Its been an interesting debate... Clearly our opinions differ and I'm sure neither of our opinions will change - though some of the content you have provided, gives me pause for thought, this is not quite as black and white / right and wrong as maybe initially considered, there are huge number of variables as to whether or not this is a good move for education on a whole.

Do you reckon you can get your air-pistol out in time if pit-bulls (or other vicious dogs) decide to attack while you are out on a jog / walk / ride ?

This is one of the dumbest pro-pit-bull arguments I've ever read... Its as dumb as stating get rid of cars because people die in car accidents... Such stupidity simply cannot be argued with, without dropping to that level of idiocy...

Somewhat of an oversimplification. Why was the speed necessary ?... without flaps, the aircraft would have stalled and crashed. Not being able to deploy the flaps was the reason speed was necessary. No full-stop about it - this a complex issue.

Thanks - thats an excellent addition to the discussion...

I've no idea how you can differentiate engine noise from the sound of an air-craft scraping along a runway...

Incorrect - in Belgium: Primary Education: Approximately 54.18% of students were enrolled in private primary schools as of 2019. Secondary Education: In 2022, about 59.21% of students attended private secondary schools. Regarding General Population Demographics (info is a snapshot from once city). - Belgian Nationals with Belgian Background: Approximately 48.48% - Belgian Nationals with Foreign Background: About 34.76% - Non-Belgian Residents: Around 15.88% As your comment suggest - this aligns with your comment that a significant proportion of non-Belgians are in Private Schools. However, your point is a moot distraction - Tax is not applied to the private schools. Using the Belgium example: Commercial Education Providers are: - Private tutoring companies - Online learning platforms offering subscription-based or paid courses (e.g., for coding, business skills, etc.) - Institutes providing specialised training (culinary schools, driving schools, or IT certification programs) - For-profit international schools Not 'Private Schools'... ----- Regarding, Germany and Poland, they are being used as 'test cases' as they deviate from EU VAT rules by applying exemptions for private education providers too broadly. They extend exemptions to for-profit, commercial entities and activities not strictly defined as public-interest education under the EU VAT Directive. Again, this is about 'commercial providers' (similar to those listed above) and not specifically Private Schools themselves.

The capability of the 737-800 to fly on one engine is a regulatory requirement for twin-engine aircraft under the ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards) certification. Thus: If this were not dual engine failure, would the aircraft would have been able to continue flying while assessing the status of the air-craft ??? The Flaps are controlled by 'hydraulic system B' The landing gear is controlled by 'hydraulic system A' Both systems would have had to encounter dual catastrophic failure at the same time for both the flaps and the landing gear not to function.

The video is excellent and highly informative... What I have read, is that the switchover to the electric-driven pumps is effectively instantaneous if the electric pumps are already activated. If the electric-motor hydraulic pumps were not already turned on, the pilots must manually activate them using switches in the cockpit. This process takes only a few seconds, as the pumps can be activated quickly. Also what I have read, it takes about 1-2 minutes to switch over to relying on power from the APU - so there was no time and altitude for that - the battery power is designed to bridge the gap. Thus: based on what I have read: Theoretically - back-up hydraulic power is instantaneous. Thus 3 potential possibilities: 1) Back-up is no instantaneous (and what I have read is incorrect) 2) There was a catastrophic failure of backup systems 3) Pilot error - electric-motor hydraulic pumps were not engaged. Note: this is an interesting discussion. RIP to the pilots, I don't mean any disrespect to them. However, for the purposes of the discussion on this thread, all possibilities can be considered - and yes, of course, we are all laymen, but that does not mean interesting discussion cannot take place (after all this is what the forum is designed for).

In both of your examples the flight crew had altitude and time to respond. The glide ratio of a 737-800 is 15:1... but without flaps the landing speed is going to be high and this was a primary issue, even without landing gear. But... even with all of the issue, no flaps, no engines, no landing gear and a touchdown halfway down the runway -- it has been argued by experts that this crash was survivable, if it were not for the 'berm wall' at the end of the runway.

Could be that they didn't have any other choice ? In response to Harsh Jones comment. The aircraft was not 'slammed down' - in-fact the belly landing was executed almost perfectly. Almost, as one of the issues was the air-craft touching down halfway down the runway - the reason for this is 'ground effect' - whereby at higher groundspeed the cushion of 'air' was greater. Unless pilots are also trained to fly dedicated wing-in ground effect craft, this is something they are not familiar with. Thus: the combination of higher speed, no landing gear, no flaps and ground effect resulted in touch-down further down the runway that the pilots would have anticipated. Additionally, the pilots may not have been able to 'test' the ground effect before the runway and 'get the feel' to touch down at the start of the runway as this could have led to a premature touchdown and undershoot the runway.

I'm not so sure about that. Apparently, on the 737-800 the transition / switchover to the electric-driven pumps is effectively instantaneous if the electric pumps are already activated. There may be a brief delay (a few seconds) as the system stabilises and pressure builds up if the pumps were not initially active. If the electric-motor hydraulic pumps were not already turned on, the pilots must manually activate them using switches in the cockpit. This process takes only a few seconds, as the pumps can be activated quickly - IF the pilot recognises the issue. Thus: either there was a catastrophic failure of backup electric-motor driven hydraulic systems, or there was pilot error (I hesitate to say that, but consideration must be given to possible fallibility).

The APU has limited use in the air. But as Denys said in his VDO, it takes some time to run up and some reconfiguration would be required. It looks like, for whatever reason, the pilots had little or no time for this, unfortunately. The APU is a red herring in this cause - there are electric-motor driven pumps which can operate for approximately 30minutes after loss of both engines (apparently the switch over is instantaneous). ... the caveat - if it was working, there was perhaps multiple catastrophic failures which led to a non-flaps, high speed landing without gear..... resulting in significant 'ground effect' due to the speed and a later 'belly touch down' than intended.

I thought of military reasons, and the only one I can think of is a 'jet blast wall' - but, that would look somewhat different and they are not usually on the runways, but closer to terminal buildings and hangars. This airport opened in 2007 and there appears to be no military looking hangars etc around the airport, not that this means anything - as the airport could still be 'military ready', but I don't think the 'berm wall' has any relation to potentail military activity. I think its just a tragic mistake to build the 'berm wall' like that - I'm sure there are other airports around the world whereby, right at this moment, are re-engineering any structures such as this at the end of their runways. It's even possible, that in the 'mother of all stuff-ups' the 'berm wall' was built in the manner it was, though nothing other than a simple mistake - i.e. (speculation) the ALS lighting and equipment did not have sufficient height (and it was going to take a while to get new parts to extend it) the solution was to build the berm and place a base on it so the ALS equipment was level and at the right height (i.e. same height as the runway). That is pure speculation of course - but the only reason I can think of to have that 'berm wall' there.

The 737-800 has batteries which last approximately 30 minutes to control critical systems. The Hydraulic Systems for Flaps: Primary Operation: - The flaps and slats on the 737 are powered by Hydraulic System B during normal operation. - Hydraulic System B relies on engine-driven pumps or electric motor-driven pumps. Electric Motor-Driven Pumps: - If both engines fail, the electric hydraulic pumps can still power Hydraulic System B, provided electrical power is available (e.g., from the aircraft's batteries, APU, or other backup sources like a Ram Air Turbine on some aircraft types). Standby Hydraulic System: - The 737's standby hydraulic system can also operate the leading-edge slats and flaps if both primary hydraulic systems (A and B) are unavailable. Thus: there are two redundancies for the flaps. In the event of dual engine failure and thus, loss of power, the hydraulic systems (flaps) run (initially) on Electric Motor-driven pumps, powered by the air-crafts batteries, for approximately 30 minutes. The transition / switchover to the electric-driven pumps is effectively instantaneous if the electric pumps are already activated. There may be a brief delay (a few seconds) as the system stabilises and pressure builds up if the pumps were not initially active. the electric hydraulic pumps were not already turned on, the pilots must manually activate them using switches in the cockpit. This process takes only a few seconds, as the pumps can be activated quickly - IF the pilot recognises the issue. Thus: for no flaps to be deployed, either there was total hydraulic and electrical failure, or, I hesitate to say, there was a degree of pilot error in not turning on the electric motor-driven hydraulic pumps. In which case there the aircraft would face significant operational challenges, including difficulty in extending flaps, slats, and landing gear, as well as reduced control effectiveness. One would assume that pilot training emphasises the importance of promptly managing hydraulic and electrical systems in emergencies to maintain aircraft control and ensure a safe landing. But, for some reason the flaps, slats and landing gear were not extended.

In all fairness to the pilots, they didn't 'need' to..... (in an emergency situation like this). Had there been standard ILS eqipment at the end of the runway and not a huge bern with thick concrete slab, the flight would have continued on through the thin breeze-block wall into the fields. According to other sources - Due to the approach speed and no flaps, the ground effect was greater than normal, thus the buffeting from the ground resulted in a touchdown halfway down the runway, but the pilot executed an excellent no gear touchdown. Its possible there would have been no fatalities, had the berm wall not been present - aviation experts have suggest the presence of this berm wall borders on criminal.