The thrust reversers can be deployed with weight on wheels or less than 10 feet on the radio altimeter. They should have been able to use the thrust reversers landing with the gear up. Hydraulic system A powers one, B powers the other, or the standby hydraulic system will power them both.

Also they're locked if the throttles aren't in idle. Deploying the thrust reversers throttle up the engines independently of the thrust levers.

Can you reverse thrust with one engine shut down?

Yes, only on the operating engine

No one seems to have asked the question whether the gear was down in that video. It is hard to tell, but like you said it was taken less than 4K feet from the runway.

BTW I had found the hotel on page 2

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3519960/replies/69374660

Is it standard protocol to declare mayday and initiate a go around after engine loss? From some of the videos posted it seems like it could be pilot decision if on final approach. I imagine you'd inform the tower regardless so they could prep emergency response. It's interesting to me the only communication they reference is the mayday call and bird strike

Not to derail, but had an interesting flight back from Mexico City this afternoon. Pilots and ATC were in a standoff due to take off routing leaving MEX because Popo (the volcano) had been burping since yesterday, so they were concerned about the ash cloud. Pilots said they wouldnt fly the way ATC told them and it delayed us almost an hour. In the end pilots won the argument because we went the way Pilot described to us…. But it made me think of this crash in Korea, and to ask a general question.. how much discretion on take off and landing do pilots generally have? Is it possible ATC and pilots were miscommunicating or wasting precious time?

Continuing to a landing is perfectly fine with an engine loss on final, even with flaps 30. Situationally dependent, but usually I'd say it's preferable.

Nice I missed that the first time. Agree it doesn't look like the gear was down and they seem really high which was making me wonder if they'd already started to go around prior to that strike

TX04Aggie said:

---

Not to derail, but had an interesting flight back from Mexico City this afternoon. Pilots and ATC were in a standoff due to take off routing leaving MEX because Popo (the volcano) had been burping since yesterday, so they were concerned about the ash cloud. Pilots said they wouldnt fly the way ATC told them and it delayed us almost an hour. In the end pilots won the argument because we went the way Pilot described to us…. But it made me think of this crash in Korea, and to ask a general question.. how much discretion on take off and landing do pilots generally have? Is it possible ATC and pilots were miscommunicating or wasting precious time?

---

The captain has absolute authority in regards to whether he will take off or land. In an emergency the authority is pretty much absolute but may require some explaining.

Seems like if you can explain it, it was a good choice.

GAC06 said:

---

Yes, only on the operating engine

---

True...

It would be hard to reverse the thrust of an engine producing none.

T = -(0 lbf)

GAC06 said:

---

The thrust reversers can be deployed with weight on wheels or less than 10 feet on the radio altimeter. They should have been able to use the thrust reversers landing with the gear up. Hydraulic system A powers one, B powers the other, or the standby hydraulic system will power them both.

Also they're locked if the throttles aren't in idle. Deploying the thrust reversers throttle up the engines independently of the thrust levers.

---

That's a decent failsafe.

I know that WOW switches were a topic of discussion for use in different areas of multiple control laws when I worked on helicopters, since there's the concern they could fail and could result in unwanted results.

I think that overriding the throttle position for the reverse thrust seems like a poor design choice.

Especially so, for underwing engines that touch before the belly. Reversed thrust is an asset only if the vector plates are intact and in position.

Not sure what you mean by "overriding throttle position".

Reverse thrust can only be selected with the thrust levers at idle. There are different detents for the thrust reverser levers that command different engine outputs for the thrust reversers.

It prevents any possibility of trying to go around but only commanding additional reverse thrust.

Right, but if you want to spool the turbines down in a panic because reverse isn't reverse, what is a plane driver going to reach for?

Is pilot suicide possible here? Just the amount of errors with the official story is almost inconceivable.

A plane driver is called a pilot.

A pilot likely won't know whether commanding reverse thrust is helpful in this case, so it's a moot point. They've never landed gear up so they have no idea what kind of deceleration to expect. Boeing's landing gear up or partially up is all one procedure whether all gear up or only one.

Aston04 said:

---

Is pilot suicide possible here? Just the amount of errors with the official story is almost inconceivable.

---

A pilot can kill themselves and everyone on board whenever they want. I don't think that's the case here

TexasRebel said:

---

I think that overriding the throttle position for the reverse thrust seems like a poor design choice.

Especially so, for underwing engines that touch before the belly. Reversed thrust is an asset only if the vector plates are intact and in position.

---

I has the confuse...

I pointed out that having the RADALT < 10 ft seemed like a good failsafe in case of a WOW switch failure.

