Jeju Air Flight from Bangkok Skids Off Runway at Muan Airport, 28 Dead

[Patong2021]

Just now, Sandboxer said:

Korean carriers have had man many incidents/accidents and historically have a REALLY bad CRM and crew hierarchy culture. 

 

Although that is a common  belief and suggested folowing the Asiana catastrophe at SFO some years ago, the current safety record of Korean aircraft is quite good, and is better than many European carriers and some US carriers.

[olongapo]

what with the max controversy and a few other close calls no thank you. one skidded off the runway in Norway today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sqwakvfr]

22 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Nothing annoys me more than ignorant speculation.

 

 

No it is not SOP to foam a runway. Do not rely on movie dramas for information.

 

 

Again with the foam. Where have you been for the past 30 years? Fire following a crash occurs because of fuel leaks. If the aircraft has low fuel or has emptied its tanks or used up fuel, the fire hazard is reduced. If the aircraft came down as quickly as it did, it is because the pilots believed that they had to descend quickly. It is most likely that the pilots  learned of the  landing gear  malfunction too late or did not respond appropriately with a go around and their checklists. 

 

The tarmac length was more than adequate to  handle a B737-800. Basic specs require 1600m. The runway length at the airport is 2800m. There was no need to divert, assuming that the pilots were even aware of the  malfunction or had done their checklists.

 

Pilot error occurs in the Korean aviation industry. Until the investigation is complete  no one knows what happened.

Foam still can be requested if the pilot asks for it.  But not all airports are able to spray foam on a runway.  In most cases the crew becomes aware when they lower the landing gear lever  and do not see green.  Then they would follow the checklist to work the problem.  If so the next decision would be to execute  a missed approach or a go around if this was a visual approach.  Lastly the approach speed was probably higher because the landing gear could not be deployed.  In a perfect scenario with the gears fully deployed and the flaps at full the  airspeed on short final would be around 140 knots.  In this case it was probaly higher.  

[sqwakvfr]

21 minutes ago, olongapo said:

what with the max controversy and a few other close calls no thank you. one skidded off the runway in Norway today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The MAX was a differnt problem. It was an issue with the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentaion System). Boeing said it was now fixed and the FAA certified for it for flight again. 

[ronnie50]

34 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Nothing annoys me more than ignorant speculation.

 

36 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

It is most likely that the pilots  learned of the  landing gear  malfunction too late or did not respond appropriately with a go around and their checklists. 

 

Now who's speculating?

[ronnie50]

6 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

The MAX was a differnt problem. It was an issue with the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentaion System). Boeing said it was now fixed and the FAA certified for it for flight again. 

Thing is with all these newer 737s, Boeing changed the engines - bigger and supposed to be more fuel efficient - but their size (and proximity to the runway/tarmac). MCAS (was to prevent unwanted pitch). When you see this video today, the engines are so big they dominate the belly landing, and make the nose/cockpit point up and the tail dragging behind. Not sure if that made a difference to the outcome (e.g. could the pilots see anything when they landed, or just sky).

[stevenl]

44 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Why? Boeing sources the. landing gear from a supplier who also supplies other aircraft manufacturers. 

Why would Boeing be responsible for  what most likely is going to be pilot error?

Not so smart after an earlier wise remark.

"Until the investigation is complete no one knows what happened"

[jas007]

Very sad.

 

Count me as someone who doesn't know anything about jet engines and birdstrikes, but I think I've read somewhere that jet engines are designed to chew up a bird or two without too much trouble.  Is that wrong? 

[Sandboxer]

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Although that is a common  belief and suggested folowing the Asiana catastrophe at SFO some years ago

It was this way long before Asiana 214. Numerous incidents attributed directly to seniority culture.

 

An extreme example was the KAL 747 that went into Nimitz Hill in Guam (hundreds dead).

 

Has it improved in the meantime? Sure. But as someone who knows a little bit about this culture (as well as the industry), I'm not convinced that the old ways/habits have gone away as much as they need to, and neither are quite a few friends of mine who have worked as sim trainers for the 2 big K carriers in ICN.

 

Having said that, it's way too early to speculate. But it sure as heck to me is looking like a situation that didn't need to end this badly. But what do I know, I'm just a AN monkey.

[Sandboxer]

15 minutes ago, jas007 said:

but I think I've read somewhere that jet engines are designed to chew up a bird or two without too much trouble.  Is that wrong? 

