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

[newnative]

1 hour 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.

 

     From what I've read, the berm covered the concrete wall.   I don't really care what terminology is used in referring to the obstacle.   The reality is the plane landed intact.  Many experts are saying it is likely that most if not all of the passengers would have survived had the barrier not been there.  I'm in agreement with the official who stated that it verged on criminal to have it at the end of the runway.   

[GammaGlobulin]

51 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 

 

The pilot looped around after an aborted landing.

But, on the go-around, he did not allow himself enough time to run through his mandatory checklist.

 

This might be due to lack of training, or insufficient training.

How many hours did this "pilot" have?

 

This is obviously a case of both pilot airway and poor runway design, with insufficient and improper Runway Safety Area....

There should be a MINIMUM of 300 meters of safety area.  And, do NOT put a huge berm in the middle of the area.

 

Also, do not discount GROUND-EFFECT, in this fiasco.

 

[rabas]

26 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

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.

 

The berm was known and reported from the beginning via social media.  HERE  HERE , etc. Any confusion was because there is a concrete structure/wall in the berm, so the plane did hit a concrete barrier, none of which relates to the cause of the crash. 

 

WIKI reports: "the flight belly landed long and overran the runway, crashing into a berm encasing a concrete wall that supported an instrument landing system array."

 

Here you see part of the enclosed concrete support structure in the berm that the plane hit.  CLICK TO ZOOM.

 

Before collision. CLICK TO ZOOM

 

 

These berms are used elsewhere, here is one in Canada that has been hit by jumbo jets, according to the article HERE. 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

22 minutes ago, newnative said:

     From what I've read, the berm covered the concrete wall.   I don't really care what terminology is used in referring to the obstacle.   The reality is the plane landed intact.  Many experts are saying it is likely that most if not all of the passengers would have survived had the barrier not been there.  I'm in agreement with the official who stated that it verged on criminal to have it at the end of the runway.   

 

It's possible that the earthen berm had been covered, or partially covered, with concrete.

But, the mass of the earthen BERM is what proved to be completely impenetrable.

And, it was just like flying directly into the ground.

 

There is just too much that went wrong, including pilot error, etc.

 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour 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 ?

 

If this were put in place to intentionally stop aircraft, then the designers are stupider than even I imagined.

But, I have not see that this was the purpose of the berm.

 

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

If this were put in place to intentionally stop aircraft, then the designers are stupider than even I imagined.

But, I have not see that this was the purpose of the berm.

 

 

   Why would they need a sold concrete reinforced wall just to hold up some light weight antennas ?

   Some wooden poles sunk into the ground would have been sufficient to hold the antennas up , no need for a reinforced concrete wall 

[Ralf001]

2 hours 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.

 

The "berm" was 250m out... seems it should have been minimum 300m out.

The speed the plane was skittling along at, I doubt that extra 50m would have made any siginficant difference.

[Moonlover]

2 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

 

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.

 

Your long rambling missive says 'Ditching is a proper procedure in an emergency when there is no other realistic option'.

 

There was a realistic option. It's called a runway and it would have been successful had it not been for the obstruction at the end of it.

[Enoon]

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Until a credible source publishes a cross section of the structure I'm going with a concrete foundation for the array, sitting on a berm.

 

For the moment WYSIWYG:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mvynnxzzmo

 

PS. I feel compelled to  contest your assertion that you were the first person on AN to introduce the berm into the conversation, see below:

 

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

 

[Captain Flack]

A troll post about the topic title has been removed. This topic was started when little information was available.

 

Rule 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles  may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW.

If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

 

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.  

 

Not fully - they had partial control of the flight surfaces - they could not extend the flaps for landing.

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

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. 

 

Your comments contradict logic and suggest you believe the aircraft was fully operational, other than the landing gear and it was pilot error to land halfway down the runway without flaps... 

 

And no.. Ditching in the water is not preferable at all: the choice of where to ditch depends on the unique circumstances of the emergency. Pilots are trained to assess these factors quickly and make the best decision to maximise survivability for everyone on board.

 

Why would any pilot ditch in water when there is a perfectly good runway nearby ?