I don't understand where you got "overriding the throttle position"?????

GAC06 said:

---

A plane driver is called a pilot.

A pilot likely won't know whether commanding reverse thrust is helpful in this case, so it's a moot point. They've never landed gear up so they have no idea what kind of deceleration to expect. Boeing's landing gear up or partially up is all one procedure whether all gear up or only one.

---

I thought you were

Or a bounced landing

GAC06 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

Is pilot suicide possible here? Just the amount of errors with the official story is almost inconceivable.

---

A pilot can kill themselves and everyone on board whenever they want. I don't think that's the case here

---

Verdad.

Would have been a LOT easier to conceal it by just dunking the plane in the East China Sea...

So...

NO???

GAC06 said:

---

Or a bounced landing

---

Yep.

Had one here in GCM when we landed last week. It was a tad windy, though...

Reverse thrusters seemed to work when we got firmly down, though...

GAC06 said:

---

A plane driver is called a pilot.

A pilot likely won't know whether commanding reverse thrust is helpful in this case, so it's a moot point. They've never landed gear up so they have no idea what kind of deceleration to expect. Boeing's landing gear up or partially up is all one procedure whether all gear up or only one.

---

There's a difference between a pilot and a plane driver.

Nah. There are pilots. Some are better than others but hopefully we'll understand what happened here and educate other pilots.

Ag with kids said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

I think that overriding the throttle position for the reverse thrust seems like a poor design choice.

Especially so, for underwing engines that touch before the belly. Reversed thrust is an asset only if the vector plates are intact and in position.

---

I has the confuse...

I pointed out that having the RADALT < 10 ft seemed like a good failsafe in case of a WOW switch failure.

I don't understand where you got "overriding the throttle position"?????

---

From GAC. The levers have to be at idle and the reverse thrust is controlled by other means.

TexasRebel said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

A plane driver is called a pilot.

A pilot likely won't know whether commanding reverse thrust is helpful in this case, so it's a moot point. They've never landed gear up so they have no idea what kind of deceleration to expect. Boeing's landing gear up or partially up is all one procedure whether all gear up or only one.

---

There's a difference between a pilot and a plane driver.

---

What's the difference?

Pilots can read the situation and solve problems.

Plane drivers will be replaced by AI.

See my post at the bottom of page 7, posted 7:56am today

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3519960/7

TexasRebel said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

I think that overriding the throttle position for the reverse thrust seems like a poor design choice.

Especially so, for underwing engines that touch before the belly. Reversed thrust is an asset only if the vector plates are intact and in position.

---

I has the confuse...

I pointed out that having the RADALT < 10 ft seemed like a good failsafe in case of a WOW switch failure.

I don't understand where you got "overriding the throttle position"?????

---

From GAC. The levers have to be at idle and the reverse thrust is controlled by other means.

---

He didn't say "overriding the throttle position".

If the throttle position is not at idle, they won't engage.

And my comment was about using the RADALT as a secondary means of allowing engagement.

I'm going to assume RADALT <10 generally indicates the main gear have contacted and compressed...don't quote me on that, though.

TX04Aggie said:

---

Not to derail, but had an interesting flight back from Mexico City this afternoon. Pilots and ATC were in a standoff due to take off routing leaving MEX because Popo (the volcano) had been burping since yesterday, so they were concerned about the ash cloud. Pilots said they wouldnt fly the way ATC told them and it delayed us almost an hour. In the end pilots won the argument because we went the way Pilot described to us…. But it made me think of this crash in Korea, and to ask a general question.. how much discretion on take off and landing do pilots generally have? Is it possible ATC and pilots were miscommunicating or wasting precious time?

---

Probably a conversation between pilots and ATC about the filed flight plan and ATC asking them to deviate from it.

Pilots cannot independently deviate and do whatever they want in the air unless they declare emergency. That's why that conversation was taking place on the ground.

You were going with the WoW lockout subtopic. I was replying to that.

Sometimes lockouts or overrides can be a hole in the cheese.

TexasRebel said:

---

Pilots can read the situation and solve problems.

Plane drivers will be replaced by AI.

---

Meh...

I'm in the UAS world now...

That's a long way off. Even for sUAS or UAM/AAM.

Part 121 or 135 carriers won't get AI for a MUCH longer time.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

See my post at the bottom of page 7, posted 7:56am today

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3519960/7

---

I don't necessarily use those terms, but yeah...

I get the sentiment.

Flying by rote and understanding flying are 2 different things.

But, even flying by rote should be able to follow their rote to do the checklist...