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

[Tug]

1 hour 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)

 

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

 

I had the same speculative thought that they may have been attempting a go around they sank onto the runway unable to change the angle of attack with the engines dragging.the flight data recorder and voice recorders will tell the tale to be sure very sad….

[sqwakvfr]

6 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

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 

 

In this instance "braking" was not a factor because the gears did not deploy.  It was the bottom of the engine cowling sliding on the surface of the runway. Are you talking about rubber tires on foam? 

[LennyW]

Korean news now reporting 179 dead, 2 survivors.

[Liverpool Lou]

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 ?

Apart from making the runway even more treacherous, what good would foam on the runway be before the plane had come to a halt, destroyed itself and burst into flames?    You think that it would have prevented the fuel tanks exploding?

[Liverpool Lou]

5 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Maybe not enough fuel left? BKK to any airport in S. Korea with a over 175 pax, luggage and possibly cargo could mean not enough remaining fuel to make it to ICN or Gimpo?

Commercial flights always have enough fuel to go to an alternative airport if necessary and the number of passengers, luggage and cargo (i.e. the weight of the plane) is always part of that calculation.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Sandboxer said:

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

 

That sounds more plausible. One of the VDOs shows at least one probable bird strike and, if there were two, then all thrust is lost, also probably meaning no power to get the gear down. No time for anything but to try to get the aircraft on the ground, which actually touched down quite well under the circumstances, but unfortunately with no controlled way to brake. The runway there is easily long enough for 737's landing normally. Fuel system likely damaged then leaking on the runway before the large impact and sparks caused the explosion. Fatalities high - not sure if there will be any survivors? RIP all of you.

[sqwakvfr]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Commercial flights always have enough fuel to go to an alternative airport if necessary and the number of passengers, luggage and cargo (i.e. the weight of the plane) is always part of that calculation.

I know. In general enough fuel to fly to the first alternate airport and then cruise for additional 30 minutes.  To land with less fuel than that could be a violation of aviation regulations. 

[Liverpool Lou]

5 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Wow. so 179 fatalities after an airliner makes an emergency landing, skids off the runway, collides with the localizer antenna struture, ignites and only two survived?

When the plane was landing at 200+kph without brakes and hitting a solid object what else would you expect - seat belt bruises and everyone walking off?

[James105]

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Apart from making the runway even more treacherous, what good would foam on the runway be before the plane had come to a halt, destroyed itself and burst into flames?    You think that it would have prevented the fuel tanks exploding?

 

I think the death wall it smashed into was the bigger problem.   I personally think that sticking an unbreakable concrete wall at the end of a runway is a poor design choice.  

[sqwakvfr]

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

When the plane was landing at 200+kph without brakes and hitting a solid object what else would you expect - seat belt bruises and everyone walking off?

No but only two survived.  This seems rather low.  Have you seen the crash of UA 232 in Iowa?  Of the 296 passengers on board this flight 184 survived.  

 

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours 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. 

The aircraft was also certified for flight before the MCAS issue!

[sqwakvfr]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The aircraft was certified for flight before the MCAS issue!

We were not talking about the B737-800.  I was answering a question about the B737 MAX, a  different aircraft than the one involved in Muan S. Korea.

[Phillip9]

8 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Have you seen the crash of UA 232 in Iowa?  Of the 296 passengers on board this flight 184 survived.  

But that plane crash landed in an empty field.  The Jeju plane crashed into a solid wall.  Quite a big difference.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

5 hours ago, olongapo said:

Another (737 ) definitely off my fly list.

 

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

Perhaps it was Boeing's equipment or construction that caused the supplier's otherwise perfectly operating landing gear to not deploy/lock?

[Georgealbert]

UPDATE
Offical Death Toll Rises to 176 in South Korean Plane Crash

 

Pictures of the body search and recovery process.

 

At least 176 people have been confirmed dead after a Jeju Air passenger jet carrying 181 people crash-landed and exploded at Muan International Airport in South Korea. The tragic accident, which occurred on Sunday morning, is one of the deadliest aviation disasters in the country’s history. 3 persons are still listed as missing.

 

Authorities have so far identified 22 of the victims. Only two people, both crew members, survived the crash and are being treated in hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. A firefighting official described the scene as devastating, saying, “Passengers were thrown out of the aircraft after the collision, leaving almost no chance of survival. The wreckage is nearly unrecognisable, making the recovery process extremely challenging.”

 

The plane had departed Bangkok at 01:30 local time and was scheduled to arrive in Muan at 8:30 local time.  Among the 175 passengers were two Thai nationals, with the rest being South Korean citizens. The passengers ranged in age from three to 78, with many in their 40s, 50s, and 60s.

 

A temporary morgue has been set up at Muan International Airport to house the victims’ remains.

 

Commercially available ADS-B data from the flight stopped at 23:58 UTC (08:58 LT) when the aircraft was on final approach to runway 01, at 1.24 nm from the threshold. The aircraft landed on runway 19, the opposite direction of the initial approach and intended landing direction. Runway 19 has a Landing Distance Available (LDA) of 2800 m.

