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

[Nid_Noi]

2 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

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. 

 

 

Looking at the ADS_B data on Radar24 and Flight Aware and the track on the final approach, it seems that it was a straight-in approach without any holding or circling. If the crew had been aware of a gear malfunction he would have circled the airport to review the check list and implement the procedures adequately. ATC and Muan Approach would have communications dealing with this problem before the final approach.

Belly landing in a 737 requires remaining fuel dumping and prepare for the aircraft as well as the passengers to brace for the crash. Also all emergency vehicles would be along the runway. Based on the video it seems the « touchdown » was at high speed and way down the runway threshold in order to overrun the runway it did and crash at high speed into the structure. The structure housing the localizer antenna would not provoke such an impact just a dent on the wing leading edge or the nose of the aircraft. So it must have been something else.

[Georgealbert]

6 minutes ago, Nid_Noi said:

Looking at the ADS_B data on Radar24 and Flight Aware and the track on the final approach, it seems that it was a straight-in approach without any holding or circling. If the crew had been aware of a gear malfunction he would have circled the airport to review the check list and implement the procedures adequately. ATC and Muan Approach would have communications dealing with this problem before the final approach.

Belly landing in a 737 requires remaining fuel dumping and prepare for the aircraft as well as the passengers to brace for the crash. Also all emergency vehicles would be along the runway. Based on the video it seems the « touchdown » was at high speed and way down the runway threshold in order to overrun the runway it did and crash at high speed into the structure. The structure housing the localizer antenna would not provoke such an impact just a dent on the wing leading edge or the nose of the aircraft. So it must have been something else.

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.

 

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/jeju-air-2216-muan/

[James105]

25 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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

 

Yes but in that scenario the plane destroys barrier rather than barrier destroys plane - passengers live.  If the next solid object is half a mile away then the plane will have slowed down and might not disintegrate/explode on impact. 

 

I maintain my thinking that putting an unbreakable plane destroying death wall at the end of a runway is a poor design choice.   

[Nid_Noi]

1 hour 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.

…+ 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks after landing (unless the aircraft dumps fuel in case of emergency).

[Nick Carter icp]

47 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.

 

 

 

 

   "Rainforest wall "

Took me a while to understand what he meant 

[Liverpool Lou]

38 minutes ago, stevenl said:

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

Because it's AN and all the experts are here.

[Liverpool Lou]

8 minutes ago, James105 said:

Yes but in that scenario the plane destroys barrier rather than barrier destroys plane - passengers live.  If the next solid object is half a mile away then the plane will have slowed down and might not disintegrate/explode on impact. 

"...If the next solid object is half a mile away then the plane will have slowed down..." 

 

...but if it isn't, as in this case?

[richard_smith237]

17 minutes ago, stevenl said:

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

 

Which is completely understandable on a forum of laymen, no ??

 

You can ignore the nonsense comments and only engage the comments you wish to... 

 

 

From my perspective - I'm interested in how the landing gear did not deploy as the 737-800 landing gear can be unlocked from the cabin and manually lowed via-gravity and free-fall into place and locked with a spring-loaded mechanism...  (according to other reports).... 

 

Thus - were the Air-crew not aware of the failure of the landing gear to deploy until belly / touchdown... or was the air-craft in such a catastrophic condition, this is the only one shot they had at landing... 

 

There was also no flaps and no reverse thrust - so the failure was across systems (flaps, landing gear and Engines) and redundancies also non-operational. 

 

 

Then there is the wall, which had the runway been a lot longer, there would be more survivors (20/20 hindsight there)... Could a 'net be used' much like the air-craft carriers ? though weight differences of air-craft and potential maintenance cost vs crash probability make this concept somewhat of a non-starter.

 

 

These are all my 'laymans' thoughts on the topic and worthy of discussion (IMO), perhaps others can fill in the flaws in my comments with their knowledge and I can learn something. 

 

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

31 minutes ago, stevenl said:

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

 

Which is completely understandable on a forum of laymen, no ??

But this is a forum of experts, not laymen, what are you talking about?

[Liverpool Lou]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

There was also no flaps and no reverse thrust - so the failure was across systems (flaps, landing gear and Engines) and redundancies also non-operational. 

Reverse thrust was in operation on No2 engine.

[CANSIAM]

177 dead, 181 on board....

[Liverpool Lou]

Just now, CANSIAM said:

177 dead, 181 on board....

179 dead, only two cabin crew survived.   

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

Yes but in that scenario the plane destroys barrier rather than barrier destroys plane - passengers live.  If the next solid object is half a mile away then the plane will have slowed down and might not disintegrate/explode on impact. 

 

I maintain my thinking that putting an unbreakable plane destroying death wall at the end of a runway is a poor design choice.   

 

How many Aircraft over-run a runway ???

 

Perhaps there was no space for a longer run off area ???...  due to either geography or area's of population... 

Or, most likely, cost. 

Air-craft carriers have a 'net' to catch some planes when the the bolter fails..  though thats for light air-craft. 

 

 

The runway length at Muan was 2800m... The longest runway in the UK is Fairford, at 3046m and 4,877 meters at Denver, Colorado in the USA - the length of both runways is to support unique operational needs, including high-altitude performance and military requirements.

 

Thus: 2800m is more than enough - under normal conditions the 737-800 requires 1500m to 1800m of runway, and in extreme icy conditions up to 2100m to 2500m of runway.

 

 

Even with landing gear failure, reverse thrust should have enabled the aircraft to stop.

 

Thus, the run off appears to be a combination of failures - the perfect storm so to speak.