 

Depends on the weight of the bird(s) and velocity.  If it ingests a coupla big ass Canada geese, it won't fare too well.

[sscc]

In this case,  the pilot had not been aware of Landing Gear problem until the final few seconds.  

There had not been emergency call or any alarm from pilot to the control tower prior to descending and  landing.  

 

Stop all the nonsense about foam or runway length etc.  

[Sandboxer]

4 minutes ago, sscc said:

In this case,  the pilot had not been aware of Landing Gear problem until the final few seconds.  

There had not been emergency call or any alarm from pilot to the control tower prior to descending and  landing.  

 

Watching a presser now. Tower sent a bird warning, 1 minute later pilot sends mayday, 1 min later they're down.

[Georgealbert]

These are the details and history of the aircraft that crashed.

 

[Tug]

It will be interesting to know what the flight data and voice recorder have to tell,horrific to be sure.From what I could see obviously gear up i dident see flaps or spoilers nor thrust reversers it didn’t seem to be slowing down…….yeiks!my condolences to the bereaved.

[Rimmer]

Off topic posts and replies trying to drag road accidents into the topic removed, stop it please.

 

[sqwakvfr]

54 minutes ago, sscc said:

In this case,  the pilot had not been aware of Landing Gear problem until the final few seconds.  

There had not been emergency call or any alarm from pilot to the control tower prior to descending and  landing.  

 

Stop all the nonsense about foam or runway length etc.  

Crews are trained if the green landing lights are not on then the approach does not continue.  Landing gear is deployed way before the threshold. 

 

 

[Chivas]

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Why? Boeing sources the. landing gear from a supplier who also supplies other aircraft manufacturers. 

Why would Boeing be responsible for  what most likely is going to be pilot error?

 

Very good point

As regards Concorde my great uncle long dead  in the late 60's his company from Preston manufactured the undercarriage as a  contractor

[Georgealbert]

UPDATE
124 Dead, 55 Missing in Jeju Air Crash at Muan International Airport

 

Picture and video from ground witnesses.

 

Fire authorities have recovered 124 bodies from the wreckage of Jeju Air flight 7C2216, which crashed while attempting an emergency landing at Muan International Airport. South Korea’s national fire agency confirmed that 59 people remain unaccounted for.

 

The confirmed fatalities include 55 men, 57.women, and 12 individuals whose gender could not be immediately determined. It was also confirmed that the body of a female Thai passenger was among the bodies recovered. A temporary morgue has been set up inside the Muan airport to lay the bodies of the victims, for initial identification procedures.

 

Rescue teams have divided the crash site into three zones to continue searching for victims, but officials have told families that the chance of survival for the missing is “virtually none” due to the severity of the crash and subsequent fire.

 

Only two people survived the crash, both rescued from the aircraft’s tail section and reported to both be female cabin crew . They were rushed to a nearby hospital with moderate to severe injuries.

 

According to local Koran media, many of the passengers were South Korean families returning from Christmas package holidays in Thailand. The passengers included 173 South Koreans and two Thai nationals.

 

Witnesses on the ground described harrowing scenes of the crash. “I was telling my family there was a problem with the plane when I heard a loud explosion,” said Yoo Jae-yong, 41, who was staying near the airport.

 

Another witness, Kim Yong-cheol, 70, said the plane failed its first landing attempt and circled back. “I heard the sound of metallic scraping twice before the crash,” he said. “Then there was a loud explosion and black smoke billowing into the sky.”

 

Witnesses told Yonhap News that they saw flames and sparks in the jet’s right wing and engine before the crash. One described a “flash of light” followed by a series of explosions as the plane descended.

 

-- 2024-12-29

 

 

 

 

[Rimmer]

The aircraft suffered a bird strike and possibly had one engine out.

Were the crew preoccupied with that event and maybe forget to lower the gear following the bird strike? (speculation)

From the speed it could be they were trying to take off again. (speculation)

 

There is a longer video on the ABC website it shows 13 seconds between touchdown and overrun.

Runway length is 9186 feet. If they touched down at the 1000-foot marker they touched down late and were very fast and used all of the EMS (Engineered Materials Arresting System) before hitting the perimeter wall,   average ground speed to over run could be as high as  208kt.

 

A sliding aircraft on a concrete runway is not easy to slow down, they would have slowed quicker on the grass at the side of the runway..