 

 

Officials are investigating the cause of the crash, with a suspected bird strike believed to have caused a landing gear failure. The airport control tower reportedly issued a warning about bird activity just six minutes before the crash, and the pilot declared a “Mayday” distress call one minute later. One of the surviving crew members reportedly mentioned to officials that was a bird strike, after being rescued.

 

South Jeolla authorities raised emergency alerts to the highest level and deployed all available rescue and police personnel to the crash site. Acting President Choi Sang-mok visited the scene, declaring Muan County a special disaster zone. He pledged full government support for the victims’ families and the ongoing recovery efforts.

 

 

The presidential office convened an emergency meeting to coordinate the response, which includes search operations, medical aid, and inter-agency cooperation for the investigation. Acting National Police Agency Commissioner-General Lee Ho-young ordered all resources to be mobilised to assist with the rescue and recovery efforts.

 

Jeju Air CEO Kim E-bae offered a public apology, stating: “Regardless of the cause, I take full responsibility as CEO. We will do everything in our power to support the bereaved families.”

 

-- 2024-12-29

 

 

[sqwakvfr]

Just now, Phillip9 said:

But that plane crash landed in an empty field.  The Jeju plane crashed into a sold wall.  Quite a big difference.

You are right but both aircraft caught fire.  So this could mean the speed at impact must have been very fast? A 9000 foot runway even at 150+ knots if the aircraft could have touched witihn the first 3000 feet then the aircraft would have had 6000 feet to decelearte enought to result in a slow or slower speed impact? Granted the only braking action was friction of the aircarft scrapping along the runway but with enough real estate the speed would have been reduced?

[Kinnock]

This is an intelligent review of current information by a former pilot.  As mentioned in posts above ... the solid concrete support for the radio equipment looks to be a major factor in the deathtoll.

 

 

 

[Moonlover]

2 hours 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.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kinnock said:

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? 

There's been talk of engines problems due to bird strike. This could well lead to a high cockpit work load resulting in the pilots forgetting to lower the gear. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened.

 

 

 

[stevenl]

Why don't you all wait for more information on the cause.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

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.

A plane at 200-250kph would destroy a wire fence as if it were not there and hit the next solid object!

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, Sandboxer said:

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.

Well, your imagination can.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, Kinnock said:

 Short runway - not giving the poor souls on board much chance.

It wasn't a "short runway".

[Kinnock]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Why don't you all wait for more information on the cause.

Because that's not what discussion forums are for.   

 

We see distressing and puzzling events and it's natural to want to discuss the event.

 

You could say why post here at all - just read the final crash report late next year and in total solitude.

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

This is an intelligent review of current information by a former pilot.  As mentioned in posts above ... the solid concrete support for the radio equipment looks to be a major factor in the deathtoll.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, I just watched this. A lot more information there and to come, I think.

 

The flight radar 24 tracking stops close to the airport and so, is incomplete. Denys is right, it looks like the plane eventually tried runway 19, after initially descending towards R01 - then the tracking data stopped - the sun was rising on the left side of the plane (east), suggesting R19. So, something happened in the meantime. The weather looks fine. The reinforced  barrier and foundation for the localizer is definitely OTT - I can only assume that this might be due to military reasons? 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, ronnie50 said:

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)?

Perspective.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

Because that's not what discussion forums are for.   

 

We see distressing and puzzling events and it's natural to want to discuss the event.

 

You could say why post here at all - just read the final crash report late next year and in total solitude.

Because it's all speculation. What we have now is lots of speculation from by the looks of it uninformed posters, only refuted by people who seem to be more in the know.

I'm looking forward to factual information.

[Liverpool Lou]

44 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

I know. In general enough fuel to fly to the first alternate airport and then cruise for additional 30 minutes.  To land with less fuel than that could be a violation of aviation regulations. 

I know.

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Why don't you all wait for more information on the cause.

Because that's not what discussion forums are for.   

 

We see distressing and puzzling events and it's natural to want to discuss the event.

 

You could say why post here at all - just read the final crash report late next year and in total solitude.

 

Exactly - this is an informal forum designed for discussion...  It often astonishes me how often people miss this very point... 

 

 

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Because it's all speculation. What we have now is lots of speculation from by the looks of it uninformed posters, only refuted by people who seem to be more in the know.

I'm looking forward to factual information.

 

You can return here with the information in 12 months or more and re-ignite this thread then.

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

36 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

38 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The aircraft was certified for flight before the MCAS issue!

We were not talking about the B737-800.  I was answering a question about the B737 MAX, a  different aircraft than the one involved in Muan S. Korea.

I know.  My post was a response to your comment that was specifically about the MAX!...

"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".

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Exactly - this is an informal forum designed for discussion...  It often astonishes me how often people miss this very point... 

 

 

 

You can return here with the information in 12 months or more and re-ignite this thread then.

 

 

Yes, some discuss just because they can, others prefer a discussion on factual content.