36 minutes ago, LennyW said:

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.

got a link to the video from pilot ... I assume it was uploaded moments before he perished.... I would have thought he was a tad busy at that point.

17 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 ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing to do with that wall, it was the localiser concrete base that it hit.

5 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

got a link to the video from pilot ... I assume it was uploaded moments before he perished.... I would have thought he was a tad busy at that point.

 

2 minutes ago, LennyW said:

,,,

I reckon he was not the pilot.

10 minutes ago, LennyW said:

Nothing to do with that wall, it was the localiser concrete base that it hit.

 

Thanks.. that makes a lot more sense, I can see that now in the 'Pilot Vid' (posted above)... 

 

The localiser base is raised about 10 ft...  Solid concrete.... 

42 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

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

They need a full enquiry to get at the full details! 

You can bet there are several people that work in the management of that airport (or who did when the ILS concrete wall was approved) that are planning a quick getaway before the police show up at their doors. Probably sub-contractor who recommended building the 'protective' ILS wall. This is east Asia, and there is a common approach by authorities in seeking out and quickly arresting anyone involved to show they are on top of the investigation. 

It seems they thought that the landing gear was already down or they forgot to put it down and so they just tried to land as normal, only to find themselves scraping across the ground at a couple hundred miles per hour. 

Another Jeju air declares an emergency.

 

https://aviationsourcenews.com/jeju-air-b737-800-jeju-beijing-declares-emergency-diverts-to-seoul/

UPDATE
Deadliest Air Crash on South Korea Soil Claims at Least 177 Lives

 

 

At least 177 people were killed in South Korea’s deadliest air accident after a Jeju Air flight from Bangkok crashed during landing at Muan International Airport.

 

The Boeing 737-800 aircraft was carrying 181 people, including six crew members. Two crew members were rescued from the wreckage and hospitalised with “mild to severe” injuries, authorities confirmed. 84 women, 82 men, and 11 others, whose genders were not immediately identifiable.

 

The youngest victim was a three-year-old boy, while the oldest was a 78-year-old. Among those killed were five children under the age of 10. Two people remain unaccounted for nine hours after the crash, according to the South Korean fire agency, but are presumed dead. The search continues into the night.

 

Authorities have recovered both the flight data and cockpit voice recorders the plane’s black boxes. The recorders will be analysed by transport ministry experts as part of the investigation. The Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB), is the agency of the South Korean government that investigates aviation and railway accidents, reporting to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) and headquartered in Sejong City.

 

The runway at Muan International Airport is expected to remain closed until at least 1 January. Jeju Air CEO Kim E-bae offered a public apology during a televised press conference, bowing deeply and stating that the aircraft had no history of accidents and no prior indications of malfunction.

 

More than 1,500 emergency personnel were deployed to the crash site, and a special disaster zone has been declared in the area.

 

This tragedy marks a devastating loss for South Korea and for Jeju Air, a budget airline that has operated the Boeing 737-800 with a clean safety record until now.

 

-- 2024-12-29

 

 

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Another Jeju air declares an emergency.

 

https://aviationsourcenews.com/jeju-air-b737-800-jeju-beijing-declares-emergency-diverts-to-seoul/

Same aircraft, a day or two before. Creepy but unlikely a factor.

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reverse thrust was in operation on No2 engine.

Possibly.  The thrust reverser sleeve appeared to be open, but what if that engine was not working?  And maybe the engine damage earlier caused the sleeve to open.

 

Also, if one engine had reverse thrust and other had forward thrust, wouldn't the aircraft turn violently?

 

So tragic and worrying if a single bird strike could cause this disaster.

18 minutes ago, Sandboxer said:

Same aircraft, a day or two before. Creepy but unlikely a factor.

Yes, same aircraft. Coincidence that it declared an emergency 2 days before s deadly crash?

 

More food for the investigation.

50 minutes ago, RSD1 said:

It seems they thought that the landing gear was already down or they forgot to put it down and so they just tried to land as normal,

 

Doubtful.  They didn't have flaps down either and they landed in the wrong direction for the wind conditions.  More likely they had a series of mechanical failures including engines and hydraulics used to lower the landing gear and were forced to land with no power.  Probably had no time to use backup procedures to lower the gear.

UPDATE

All passengers and four of six crew killed in Jeju Air flight crash, officials confirm

 

The final missing 2 bodies have been found. 179 people have died and two people were rescued from the plane carrying 181 people that crashed at the Muan international airport on the  morning of December 29, the Yonhap news agency reported, citing rescue authorities.
 

“Of the 179 dead, 65 have been identified,” South Korea’s fire agency said. The two surviving crew members were rescued from the tail of the aircraft and had suffered “mid to severe” injuries.

 

Authorities said. It is the deadliest air crash to occur in South Korea, surpassing the 1993 Asiana Airlines crash in Mokpo that killed over 60 people.

31 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

 

Also, if one engine had reverse thrust and other had forward thrust, wouldn't the aircraft turn violently?

 

 

At speed, the rudder can counteract the yaw caused by reverse thrust from one engine.

As an aircraft slow's the rudder would be less effective... 

 

This air-craft did not slow, so I'm guessing its possible that the reverse thrust and yaw from one engine could have been counteracted by the pilot (using the rudder)...  If the reverse thrust from one engine was used at all.

