This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Korea Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think the lead section of the article should mention the pilot error conclusion reported this month. Readers look in the lead section for the summary of the most important information to know about a subject, and that report seems pretty important to know about. I don't think we should be deliberately burying such such information deep in the details of the article. I added a mention of it to the lead section, and my edit was soon reverted, so I am bringing it up here for discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After no reply for more than a week, I restored the information that was deleted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The left engine stopped for some reason or was intentionally shut down by the flight crew.
2. For reasons unknown, the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) was not started or could not be started.
3. The accident airplane was not equipped with a RAT (Ram Air Turbine) or an auxiliary battery.
4. As a result of the above, the airplane experienced a sustained total loss of electrical power.
5. Consequently, the spoilers and landing gear could not be deployed by normal means.
6. The MGES (Manual Gear Extension System) was not operated for some reason. The manual device used to force the gear down is also referred to as the Emergency Gear Release Handle or Gravity Drop Lever.
7. With the total electrical power loss not recovered, the crew conducted a belly landing, or had no viable alternative options.

Note: These conclusions are not definitive because CVR/FDR recordings ceased approximately four minutes before the accident, possibly due to sustained loss of electrical power.--150.31.165.35 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but do you have a source for this? guninvalid (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of the article is too cluttered and goes into too much detail, doesn’t summarize the crash well and is hard to read. Archer Mailey (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Investigators have not concluded that the Support Structure that the aeroplane collided with after the Emergency Landing caused the deaths. Refer to Reuters 9th January 2026 for more accurate reporting. If one refers to the accident report- so sad Wikipedia seems to exclude primary sources and relies on hearsay but one would hope it was refferred to in order to gain accuracy ( surely what we want)- issued 2025, a Birdstrike put one engine out of order, the pilots then seem to have switched the working engine off leading to a wheels up landing resulting in the aircraft over-running the runway and hitting the inanimate support structure they should not have been close to otherwise. Crash investigators look for root causes not ephemeral ones. If one looks at the root cause then one has to question the validity of the decision to build the airport itself in such a location as adjacent to a major waterfowl area, why did the engines not have more resilience, and what led trained pilots to turn the working engine off : all these could be good topics for addition or more articles. Birmingham1965 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not accurate that we exclude primary sources altogether; we can include details from primary sources with inline attribution. I.e. "According to the report, blah blah" grapesurgeon (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. The closing sentence of the lead was a massive oversimplification of the matter, and it did not properly reflect the cited source at all. I've rewritten it. Carguychris (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]