 

Were slats and spoilers deployed in order to slow the plane down?

Were thrust reverses deployed  in order to slow the plane down

 

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, ronnie50 said:

When you see this video today, the engines are so big they dominate the belly landing,

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)

[James105]

Well that is a new fear unlocked.   Wonder why a solid concrete, plane disintegrating wall is necessary rather than a wired fence at the end of the runway?  I feel the passengers would have survived a collision with a wired fence.  Is this a common feature at the end of airport runways?  

[Moonlover]

18 minutes ago, Rimmer said:

The aircraft suffered a bird strike and possibly had one engine out.

Were the crew preoccupied with that event and maybe forget to lower the gear following the bird strike? (speculation)

From the speed it could be they were trying to take off again. (speculation)

 

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.

 

[ipetani]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Very sad.

 

Count me as someone who doesn't know anything about jet engines and birdstrikes, but I think I've read somewhere that jet engines are designed to chew up a bird or two without too much trouble.  Is that wrong? 

Its normal unless you run into a flock of canada geese as in the case with US Airways Flight 1549, an airbus 320 which knocked out all engine power forcing the pilot to dump it successfully on the Hudson River avoiding fatalities. Incredible skilled pilot with vast experience saved the day. Jeju captain could have attempted to put the aircraft down on the yellow sea as an option rather than on the runway. 

[Sandboxer]

Yikes. You can actually see some passenger bodies being violently ejected upwards/sideways out of the fuselage in the cloud of debris in the first 2 seconds after impacts.

[Kinnock]

5 hours ago, JoePai said:

Ok so the question must be - why did the pilot not divert to a different airport with a longer runway/run off area + ask for foam to be laid ?

.... or do a Sully and land on a river.  Short runway - not giving the poor souls on board much chance.

[Kinnock]

1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

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.

 

Is there any way they could forget to lower the landing gear - surely there's  an automated warning in the cockpit?

 

I wonder if the gear was down for the first attempted landing? 

[ronnie50]

5 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

This is coverage being shown by Korean media, of the reported bird strike.

 

 

In the phone video above (with the apparent bird ingestion), doesn't it look like the plane is climbing (I admit it's a bit hard to tell)? One of the latest witness reports said the plane had already made one attempt at landing and aborted. Maybe it was during a go around that the bird strike happened?

[Patong2021]

3 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Foam still can be requested if the pilot asks for it.  But not all airports are able to spray foam on a runway.  In most cases the crew becomes aware when they lower the landing gear lever  and do not see green.  Then they would follow the checklist to work the problem.  If so the next decision would be to execute  a missed approach or a go around if this was a visual approach.  Lastly the approach speed was probably higher because the landing gear could not be deployed.  In a perfect scenario with the gears fully deployed and the flaps at full the  airspeed on short final would be around 140 knots.  In this case it was probaly higher.  

 

When was the last time foam has been used for a large commercial aircraft?

Foam reduces the coefficient of friction. It is no different than water on a road surface. The goal is to maximize the braking so that the aircraft will stop. Creating a slick surface does the opposite.  I offer the following opinion from Boeing from 2022, that notes that the practice has not been recommended since 1987;

The procedure of foaming runways was previously done extensively in the military environment and occasionally for commercial aircraft. However, the newer types of foam are not suitable for use in this operation and this procedure currently is not widely used. The FAA, in 1987, withdrew Advisory Circular 150/500-4 dated 12/21/66 and titled Foaming of Runways and has no plans to recommend this procedure in the future

Boeing Fire Department Attn: J.R. Hudgins, Assistant Chief – Training & Safety 

 

[Ralf001]

1 hour ago, Rimmer said:

 

 

 

Runway length is 9186 feet. If they touched down at the 1000-foot marker they touched down late and were very fast and used all of the EMS (Engineered Materials Arresting System) before

 

 

 

Read some where they touched down at 3000

[Phillip9]

5 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

1 hour ago, Rimmer said:

Runway length is 9186 feet. If they touched down at the 1000-foot marker they touched down late and were very fast and used all of the EMS (Engineered Materials Arresting System) before

 

 

 

Read some where they touched down at 3000

 

Probably had both engines out due to bird strike and had to do a dead stick landing.  Possibly forgot to deploy landing gear or had multiple failures and no time to complete backup checklists.