 

 

 

 

 

[sqwakvfr]

26 minutes ago, Nid_Noi said:

Looking at the ADS_B data on Radar24 and Flight Aware and the track on the final approach, it seems that it was a straight-in approach without any holding or circling. If the crew had been aware of a gear malfunction he would have circled the airport to review the check list and implement the procedures adequately. ATC and Muan Approach would have communications dealing with this problem before the final approach.

Belly landing in a 737 requires remaining fuel dumping and prepare for the aircraft as well as the passengers to brace for the crash. Also all emergency vehicles would be along the runway. Based on the video it seems the « touchdown » was at high speed and way down the runway threshold in order to overrun the runway it did and crash at high speed into the structure. The structure housing the localizer antenna would not provoke such an impact just a dent on the wing leading edge or the nose of the aircraft. So it must have been something else.

Great summary.  To me it iooked like the airspeed at touchdown was high and the touch down zone looked much longer than the prefered first 1/3 of the runway. 

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reverse thrust was in operation on No2 engine.

 

Thanks -  where did you get that info from ?...  

[Phillip9]

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reverse thrust was in operation on No2 engine.

Impossible.  The aircraft would immediately turn with thrust reverse in a single engine.  Especially with no nose wheel steering.

[LennyW]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Thanks -  where did you get that info from ?...  

Good information in the video from the pilot. He also points out the concerns about the localiser antenna structure being mounted on a solid concrete block which is why the impact was so devastating.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 minute ago, Phillip9 said:

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reverse thrust was in operation on No2 engine.

Impossible.  The aircraft would immediately turn with thrust reverse in a single engine.  Especially with no nose wheel steering.

It can be seen to be open, so not impossible!

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reverse thrust was in operation on No2 engine.

Impossible.  The aircraft would immediately turn with thrust reverse in a single engine.  Especially with no nose wheel steering.

 

This is all speculation and before someone jumps in... of course I'm guessing (along with everyone else).

 

I would 'guess' that the rudder has a the primary impact on direction at those speeds than the nose-wheel.

 

[ronnie50]

There is a lot of good info and intelligent questions on this thread. There are people who know what they are talking about from industry experience and those that just speculate. So what. It's a web board.

 

The video of the 737 800 pilot explaining many things is very worthwhile watching. And he also can't understand why they built a concrete wall at the end of the runway. He explains that too.

 

End of the day, there could be many factors at play, but clearly the concrete wall is what ended the lives of nearly 200 people.

[Liverpool Lou]

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

12 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reverse thrust was in operation on No2 engine.

 

Thanks -  where did you get that info from ?...  

0:05 in the video.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

6 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reverse thrust was in operation on No2 engine.

Impossible.  The aircraft would immediately turn with thrust reverse in a single engine.  Especially with no nose wheel steering.

Expand  

 

This is all speculation

Yes, I'm speculating that the open thrust reverser seen in the video means that it was, er, open!

[Isaan sailor]

6 hours ago, olongapo said:

Another (737 ) definitely off my fly list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could be pilot error.  They need both boxes to get the full story

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is all speculation

Yes, I'm speculating that the open thrust reverser seen in the video means that it was, er, open!

 

You can cut back on the defensiveness for this thread...   the comment I made was highlight my points were all speculation... 

 

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is all speculation and before someone jumps in... of course I'm guessing (along with everyone else).

 

[Liverpool Lou]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You can cut back on the defensiveness for this thread... 

...and you can cut back on telling me what to post.

[richard_smith237]

11 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

There is a lot of good info and intelligent questions on this thread. There are people who know what they are talking about from industry experience and those that just speculate. So what. It's a web board.

 

The video of the 737 800 pilot explaining many things is very worthwhile watching. And he also can't understand why they built a concrete wall at the end of the runway. He explains that too.

 

End of the day, there could be many factors at play, but clearly the concrete wall is what ended the lives of nearly 200 people.

 

That concrete wall.....   

Map Photo looking at the South end of Muan Airfield, and photo looking NNW towards the wall (likely are the air-craft penetrated the wall)

 

Its surprising that the Wall caused so much devastation - punctured the fuel tanks perhaps ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You can cut back on the defensiveness for this thread... 

...and you can cut back on telling me what to post.

 

Give it up already - this is not the thread to get into a pishing match...  we can keep it on topic and interesting.

 

You can get pedantic in other threads - you are posting good info on this thread, please try and keep it like that if you can. 

 

 

[ronnie50]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

That concrete wall.....   

Map Photo looking at the South end of Muan Airfield, and photo looking NNW towards the wall (likely are the air-craft penetrated the wall)

 

Its surprising that the Wall caused so much devastation - punctured the fuel tanks perhaps ?

 

 

 

No, not that wall. Immediately above in photo the small 30 metre wide solid concrete wall around 200 metres end of runway. That wall.Watch the video of the pilot - very good and explains about both walls.

[Nick Carter icp]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

That concrete wall.....   

Map Photo looking at the South end of Muan Airfield, and photo looking NNW towards the wall (likely are the air-craft penetrated the wall)

 

Its surprising that the Wall caused so much devastation - punctured the fuel tanks perhaps ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Thats not the rainforest wall , the rainforest wall is the line right at the end of the runway .

   Two different walls

[James105]

44 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...If the next solid object is half a mile away then the plane will have slowed down..." 

 

...but if it isn't, as in this case?

 

So your saying that if the plane didn't get destroyed by the solid death wall right at the end of the runway then there was another "just in case" death wall right after it?   Again, I consider this a bad design choice.  Also confirmed by a pilot by all accounts on some video on this thread.   My prediction is that once the investigation is concluded then unbreakable death walls will no longer be allowed to be positioned right at the end of runways.