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

[Harsh Jones]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

In both of your examples the flight crew had altitude and time to respond. 

 

 

 

The plane did not run out of altitude or air speed. They flew it to the ground and did not have to. You cant fly a plane from 2000 feet to 100 feet and then say you didn't have altitude or time to respond. 

[Phillip9]

34 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

Even if there was a dual engine failure on final, the procedure is not to panic land the aircraft like they did. That is just not how any of this works. Ever. This is why every pilot on Youtube is just lost for words about this incident. 

 

There was a Canadian airliner years ago that ran out of fuel. It glided for 120 kilometers and landed without incident.

 

This happened at 150 meters above the ground at a relatively slow speed.  

 

How far do you think they could glide with no engines???  

[Phillip9]

5 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

The plane did not run out of altitude or air speed. They flew it to the ground and did not have to. You cant fly a plane from 2000 feet to 100 feet and then say you didn't have altitude or time to respond. 

This happened at 500 feet.

 

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

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

There is no circumstance where doing what they did was the proper procedural course of action. (other than fire) That is the problem. 

 

 

People keep bringing up a dual engine failure when we are just using that for arguments sake. It is much more likely that it was not a dual engine failure. 

 

 

The capability of the 737-800 to fly on one engine is a regulatory requirement for twin-engine aircraft under the ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards) certification.

 

Thus: If this were not dual engine failure, would the aircraft would have been able to continue flying while assessing the status of the air-craft ???  

 

 

 

The Flaps are controlled by 'hydraulic system B'

The landing gear is controlled by 'hydraulic system A'

 

 

Both systems would have had to encounter dual catastrophic failure at the same time for both the flaps and the landing gear not to function.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Isaan sailor]

32 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

There is no circumstance where doing what they did was the proper procedural course of action. (other than fire) That is the problem. 

 

 

People keep bringing up a dual engine failure when we are just using that for arguments sake. It is much more likely that it was not a dual engine failure. 

When you listen to the video of the tragic landing, it sure sounds like the 737-800 has an engine running.  So yes, more likely they did have one engine running in some capacity—which would make a huge difference.

[Crossy]

If nobody has linked earlier, there's a "lively" discussion on the PPRUNE forum.

 

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/663324-jeju-737-800-crash-muan-airport-south-korea.html

 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

When you listen to the video of the tragic landing, it sure sounds like the 737-800 has an engine running.  So yes, more likely they did have one engine running in some capacity—which would make a huge difference.

 

I've no idea how you can differentiate engine noise from the sound of an air-craft scraping along a runway... 

[Gobbler]

46 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

 

This happened at 150 meters above the ground at a relatively slow speed.  

 

How far do you think they could glide with no engines???  

A good distance, but not kilometers. They had too much speed. Full stop.

[richard_smith237]

25 minutes ago, Crossy said:

If nobody has linked earlier, there's a "lively" discussion on the PPRUNE forum.

 

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/663324-jeju-737-800-crash-muan-airport-south-korea.html

 

 

Thanks - thats an excellent addition to the discussion...    

 

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

A good distance, but not kilometers. They had too much speed. Full stop.

 

Somewhat of an oversimplification.

 

Why was the speed necessary ?...  without flaps, the aircraft would have stalled and crashed. 

 

Not being able to deploy the flaps was the reason speed was necessary. 

 

No full-stop about it - this a complex issue. 

[Phillip9]

26 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

They had too much speed. Full stop.

Again, the higher than normal landing speed was probably because they did not have flaps or spoilers deployed--probably because of hydraulic failure.  Both of those slow the plane for landing.  They were probably flying the plane as slow as possible.

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, Harsh Jones said:

People keep bringing up a dual engine failure when we are just using that for arguments sake. It is much more likely that it was not a dual engine failure. 

If it wasn't a duel engine failure, why did the pilot declare a MAYDAY? As you have said yourself, they could have continued to fly on one engine, which would warrant a PAN call, not a MAYDAY.

 

Your argument has no merit whatsoever.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

There is no circumstance where doing what they did was the proper procedural course of action. (other than fire) That is the problem. 

 

 

People keep bringing up a dual engine failure when we are just using that for arguments sake. It is much more likely that it was not a dual engine failure. 

 

Maybe a "proper procedural course of action" does not exist for the problems(s) encountered??

 

I didn't bring up dual engine failure, although it is possible that both of them were affected.

[Harsh Jones]

17 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The video is excellent and highly informative...  

 

What I have read, is that the switchover to the electric-driven pumps is effectively instantaneous if the electric pumps are already activated. 

 

If the electric-motor hydraulic pumps were not already turned on, the pilots must manually activate them using switches in the cockpit. This process takes only a few seconds, as the pumps can be activated quickly.

 

 

Also what I have read, it takes about 1-2 minutes to switch over to relying on power from the APU - so there was no time and altitude for that - the battery power is designed to bridge the gap. 

 

Thus: based on what I have read: Theoretically - back-up hydraulic power is instantaneous. 

 

 

Thus 3 potential possibilities: 

 

1) Back-up is no instantaneous (and what I have read is incorrect)

2) There was a catastrophic failure of backup systems

3) Pilot error - electric-motor hydraulic pumps were not engaged.

