10 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

An airport landing without landing gear or flaps is a dicey proposition.  Better to ditch in the water adjacent to the runway.  It worked for USAir Miracle on the Hudson.

As I've ready said, (in the part of my post you chose to ignore) if it hadn't been for the badly sited concrete wall this was a survivable landing. The pilot did very well.

17 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

 

It's partly a pilot error.  I watched the landing and he came in hot.  They should have diverted to an airport with a longer runway. 

 

 

 

   It wasn't the length of the runway , its that the plane didn't stop .

Wouldn't matter how long the runway was if the plane couldn't stop 

9 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

An airport landing without landing gear or flaps is a dicey proposition.  Better to ditch in the water adjacent to the runway.  It worked for USAir Miracle on the Hudson.

World's worst advice.  Water landings are notoriously deadly.  He came in hot. Pilot error.  He should have diverted to a longer runway.  Most airplanes have a manual crank under the cockpit to drop the gear. 

 

Total sh&tstorm.

2 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

World's worst advice.  Water landings are notoriously deadly.  He came in hot. Pilot error.  He should have diverted to a longer runway.  Most airplanes have a manual crank under the cockpit to drop the gear. 

 

Total sh&tstorm.

Agree with most of this.  Pilot could have chosen a better option.  Good thing USAir didn’t attempt an airport belly up landing.  They had zero fatalities on the Hudson River.

1 hour ago, Enoon said:

 

This is a localiser on a concrete base:

 

 

Had it hit anything like that it would have kept going.

 

 

This is what it hit. 

 

 

Judging by this, and the great amounts amounts of earth shown being thrown up in uncensored videos, most of it was an earthen berm.

 

 

Agreed...  It looks like a thick concrete base on top of a raised earth base... 

 

From the 'Pilot video' (on Youtube and posted by lennyW above and earlier on in the thread by Kinnok) - the base can be seen.... (photos taken from the video below).

 

Also a photo, taken from Google Maps, showing the earth mound / wall on top of which the thick concrete base appears to have been located. 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Agree with most of this.  Pilot could have chosen a better option.  Good thing USAir didn’t attempt an airport belly up landing.  They had zero fatalities on the Hudson River.

 

You are not a pilot.

32 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

16 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

World's worst advice.  Water landings are notoriously deadly.  He came in hot. Pilot error.  He should have diverted to a longer runway.  Most airplanes have a manual crank under the cockpit to drop the gear. 

 

Total sh&tstorm.

 

Without knowing what the problem with the aircraft was it's not possible to judge whether a diversion was feasible. Only the guy in the hot seat was able to make that call.

 

32 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Agree with most of this.  Pilot could have chosen a better option.  Good thing USAir didn’t attempt an airport belly up landing.  They had zero fatalities on the Hudson River.

 

Sully put his airplane down in the Hudson because he had no other option. Runways were offered to him, but he judged none of them were within gliding range.

 

The NTSB actually tried to make a case against him claiming that he had made the wrong call, that he could have made it to a runway. They were eventually proved wrong by several pilots who attempted a 'dry' landing in a simulator. None could do so.

 

A pilot will always attempt to land on an airfield where he knows that rescue and recovery services on hand. He would never ever choose a landing on water unless he had no other option. 

 

US airways was a very, very rare exception

A post breaking forum  rules has been removed.

 

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.

4 hours ago, Moonlover said:

 

2 minutes after being told to abort his landing due to birds, the captain declared a 'Mayday'. Mayday doesn't mean 'I want to go to bathroom', it means' I need to get this aircraft on the ground NOW!'

 

No diversions, no foam, (they don't do that now anyway) 'on the ground now'.

 

I've just watched the Korean News video releases. The sickening aspect of this incident is that the pilot made a very good job of getting that aircraft down in what were, obviously very harrowing circumstances. And if it wasn't for that concrete wall they probably have all survived. Very, very sad indeed.

Update:

Exactly this plane was involved in an incident 10 flights prior to this disaster. Karma.

1 hour ago, Gobbler said:

It's partly a pilot error.  I watched the landing and he came in hot.  They should have diverted to an airport with a longer runway. 

From the videos we know only one engine running when they landed, and the one that was running had been hit by a bird, so it may have been in the process of failing.  They came in hot because flaps were not down.  Possibly due to mechanical failure.  