 

You will of course mention the berm now without understanding that this would not have been thought about, and without seeming to accept that this was an emergency, possibly without both engines, without hydraulic power to the flaps, without landing gear and without time to run these check-lists you keep mentioning.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

 

The berm was known and reported from the beginning via social media.  HERE  HERE , etc. Any confusion was because there is a concrete structure/wall in the berm, so the plane did hit a concrete barrier, none of which relates to the cause of the crash. 

 

WIKI reports: "the flight belly landed long and overran the runway, crashing into a berm encasing a concrete wall that supported an instrument landing system array."

 

Here you see part of the enclosed concrete support structure in the berm that the plane hit.  CLICK TO ZOOM.

 

Before collision. CLICK TO ZOOM

 

 

These berms are used elsewhere, here is one in Canada that has been hit by jumbo jets, according to the article HERE. 

 

 

Do you reckon they are still there now, or removed already ?

[richard_smith237]

19 minutes ago, Enoon said:

Until a credible source publishes a cross section of the structure I'm going with a concrete foundation for the array, sitting on a berm.

 

I agree... this is exactly what the 'berm structure' looks like to me... 

 

A thick concrete 'raft' sitting on top of the 8-10 ft  earth berm - so that the Approach Landing System (ALS), is raised to 'runway level'.

 

I'm assuming that the end of the runway had a downhill dip which is why the lights were raised - though I'm not sure why they wouldn't extend the framework for the lights instead.

Perhaps someone in a position of authority at the airport thought building the berm was the solution - As pointed out by the expert witness (in one of the videos) this would be criminally negligent if it was for cost saving measures.

[Isaan sailor]

3 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

 

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.

 

That’s what I said.  Look at the final result—only two survivors after they slammed into a concrete barrier.  If they ditched along the airport shoreline in shallow water, how many would have survived?  Far more than just two.

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Isaan sailor said:

That’s what I said.  Look at the final result—only two survivors after they slammed into a concrete barrier.  If they ditched along the airport shoreline in shallow water, how many would have survived?  Far more than just two.

 

If they had ditched in the water, the whole world would be criticising the pilots for putting passengers at additional risk when there was a perfectly good runway nearby at the time. 

 

No one thought about the berm at the end of the runway until after the tragedy.

 

Had the plane landed South to North, or had the berm  not been there, any suggestion of a water ditching would been labelled ridiculous. A water ditching is only a viable alternative when there is no runway, viable roads, or viable land nearby (i.e. no unpopulated or flat area's of land).

 

 

 

 

[Phillip9]

10 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

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.  

 

A 737 has physical cables as a backup for flight control.  It can be flown just fine even with complete hydraulic failure.  It will just take a more strength to control the aircraft.  

[GroveHillWanderer]

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Why would they need a sold concrete reinforced wall just to hold up some light weight antennas ?

   Some wooden poles sunk into the ground would have been sufficient to hold the antennas up , no need for a reinforced concrete wall 

Well, exactly. That's the point that a lot of the people analysing this have been making - that they should have used a lightweight structure that would easily collapse, not a solid concrete one.

[GammaGlobulin]

4 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

Until a credible source publishes a cross section of the structure I'm going with a concrete foundation for the array, sitting on a berm.

 

For the moment WYSIWYG:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mvynnxzzmo

 

PS. I feel compelled to  contest your assertion that you were the first person on AN to introduce the berm into the conversation, see below:

 

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

 

 

OK.

I defer to your evidence, most happily.

 

[Harsh Jones]

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Your comments contradict logic and suggest you believe the aircraft was fully operational, other than the landing gear and it was pilot error to land halfway down the runway without flaps... 

 

And no.. Ditching in the water is not preferable at all: the choice of where to ditch depends on the unique circumstances of the emergency. Pilots are trained to assess these factors quickly and make the best decision to maximise survivability for everyone on board.

 

Why would any pilot ditch in water when there is a perfectly good runway nearby ?

 

You will of course mention the berm now without understanding that this would not have been thought about, and without seeming to accept that this was an emergency, possibly without both engines, without hydraulic power to the flaps, without landing gear and without time to run these check-lists you keep mentioning.

 

 

 

Perfectly good runway ? The runway is only useful if you land within the minimum distance available. They weren't even close. That is one of the golden rules of airmanship. Why ? We can see with this accident why. 

 

So again, no technical fault, nothing, will be a good enough reason to do what they did. It is like aborting a landing after V1. The golden rule. 

[Harsh Jones]

This is most likely what happened. An accident that will end up being similar in the way that they reacted to the bird strike.

 

 

[Moonlover]

30 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

This is most likely what happened. An accident that will end up being similar. 

 

 

This incident turned into a disaster because the pilot, very stupidly, initiated a go around instead staying on the runway. 

The clip is even titled: 'Pilot's INSANE Mistakes Get 97 People Killed!'

 

A Vulcan pilot made that mistake once in Malta and got 5 of his crew killed, including 2 of my work colleagues,

 

[Phillip9]

2 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

So again, no technical fault, nothing, will be a good enough reason to do what they did. It is like aborting a landing after V1. The golden rule. 

 

Nothing?  Really?  What if they lost power to both engines at 150m?  What do you think they should have done???   At that altitude they would have had about 1 minute to either land or crash.

[Moonlover]

2 hours ago, Phillip9 said:

5 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

So again, no technical fault, nothing, will be a good enough reason to do what they did. It is like aborting a landing after V1. The golden rule. 

 

2 hours ago, Phillip9 said:

 

Nothing?  Really?  What if they lost power to both engines at 150m?  What do you think they should have done???   At that altitude they would have had about 1 minute to either land or crash.

 

Spot on @Phillip9. It was actually 3 minutes from declaring MAYDAY to landing on the runway. That's less time than it takes many of us to shave!

 

They only had 2 options. Land or crash!

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

Perfectly good runway ? The runway is only useful if you land within the minimum distance available. They weren't even close. That is one of the golden rules of airmanship. Why ? We can see with this accident why. 

 

No offence, intended, however, I'm struggling to differentiate your comments from random ill informed musing.

 

You've mentioned 'golden rule' as if you are an experienced airman yet your comments betray an extreme level of flawed assumption - particularly the assumption that a water ditching is preferable, its only preferable as a last resort when all other potential safer on-land options have been exhausted.

 

The 737 requires 1500m to 1800m for a regular touch-down - this run ways 1km more than conventionally required. Even 'coming in hot' and landing late, 1.4km of runway is preferable to water and fields. 

 

With regards to the actual 'touch down' - for whatever reason, mostly likely due to a hydraulic failure, the flight surfaces were limited - there were no flaps and no leading edge slats deployed, meaning to maintain lift the aircraft required greater speed.

At this greater speed, as the air-craft approached the runway the cushion of air; ground effect, prevented touch-down early on.

The pilot could not plan for 'ground effect' before the runway as the ground is likely uneven and there is risk of premature touch-down.

 

Thus the touchdown was likely the best that could be performed given the circumstances. 

 

No one considered the berm at the end of the runway.

 

 

5 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

So again, no technical fault, nothing, will be a good enough reason to do what they did. It is like aborting a landing after V1. The golden rule. 

 

This is nothing like aborting a landing of a perfectly good aircraft after V1. Additionally, if there is 'no other option' such as catastrophic power failure, aborting the take off and over-shooting is better than a stall after take-off - thus, your golden rules fail to consider the realities of un-planned and catastrophic event.

 

To suggest 'nothing will be good enough' is a huge error in observation - with a heavily damaged air-craft without flaps, slats and landing gear, and landing on a runway at speed a runway was the only viable option.

 

While there were some failures and there was possible pilot error - the choice to touch down on the runway was not one of them - no one considered the berm-wall at the time and that is the only factor that turned this into a 'mass loss of life' event, when overshooting would likely have been a very survivable event.

 

 

I am curious why the 'South to North' (initial landing) was aborted and the air-craft went around to approach from the North - perhaps this was to give them more time to set the landing gear manually, during which time cascading failures forced an 'as-is' landing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phillip9]

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I am curious why the 'South to North' (initial landing) was aborted and the air-craft went around to approach from the North - perhaps this was to give them more time to set the landing gear manually, during which time cascading failures forced an 'as-is' landing.

 

The gear appeared to be down for the initial approach.  There is a photo that shows at least the nose gear down. 

 

Why they aborted the first approach is a good question.  With a bird strike on final there is usually no reason to go around.  Better to just continue and land.   Guessing they aborted the initial approach before the bird strike in an effort to try and avoid the birds, or possibly it was a bad decision.

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

 

The gear appeared to be down for the initial approach.  There is a photo that shows at least the nose gear down. 

 

Why they aborted the first approach is a good question.  With a bird strike on final there is usually no reason to go around.  Better to just continue and land.   Guessing they aborted the initial approach before the bird strike in an effort to try and avoid the birds, or possibly it was a bad decision.

 

 

It would be interesting to see that photo and confirm that it is a genuine photo of Jeju Air 2216 on initial approach to Muan (following the Bird strike with the nose gear down).

 

This must be one factor that will obviously be answered in the course of the investigation. 

 

There is a video of the Bird Strike taking place: Firstly, it needs to be verified that this video is actually of Jeju Air 2216.

The video is poor quality, but appears to show that no landing gear was deployed. 

 

The 737-800 would usually deploy its landing gear some 3 to 5 nautical miles (5 to 8 kilometers) from the runway, during the final approach. 

 

There is no reported 'confirmed' distance from Muan Airport at which the bird strike took place, although the altitude is reported to have been 500 ft.  Assuming the conventional 3 degree glide slope the bird strike occured 1.6 nautical miles (2.9 km) from the runway. 

 

Thus: in the video showing the bird strike, I'm wondering why the landing gear was not already deployed , or if the video is actually of Jeju Air 2216.

Or if the landing gear is deployed and we can't see it from that video, then why was it retracted ? - perhaps for the 'go around' after the bird strike.

 

Lots of questions and events that don't quite add up at the moment. 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

7 hours ago, Harsh Jones said:

This is most likely what happened. An accident that will end up being similar in the way that they reacted to the bird strike.

 

 

 

Foolish non-comparison. Give it a rest

[Phillip9]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It would be interesting to see that photo and confirm that it is a genuine photo of Jeju Air 2216 on initial approach to Muan (following the Bird strike with the nose gear down).

This video shows it at 49s.  It was taken around 5nm out, well before the bird strike.

 

 

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thus: in the video showing the bird strike, I'm wondering why the landing gear was not already deployed , or if the video is actually of Jeju Air 2216.

I'm guessing they aborted the initial landing and raised the gear before the bird strike.  They were warned about birds, and maybe saw lots of them in advance and aborted to try and avoid them.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

This video shows it at 49s.  It was taken around 5nm out, well before the bird strike.

 

 

I'm guessing they aborted the initial landing and raised the gear before the bird strike.  They were warned about birds, and maybe saw lots of them in advance and aborted to try and avoid them.

 

 

 

That makes a sense...  thus a possible: 

 

1) Bird strike warning

2) observed significant number of birds ahead.

3) Decision made to abort landing and 'go around' to approach north.

4) Encountered bird strike, one engine out.

5) Did the pilot shut down the correct engine (potential pilot error ?)

6) Hydraulic loss (no - Flaps and Slats / no landing gear)

7) Too late to engage landing gear manually

8) Backup electric hydraulic systems failed (no idea why).

9) Landing north to South at speed (no flaps / slats / landing gear)

10) Ground effected resulted in touch-down 1200m down the runway (1600m reaming runway)

11) No reverse thrust (engines shut down ?) Air-craft will not arrest

12) Earth Berm topped with Concrete Raft for ALS hit at speed, aircraft explodes.

 

 

This of course is pure speculation - but given what has been reported and discussion here, its a laymans idea of possible sequence of events.

 

 

**no doubt some bright spark will come along with a comment on this discussion and criticism AN sleuths who thing we can solve the mystery instead of waiting for the results of the official investigation, and in doing so will completely miss the whole point of having an informal discussion on a forum such as this (just getting out ahead of such likely moronic comments).