 

 

 

 

They had functioning flight surface controls when they landed it. This is why the belly landing was trimmed, level and straight. 

 

If they did not have flight controls/hydraulics, the landing would have looked like the Azerbaijan aircraft. That aircraft had no hydraulics. And the only way they were steering and trimming the aircraft was with differential thrust.  

[Moonlover]

I found an interesting article on the BBC website this morning with regard to bird strikes. (see below)

 

There's been quite a discussion with regards to whether there was a double engine failure or not. I do want to point out that an aircraft engine does not have to be 'stopped' to be regarded as an engine failure. If its performance is reduced to the degree that it can no longer provide sufficient thrust, then that's engine failure. 

 

Someone reported that they could hear engine/s running when the aircraft landed. They could well be right, but that doesn't indicate that there was sufficient thrust available.

 

Heavy damage to the turbofan, which the first stage in these modern engines can seriously retard performance as that is where most of the thrust is generated. And couple of geese down the intake for instance could certainly do that.

 

Could a bird strike have caused S Korea plane crash?

[GroveHillWanderer]

It now appears the airport authorities knew the berm was problematic. An internal document issued in May this year expressed concern that it was too close to the end of the runway.

 

https://youtu.be/NCwZnSiOW78?si=N7inUDBmqx0sv3XG

 

 

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

3 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It now appears the airport authorities knew the berm was problematic.

 

Of course they knew it.

Everybody and his brother probably knew it.

Even I knew it when I first looked at the runway.

 

But, this is sometimes what happens in a Top-Down Patriarchal country where everybody is taught to never question authority.

 

ALSO...The pilot landed LONG....and probably was never taught about ground-effect.

 

I would say that the Koreans are poorly trained.

 

I would never fly with them....for sure.

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 12/31/2024 at 10:31 AM, In Full Agreement said:

I wonder why a sand pit isn't used at the end of the runway to stop the plane as is done with runaway trucks?

 

There is a system called EMAS that is designed to stop planes quickly and safely if they overshoot the runway and the airport didn't have sufficient run off space. It's installed at over a hundred airports in the US but only 15 others worldwide.

 

Engineered materials arrestor system

[GammaGlobulin]

On 12/30/2024 at 5:39 PM, newnative said:

Likely far more would have survived, since the fuselage was intact after landing, had the runway not had the concrete wall at the end. 

 

The air craft hit a BERM, and then exploded, which was in front of the security wall.

 

Just watch the video I posted if you do not believe me.

 

[Nick Carter icp]

10 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It now appears the airport authorities knew the berm was problematic. An internal document issued in May this year expressed concern that it was too close to the end of the runway.

 

https://youtu.be/NCwZnSiOW78?si=N7inUDBmqx0sv3XG

 

 

 

 

 

   It wasn't a berm to house navigation antennas , it was a reinforced concrete wall in place to sop airplanes if they over shoot the runway ..

   Looks like someone's trying to cover up what happened, maybe they don't want to be liable for 188 deaths ?

[Nick Carter icp]

10 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

The air craft hit a BERM, and then exploded, which was in front of the security wall.

 

Just watch the video I posted if you do not believe me.

 

 

   Your video didn't say that , it said that the antennas were on top of the reinforced concrete wall 

[Harsh Jones]

3 hours ago, Moonlover said:

I found an interesting article on the BBC website this morning with regard to bird strikes. (see below)

 

There's been quite a discussion with regards to whether there was a double engine failure or not. I do want to point out that an aircraft engine does not have to be 'stopped' to be regarded as an engine failure. If its performance is reduced to the degree that it can no longer provide sufficient thrust, then that's engine failure. 

 

Someone reported that they could hear engine/s running when the aircraft landed. They could well be right, but that doesn't indicate that there was sufficient thrust available.

 

Heavy damage to the turbofan, which the first stage in these modern engines can seriously retard performance as that is where most of the thrust is generated. And couple of geese down the intake for instance could certainly do that.

 

Could a bird strike have caused S Korea plane crash?

 

I will repeat, nothing justifies dropping the aircraft short on the runway like they did. Not even a 2 engine flame out. 

 

Whenever there is no other options left, ditching is the procedure. And it would be in their checklist. Pilots are supposed to be robotic and are trained to be. They would have followed the shoreline until they bled off sufficient speed and then ditch the aircraft. 

 

Ditching is a proper procedure in an emergency when there is no other realistic option: 

 

Procedures

The flight crew must follow key steps, including:

• Broadcasting a Mayday call to alert air traffic control and rescue services 
   
• Instructing passengers to put on life jackets and secure seatbelts 
   
• Providing clear instructions on brace positions and emergency procedures 
   

• Factors for a successful ditching

  The most important factors are the sea, ocean conditions, and wind, as well as the type of aircraft and the skill of the pilots. 

   
• Survival tips

  If possible, ditch near a benign shoreline and seek out shipping if any are within range. Strap in tightly, protect your head and legs, and use soft items to restrain excessive movement.

 

[GammaGlobulin]

6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Your video didn't say that , it said that the antennas were on top of the reinforced concrete wall 

 

a. If the video I linked mentioned a reinforced concrete wall, then the creators of the video, as reported by Reuters, is mistaken.

 

b.  However, when viewing the video, it is important to just use one's eyes. Watch the video and see that the aircraft exploded immediately after hitting a very large berm, seemingly composed of many tons of dense and packed earth.

 

c. There is a wall with wire on top, some distance behind the berm. This wall is composed of what looks like cinder blocks, or concrete blocks.  The plane exploded when it hit the berm, and not the concrete wall, although part of the wall was subsequently damaged, it seems.

 

d.  Much of the media was reporting a concrete wall, and were in error.  I am the ONLY one who reported the BERM as being the culprit.  I can assume that many writers in the media have no idea what a berm might be, and how it is constructed.  So many SocialMecia reporters now live in ignorance.  How sad, really.  And, they commit a lot of fake-news-reporting, or so it is said.

 

 

e.  Now, we just need to wait for the NTSB report, several months in the future.  I am sure they will mention ground effect, and also the fact that the pilot, when he decided to abort the landing, and go around, did NOT allow enough time to go through his landing checklist the second time.  Then, the airport's runway design was at fall.  And, a few other things. 

 

I am right.

 

But, we need to wait for the NTSB report so that I will be vindicated.

 

 

By the way:  The reason the pilot landed LONG is probably due to ground effect, and this ground effect seems to have lasted even while the plane was past the halfway mark of the runway.     ALSO, no flaps were down, and this might be the reason the aircraft was landing at a higher-than-normal speed.

 

 

 

[Harsh Jones]

22 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The video is excellent and highly informative...  

 

What I have read, is that the switchover to the electric-driven pumps is effectively instantaneous if the electric pumps are already activated. 

 

If the electric-motor hydraulic pumps were not already turned on, the pilots must manually activate them using switches in the cockpit. This process takes only a few seconds, as the pumps can be activated quickly.

 

 

Also what I have read, it takes about 1-2 minutes to switch over to relying on power from the APU - so there was no time and altitude for that - the battery power is designed to bridge the gap. 

 

Thus: based on what I have read: Theoretically - back-up hydraulic power is instantaneous. 

 

 

Thus 3 potential possibilities: 

 

1) Back-up is no instantaneous (and what I have read is incorrect)

2) There was a catastrophic failure of backup systems

3) Pilot error - electric-motor hydraulic pumps were not engaged.

 

None of this technical stuff is relevant. Any pilot following any checklist would not have had any aircraft in this state at this part of any runway.

 

If everything was lost  (it wasn't, we can clearly see the aircraft was trimmed , flying inline with the runway), the procedure is ditching on water. 

 

The aircraft didn't just happen to descend to stall speed at this point in the runway. It was flown and landed there. 

[Nick Carter icp]

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

By the way:  The reason the pilot landed LONG is probably due to ground effect,

 

   Could have been that the pilot was waiting for the wheels to hit the ground ?

   The wheels would have touched ground much further back on the runway had they been deployed 

[Enoon]

21 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Thanks - thats an excellent addition to the discussion...    

 

 

PPrune probably the only discussion worth reading as far as the operation of the aircraft is concerned.

 

 

[Enoon]

5 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Could have been that the pilot was waiting for the wheels to hit the ground ?

   The wheels would have touched ground much further back on the runway had they been deployed 

 

All eyes would have been on the aircraft.

 

Difficult to believe that the tower would not have "pointed out" to the pilot that the landing gear was not down.

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

50 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   It wasn't a berm to house navigation antennas , it was a reinforced concrete wall in place to sop airplanes if they over shoot the runway ..

   Looks like someone's trying to cover up what happened, maybe they don't want to be liable for 188 deaths ?

It is indeed there to house the navigation anntenae - or at least, it is according to every report I've read or seen.

 

Where do you see that it isn't?

 

As explained by multiple sources, these anntenae would normally be at ground level but because this runway is on a slope, they needed to be higher up. However, instead of raising the anntenae position by using frangible materials, they chose to use solid concrete.

 

Here's just one such report from the BBC. There are others saying the same thing. 

 

Quote

The concrete structure holds a navigation system that assists aircraft landings - known as a localiser - according to South Korea's Yonhap News Agency.

 

At 4m high, it is covered with dirt and was raised to keep the localiser level with the runway to ensure it functions properly, Yonhap reported.

 

Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

[GroveHillWanderer]

Here's another report from the NYT saying the same thing.

 

Questions Arise Over Concrete Wall Near Runway in South Korea Crash*

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/business/plane-crash-korea-wall-investigation.html

 

Quote

Aviation safety analysts said they expect officials investigating the crash, which killed 179 people, to look into the location and composition of a structure housing an antenna.

 

*Link won't embed.

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 12/30/2024 at 7:53 PM, liddelljohn said:

Just reported  , Another landing incident at same airport   , same JEJU airline same Boeing Type 737-800   Undercarriage malfunction  on take off    , unable to retract    plane went around and made and emergency landing ,,, no casulties ...

Not the same airport. The incident you refer to was at Gimpo airport