17 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

“Of the 179 dead, 65 have been identified,” South Korea’s fire agency said. The two surviving crew members were rescued from the tail of the aircraft and had suffered “mid to severe” injuries.

 

Imagine the survivors horror as everyone you have interacted with for the past 4 hours is now dead.. (bar one person)...   I'd imagine thats going to be tough to deal with, even in light of the euphoria of surviving. 

 

I'm sure we'll find out in due course.. But I wonder where 'in the tail' section of the air-craft they were seated and why they survived while everyone else tragically perished. 

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

But I wonder where 'in the tail' section of the air-craft they were seated and why they survived while everyone else tragically perished. 

 

They were cabin crew.  Must have been in the very back behind the passenger seats.

1 minute ago, Phillip9 said:

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

But I wonder where 'in the tail' section of the air-craft they were seated and why they survived while everyone else tragically perished. 

 

They were cabin crew.  Must have been in the very back behind the passenger seats.

 

Yep.. I'm wondering what saved them vs the last row of passengers...  i.e. could the bulkhead have provided additional strength etc, or seated backwards made the difference... closest to the door and those seconds mattered ?

10 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

The runway at Muan (01/19) is 9,186 feet long. Bangkok average runway length is 13,123 feet long and 197 feet wide (runway 2). Maybe thrust reversers on a 737-800 would be jammed during a belly landing if they are mounted to the engines?

 

Sounds reasonable.

1 hour ago, Sandboxer said:

Same aircraft, a day or two before. Creepy but unlikely a factor.

Why do you think it's unlikely a factor? I would presume the investigators are looking into this. Unless of course the link i provided got it wrong and it's not the same plane with the same registration number?

Obviously the bird strike, presumably seen here...

 

 

Caused the aircraft malfunction.

 

However, the logical question might be:

 

a.  Is there actually a concrete wall at the end of the runway?

b.  Why would there be a concrete wall at the end of the runway?

c. Was it the barrier at the end of the runway which was principally the most significant factor for loss of life?

 

 

 

Looks like the tail section remained fairly intact.

 

====

Is there a history of similar though less catastrophic events while landing on this runway?

 

====

The causes (probably multiple) of this crash will require many months before a full report is published.

 

The following article on the link below has some interesting updates. Given the extent of the crash, explosion, and the flames, it’s hard to imagine that the two surviving flight attendants could’ve even survived. They are extremely fortunate. One male and one female. Both in stable condition. One of them has no memory at all of the incident:

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/jeju-air-plane-crash-survivor-has-no-memory-of-incident-witnesses-recount-moments-before-tragedy

44 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Yep.. I'm wondering what saved them vs the last row of passengers...  i.e. could the bulkhead have provided additional strength etc, or seated backwards made the difference... closest to the door and those seconds mattered ?

 

   Sat at the very back of the plane , lots of airbags in front of them  ?

8 hours ago, Sandboxer said:

 

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.

 

What about a pigeon or a seagull?

2 hours ago, LennyW said:

Nothing to do with that wall, it was the localiser concrete base that it hit.

 

It really does not matter what you call it.

The plane hit a concrete structure and then broke up.

 

The question is:  Is this the fault of improper runway design?

 

 

Reuters seems to have the best full video of the emergency landing of this flight, clearly showing impact with barrier:

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/plane-drives-off-runway-crashes-airport-south-korea-yonhap-reports-2024-12-29/

 

 

The seating capacity for this aircraft can vary depending on the configuration...

 

 

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jeju_Air/Jeju_Air_Boeing_737-800.php

 

So then:

 

Why would they construct this very thick earthen barricade so close to the end of the runway (tarmac)?

 

If the aircraft had not hit this barrier, then there was plenty of flat ground ahead.

 

 

The block wall, behind the earthen barricade might have much more easily given way without breaking up the aircraft.

 

However, clearly, any aircraft hitting the earthen barricade would be stopped dead....which is exactly what seems to have happened here.

 

What is the justification for such a barricade?

Is there any?

 

NOTE:  For that matter, what is the justification for having the block-wall so close to the runway, or at all.  Wouldn't a mesh fence make more sense?

 

Is what we see a good design?

 

 

One of the posted video links clearly showed the starboard engine spitting out flames as it flew overhead.  So that and the verbal calls about bird strike seem to line up.  Plane may have been then leaking fuel and the pilot decided to get on the ground rather quickly.  Reports seem to say the pilot did one go around which seems reasonable as he tries to sort things out.  Not sure why gear didn't come down.  Maybe pilot decided not to lower the gear because of fear it would cause too much drag and with only one engine he preferred to try and maintain speed and less drag.  And it does look like the plane did not go out of its way to touchdown as early as possible on the runway.  But that is probably normal behavior as the pilots nominally  wait until they cross the touchdown threshold.  So looks like a confluence of bad things happened.  I still don't like the VOR or VORTAC or whatever part of the ILS was so close to the end of the runway.  I would think modern avionics could could process the offset if the thing was moved out of the way a bit.

 

Some parts of the 737 are composite non metallic and may make the plane a bit more slippery on the ground whereas aluminum might splinter, dig into the runway etc..?

I would think this technology might have been very useful at Muan airport: