The new airline thread

[arg]

 

[Smokin]

Russia was very quick to provide the bird strike explanation, which instantly makes me question it.  The video of the plane hitting the ground in that nose low and slow right roll makes it look like either the pilots were not capable of controlling the airplane, meaning both pilots were incapacitated or the plane was not responding to control inputs.  That would be one heck of a bird strike to cause that.

[SocialD]

20 minutes ago, Smokin said:

Russia was very quick to provide the bird strike explanation, which instantly makes me question it.  The video of the plane hitting the ground in that nose low and slow right roll makes it look like either the pilots were not capable of controlling the airplane, meaning both pilots were incapacitated or the plane was not responding to control inputs.  That would be one heck of a bird strike to cause that.

 

It looks like they were flying with the throttles.  Makes sense if they lost a HYD or whatever else from the FRAG.  Horrible situation, it seems like the crew did a great job saving as many lives as they could. 

[HuggyU2]

6 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

It looks like they were flying with the throttles.  Makes sense if they lost a HYD or whatever else from the FRAG.  

United Airlines 232...

[arg]

Question for the airline bubbas. My daughter is going to Viet Nam for a visit. That's cool, I feel better about that than when she went to Brazil and canoed the Amazon. Her route is Delta to Seoul, Korean Air to Da Nang. I asked her to find a different airline than Korean. This concern is not because of the recent Korean Air incident, they have a long history. Am I worrying too much? Should I be more concerned about Delta? Can any Delta bros upgrade her to first class?

[brabus]

I’ve flown Korean several times, it was great, though admittedly I don’t know what was going on up front. I don’t think I’d worry too much about them, but I sure as shit wouldn’t be getting on any local/regional/budget airlines in the Pacific. 

[herkbum]

I also have had no issues with KAL. I have had to tell them to quit bringing food. They don’t keep their planes as hot as JAL, but they could stand to crank the AC a little.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

Question for the airline bubbas. My daughter is going to Viet Nam for a visit. That's cool, I feel better about that than when she went to Brazil and canoed the Amazon. Her route is Delta to Seoul, Korean Air to Da Nang. I asked her to find a different airline than Korean. This concern is not because of the recent Korean Air incident, they have a long history. Am I worrying too much? Should I be more concerned about Delta? Can any Delta bros upgrade her to first class?

Most recent incident was a Korean airline, not the korean airline unless you’re referencing something more than a week old.

[Smokin]

I wouldn't worry about Korean Air, that's the Korean equivalent of a legacy compared to the Jeju, which is the Korean equivalent of Spirit.  I'm sure the investigation will have some pilot error to fault, but the biggest issue seems to be the concrete barrier in the infield.

Virtually zero chance of an international upgrade.  Even guys that spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on an airline in a year only get a couple passes a year to upgrade international.

[SurelySerious]

I wouldn't worry about Korean Air, that's the Korean equivalent of a legacy compared to the Jeju, which is the Korean equivalent of Spirit.  I'm sure the investigation will have some pilot error to fault, but the biggest issue seems to be the concrete barrier in the infield.
Virtually zero chance of an international upgrade.  Even guys that spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on an airline in a year only get a couple passes a year to upgrade international.

Bullshit the biggest issue was a barrier a thousand feet off the runway, that landing made no sense and smelled like panic.

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Bullshit the biggest issue was a barrier a thousand feet off the runway, that landing made no sense and smelled like panic.

Agreed. I have a feeling we'll see a lack of checklist execution and a rush to get the jet on the ground.

If that's what happens when the checklist is executed and they set down at ~150 knots on brick 2, then holy shit, the 737 has some problems. I personally don't think this is the case. Obviously I stand ready to be corrected once the actual facts come in. /speculation

I do wonder now, though, how far will a jet will (on average) skid on concrete like that with no gear. My gut tells me it's between 1.5 - 2.0 miles, but that's a pure guess. Anybody have any data on such a thing?

Edit to add: my math says the plane went ~ 1600m in 13 seconds, so an average speed on the runway of about 240 knots. Off the end of the runway at around 150-170 knots. This is pure speculation.

Edited Thursday at 04:29 AM by ViperMan

[BFM this]

4 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Agreed. I have a feeling we'll see a lack of checklist execution and a rush to get the jet on the ground.

If that's what happens when the checklist is executed and they set down at ~150 knots on brick 2, then holy shit, the 737 has some problems. I personally don't think this is the case. Obviously I stand ready to be corrected once the actual facts come in. /speculation

I do wonder now, though, how far will a jet will (on average) skid on concrete like that with no gear. My gut tells me it's between 1.5 - 2.0 miles, but that's a pure guess. Anybody have any data on such a thing?

Edit to add: my math says the plane went ~ 1600m in 13 seconds, so an average speed on the runway of about 240 knots. Off the end of the runway at around 150-170 knots. This is pure speculation.

An estimate from the internets:

 

[FourFans]

Anyone here qual'd on the 73 able to say if it's supposed to rest nose down after a gear up?  From watching that video a couple times, it looked like a VERY long touchdown and that the wings and elevator were definitely still flying when they departed the surface.

[Smokin]

That's assuming that it was an intended landing.  No gear and no flaps would be a very strange intended landing.  Might have been a go around with too fast of a flap retraction that settled back down to the runway.

Or, if it was a bird strike that caused problems for both engines.  Pilots that hadn't practiced engine out landings since they flew a -172 probably are not going nail the landing.

[polcat]

Talking about foreign airlines, just stay away from Turkish Airlines if you don't want bed bugs. https://jalopnik.com/turkish-airlines-isnt-doing-anything-about-its-bedbug-p-1851731129

[SocialD]

I remember flying with fighter pilots from a particular middle eastern nation, where the pilots spent the entire debrief trying to save face, rather than actually learn.  From talking with some guys who have been sim IP's at various Asian airlines, their culture seems similar, with the added bonus of not wanting to challenge authority.  If I remember correctly, the FO on the Asiana 777 that smacked the seawall in SFO, knew it was going bad, but didn't challenge the Captain.  Hopefully this isn't the case, but I'd honestly be worried about that flying on Asian carriers.  

Edited Thursday at 06:24 PM by SocialD

[Lord Ratner]

5 minutes ago, SocialD said:

I remember flying with fighter pilots from a particular middle eastern nation, where the pilots spent the entire debriefing trying to save face, rather than actually learn.  From talking with some guys who have been sim IP's at various Asian airlines, their culture seems similar, with the added bonus of not wanting to challenge authority.  If I remember correctly, the FO on the Asian 777 that smacked the seawall in SFO, knew it was going bad, but didn't challenge the Captain.  Hopefully this isn't the case, but I'd honestly be worried about that flying on Asian carriers.  

I've heard tales from the grey-beards that Korea was almost banned from flying in the US back in the 80s or 90s because their culture of senior worship was so pervasive that they had zero safety instinct. A bunch of pilots from the US were brought in to take over their training and crush the dinosaur captains who felt like they were above criticism, even if they were about to crash a plane. 

 

EDIT: Maybe mostly true? From ChatGPT:

 

Quote

Yes, there were instances in the 1980s and 1990s where airlines from Asian countries faced restrictions or scrutiny due to safety concerns, though outright bans from the United States were less common during that period. Here are a few notable cases:

Korean Air (1980s and 1990s)

• Background: Korean Air (KAL) had a troubled safety record during the 1980s and 1990s, with a series of high-profile accidents and incidents. Notable accidents included:
  • Korean Air Flight 007 (1983): A Boeing 747 was shot down by the Soviet Union after straying into Soviet airspace, raising questions about the airline's navigation and training.
  • Korean Air Flight 801 (1997): A Boeing 747 crashed on approach to Guam due to pilot error, killing 228 of the 254 people onboard.
• Repercussions: While Korean Air was not banned outright from the U.S., its safety record attracted intense scrutiny from aviation regulators, and some corporate clients and governments advised against using the airline. Korean Air underwent significant reforms in the late 1990s and early 2000s to improve safety and regain trust.

 

Edited Thursday at 06:29 PM by Lord Ratner

[HuggyU2]

On 1/1/2025 at 12:18 PM, Smokin said:

I wouldn't worry about Korean Air, that's the Korean equivalent of a legacy compareed...

Bang Ding Ow...

Ho Lee Fuk...

[arg]

Thanks for the replies fellas. 

[hindsight2020]

The irony of that post is gold. Pretty sure it was a United crew that almost Asiana'd a triple siete out of Maui.

[brabus]

And those guys were very close to a lot worse than Asiana.