 

Diverting to another airport would have been crazy.

10 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

From the videos we know only one engine running when they landed, and the one that was running had been hit by a bird, so it may have been in the process of failing.  They came in hot because flaps were not down.  Possibly due to mechanical failure.  

 

Diverting to another airport would have been crazy.

 

Solid comment - that also may be why there was no time to manually deploy the landing gear perhaps ?

 

Or, they tried, possibly after an initially hydraulic failure etc... but had no time for a fly around to ensure the gear was down... (all conjecture of course).

 

 

I'm still wondering how a bird strike could impact the landing gear, unless two incidents were unrelated (which while not impossible, is somewhat implausible). 

 

29 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Update:

Exactly this plane was involved in an incident 10 flights prior to this disaster. Karma.

 

As mentioned by stevenl - but its unclear what this 'incident' was...   do you know ?

1 hour ago, Enoon said:

 

Not much mention made, but I think you'll find that he came in downwind.

 

 

I could see that from the short video. Even so, a belly landing should stop the plane fast. 

 

46 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Solid comment - that also may be why there was no time to manually deploy the landing gear perhaps ?

 

Or, they tried, possibly after an initially hydraulic failure etc... but had no time for a fly around to ensure the gear was down... (all conjecture of course).

 

 

I'm still wondering how a bird strike could impact the landing gear, unless two incidents were unrelated (which while not impossible, is somewhat implausible). 

 

 

If they lost engine power, which seems likely, then they loose hydraulic pressure. There is a ram air turbine which can provide emergency pressure, but that takes time to deploy and all this is happening at a very low altitude and time is of the essence. 

 

The undercarriage can be lowered manually, but that takes time and needs 'hands on' (see video) I doubt whether either were available to the pilots

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+does+the+pilot+of+a+737+lower+the+landing+in+an+emergancy&sca_esv=458614b49d3a637b&hl=en&source=hp&ei=9W1yZ4SGGuuP2roP-tTqwAo&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZ3J8BcyHI7l6TEmEHBY6M1IymqWpolpk&ved=0ahUKEwjE1NjynM-KAxXrh1YBHXqqGqgQ4dUDCBE&oq=how+does+the+pilot+of+a+737+lower+the+landing+in+an+emergancy&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ij1ob3cgZG9lcyB0aGUgcGlsb3Qgb2YgYSA3MzcgbG93ZXIgdGhlIGxhbmRpbmcgaW4gYW4gZW1lcmdhbmN5MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI-_wCUABYv-QCcAB4AJABAJgBswGgAeUpqgEFMzUuMTi4AQzIAQD4AQGYAjWgArMrwgIHEAAYgAQYE8ICDBAAGIAEGBMYRhj_AcICBhAAGBYYHsICBRAAGO8FwgIFECEYnwXCAgQQIRgVmAMAkgcFMjYuMjegB466Ag&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:335bd7ed,vid:paKC6MTvp7Q,st:0

On 12/29/2024 at 11:29 AM, ronnie50 said:

Also, the plane did not 'veer' off the runway. It used up all 9,000+ feet of it and then contnued skidding across the grass at the end of the runway before colliding with the structure. Doesn't look like it veered on the grass either. So it wasn't able to slow down, and there doesn't appear to be any foam deployed on the runway - and hitting that structure appeared unavoidable.

    Agree.  Hard to watch the video because the plane landed ok--it did not break up on impact.  Likely far more would have survived, since the fuselage was intact after landing, had the runway not had the concrete wall at the end.  Which seems like madness to me since the runway was short to begin with and there could be the possibility that sometime a plane might overshoot the end of the short runway.  That sometime happened.  

34 minutes ago, newnative said:

    Agree.  Hard to watch the video because the plane landed ok--it did not break up on impact.  Likely far more would have survived, since the fuselage was intact after landing, had the runway not had the concrete wall at the end.  Which seems like madness to me since the runway was short to begin with and there could be the possibility that sometime a plane might overshoot the end of the short runway.  That sometime happened.  

Yes, a shortened runway with a concrete barrier at one end.  But they were seasoned pilots and had landed there before.  

14 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Yes, a shortened runway with a concrete barrier at one end.  But they were seasoned pilots and had landed there before.  

Yes, but not a normal landing.

6 minutes ago, newnative said:

Yes, but not a normal landing.

Agreed.  They knew the landing strip, and what lay at the end of it.  They must have figured it their best option, sadly.

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

As mentioned by stevenl - but its unclear what this 'incident' was...   do you know ?

The only record of this plane , Hl8088, making an emergency landing was on December 27 and had nothing to do with the aircraft itself.

South Korea’s EKN (Energy Economic News), confirmed that the Jeju Air flight 7C8135 on Boeing aircraft HL8088 departed from Jeju International Airport at 11:51 local time and was scheduled to pass over the West Sea, Yantai, and Tianjin, but turned toward Incheon International Airport at 12:55 local time, before entering mainland China. Subsequently, at 13:15 local time, the captain declared an emergency and squawked “7700,” a transponder code signalling that an aircraft is experiencing a general emergency and requires immediate assistance from air traffic control (ATC).

 

The Incheon International Airport Police Investigation Division told EKN, “There was a Chinese passenger who complained of head and chest pain.” A Jeju Air representative added, “the said passenger lost consciousness at the time, prompting the emergency landing.” . During this process, the cabin crew’s first aid efforts helped the passenger regain consciousness. The aircraft landed at Incheon International Airport at 1:28 local time and the passenger was transferred to a hospital.

 

EKN also reported that at 15:39 local time HL8088 took off again from Incheon Airport and arrived at Daxing Airport at 16:33 local time.

 

2 hours ago, Moonlover said:

 

If they lost engine power, which seems likely, then they loose hydraulic pressure. There is a ram air turbine which can provide emergency pressure, but that takes time to deploy and all this is happening at a very low altitude and time is of the essence. 

 

The undercarriage can be lowered manually, but that takes time and needs 'hands on' (see video) I doubt whether either were available to the pilots

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+does+the+pilot+of+a+737+lower+the+landing+in+an+emergancy&sca_esv=458614b49d3a637b&hl=en&source=hp&ei=9W1yZ4SGGuuP2roP-tTqwAo&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZ3J8BcyHI7l6TEmEHBY6M1IymqWpolpk&ved=0ahUKEwjE1NjynM-KAxXrh1YBHXqqGqgQ4dUDCBE&oq=how+does+the+pilot+of+a+737+lower+the+landing+in+an+emergancy&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ij1ob3cgZG9lcyB0aGUgcGlsb3Qgb2YgYSA3MzcgbG93ZXIgdGhlIGxhbmRpbmcgaW4gYW4gZW1lcmdhbmN5MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI-_wCUABYv-QCcAB4AJABAJgBswGgAeUpqgEFMzUuMTi4AQzIAQD4AQGYAjWgArMrwgIHEAAYgAQYE8ICDBAAGIAEGBMYRhj_AcICBhAAGBYYHsICBRAAGO8FwgIFECEYnwXCAgQQIRgVmAMAkgcFMjYuMjegB466Ag&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:335bd7ed,vid:paKC6MTvp7Q,st:0

They had a working engine, did they not? Do we know for sure both engines were out? 

 

1 hour ago, Isaan sailor said:

Agreed.  They knew the landing strip, and what lay at the end of it.  They must have figured it their best option, sadly.

BBC reported they landed “roughly in the middle of the 2800m runway”  No way they could stop it in time from halfway.

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 ...

South Korea's Ministry of Transport reported on December 30, that the flight data recorder was recovered but has been damaged, it is unclear at the moment whether the data are intact. The recorder has been taken to Seoul where analysis begins as soon as the team of NTSB and Boeing has arrived.
 

The Ministry also released following time line of events:

8:54L: Muan airport air traffic control clears the aircraft to land on runway 01

8:57L: Air traffic control broadcasts “caution - bird activity” advisory.

8:59L: Flight 7C-2216 pilot reports bird strike, declares emergency “Mayday Mayday Mayday” and “Bird strike, bird strike, go-around.”

9:00L: Flight 7C2216 initiates a go-around and requests authorisation to land on runway 19, which is by approach from the opposite end of the airport’s single runway.

9:01L: Air traffic control clears the aircraft to land on runway 19.

9:02L: Flight 7C-2216 touches down on the runway about 1,200m (3940 feet) down on the 2,800m (9184 feet) long runway.

9:02:34L: Air traffic control alerts “crash alarm” at airport fire rescue unit.

9:02:55L: Airport fire rescue unit deploying fire rescue appliances.

9:03L: Flight 7C-2216 crashes into embankment after over-shooting the runway.

9:10L: The transport ministry receives an accident report from airport authorities.

9:23L: One male rescued and transported to a temporary medical facility.

9:38L: Muan airport is closed.

9:50L: Rescue completed of a second person from inside tail section of the plane.

 

45 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

They had a working engine, did they not? Do we know for sure both engines were out? 

 

No one knows for sure, but investigators will be able prove that one way or another.

 

Reading the time line that @Georgealbert has just posted above, it does seem very likely that this was a similar incident to the so called 'Miracle on the Hudson, which I think most of us will remember. Multiple bird strikes resulting in double engine failure. That incident by the way only lasted 3^1/₂  minutes from bird strike to slash down.

 

Pilots do not have the luxury of time when these incidents occur. 

29 minutes ago, 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 ...

Where has this been reported? The last I read the airport was closed until at least Wednesday.

4 hours ago, Gobbler said:

I could see that from the short video. Even so, a belly landing should stop the plane fast. 

 

 

Not in this case.

The engine nacelles on the newer 737s are very low.

And seem to touch the runway before the fuselage.

This causes the aircraft to ride on the engines, and not the entire surface area of the fuselage.

Therefore, much less frictional drag is encountered.

 

Thai nationals identified:

 

https://thai.news/news/thailand/heartfelt-tributes-remembering-jongluk-duongmanee-and-sirithon-chaue-after-jeju-air-tragedy

 

Very sad. I suspect the older lady was returning after seeing her kids in Thailand.

 

Meanwhile, in the UK, one of the TV channels broadcasts the movie "Airport", the plot of which involves a passenger blowing himself up in the lavatory of a 707. George Kennedy, playing a cigar chomping chief ground mechanic, had the memorable line, when trying to free up a 707 frozen to the runway;

 

Quote

Who do ya think you're talking to, some kid that fixes bicycles? I know every inch of the 707! Take the wings off this and you could use it as a TANK! This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot

 

Normally there is programme rescheduling in these cases.

32 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Where has this been reported? The last I read the airport was closed until at least Wednesday.

This is the incident being referred to;

 

 Jeju B738 at Seoul on Dec 30th 2024, landing gear problem on departure.

A Jeju Air Boeing 737-800, registration HL8090 performing flight 7C-101 from Seoul Gimpo to Jeju Island (South Korea) with 161 people on board, was climbing out of Gimpo's runway 14L when the crew levelled off at 5000 feet and decided to return to Gimpo Airport due to a problem with the landing gear. The aircraft landed safely on runway 14R about 35 minutes after departure.

.The airline stated that the crew received indication of a possible landing gear problem, however, the landing gear functioned normally. The aircraft is being examined and the aircraft remains on the ground.
 

.

21 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

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?

 

 

I think these questions are something that will have to asked and answered in an investigation. 

 

But, as I understand it (though may well be mistaken), this 2800m runway at Muan is a 'one way runway'...  i.e. Take off and landing is always from South to North - it was postulated by the 737 Pilot in the YouTube video that the 'mound' (wall) was used as a 'jet blast'  wall...  for aircraft taking off (from south to north). It may even be a remnant from previous military uses for the airport. 

 

I'm guessing that this will be taken as a significant lesson learned and any Airport with similar features will be removing them at this very moment.

 

 

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I'm guessing that this will be taken as a significant lesson learned and any Airport with similar features will be removing them at this very moment.

 

 

ABSOLUTELY....!!!!

 

This was a disastrous oversight on the part of the airport designers.

 

In addition, just from Google Street View, one can easily view the conditions past the runway, and it's ALL flat land.

There was no need for this to happen, if only someone had thought....ahead.

 

And, as you say, one must wait for the  published report in several months' time.

 

Many Years ago, when AV&ST was slightly different in format, and was a lot drier, featuring detailed accident reports, I subscribed to this excellent publication, and enjoyed it very much..like DECADES ago.

 

The full report will be forthcoming.

One must wait until then before drawing any firm conclusions.

 

Still....that BURM at the end of the runway was a DEAD-giveaway of one of the factors that might have led to higher death toll....just my view.