7 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

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.

 

20/20 hindsight is perfect... 

 

 

7 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

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.

 

Although its not 'your' job to asses these risks... Would you have made any mental note of such a risk if observing at an airport ? would you have even noticed it ?

 

One thing is for sure - the Berm wall topped with a thick concrete block was built that way for a reason at one point - for no other reason than curiosity, it would be interesting to know why.

 

Another point - it is only after a disaster that many of us laymen start pointing the finger. 

 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

20/20 hindsight is perfect... 

 

 

 

Although its not 'your' job to asses these risks... Would you have made any mental note of such a risk if observing at an airport ? would you have even noticed it ?

 

One thing is for sure - the Berm wall topped with a thick concrete block was built that way for a reason at one point - for no other reason than curiosity, it would be interesting to know why.

 

Another point - it is only after a disaster that many of us laymen start pointing the finger. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Without us laymen pointing the finger, sometimes....things don't get done.

 

b.  Thank you for correcting my spelling error. A berm is NOT a burm.

 

A Geek's View of the crash.

 

Please do not underestimate this guy's analysis.....Thank you.....

 

This Geek always does his homework.

Always Hard to fault him in his analysis.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

A Geek's View of the crash.

 

Please do not underestimate this guy's analysis.....Thank you.....

 

This Geek always does his homework.

Always Hard to fault him in his analysis.

 

 

 

 

This is also what I think and what most pilots think but just don't want to say outright. The pilots panic landed the aircraft without giving themselves time to go through even one checklist. Just abhorrent airmanship and CRM. It wasn't the belly landing that killed anyone. It was landing at the last 3rd of the runway, not giving themselves enough distance to slow down. 

 

The berm at the end of the runway is also a scandal. They make ILS antenna systems weak at the base so that aircraft can plow through them. But this one was too low so they built up the ground and even poured concrete onto it. They could have built it up with the same framing that the ILS antenna's are made of. And the craft would have hit it without destroying the hull. Yes, there is also a concrete parameter wall around the airport. But even those aren't that strong and can be punched through 

 

 

16 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   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 

 

????

 

If they landed on the runway in the correct spot, or even half way, the aircraft would have enough distance to lose its momentum and come to a stop. The throttle was not stuck open. Just the resistance from the belly and the air will bring it to a stop.

6 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

The berm at the end of the runway is also a scandal.

 

!!!!!!

5 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

 

This is also what I think and what most pilots think but just don't want to say outright. The pilots panic landed the aircraft without giving themselves time to go through even one checklist. Just abhorrent airmanship and CRM. It wasn't the belly landing that killed anyone. It was landing at the last 3rd of the runway, not giving themselves enough distance to slow down. 

 

The berm at the end of the runway is also a scandal. They make ILS antenna systems weak at the base so that aircraft can plow through them. But this one was too low so they built up the ground and even poured concrete onto it. They could have built it up with the same framing that the ILS antenna's are made of. And the craft would have hit it without destroying the hull. Yes, there is also a concrete parameter wall around the airport. But even those aren't that strong and can be punched through 

 

 

Agreed. Looks like they will uncover multiple faults—not just a bird strike.

13 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

 

 

The hydraulics is 3 times redundant on these aircraft before it even gets to the RAT.  They did not lose hydraulics. The flight surfaces were still working. Hence how they lined it up with the runway and leveled it off properly for the belly landing.  

 

They lost one engine from a bird strike. Airliners can take off and land with one engine. And it is practiced all the time. 

11 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

This is also what I think and what most pilots think but just don't want to say outright. The pilots panic landed the aircraft without giving themselves time to go through even one checklist. Just abhorrent airmanship and CRM. It wasn't the belly landing that killed anyone. It was landing at the last 3rd of the runway, not giving themselves enough distance to slow down. 

 

Given what we know:

• One engine out while landing
• Other running engine was hit by bird strike
• Electrical failure
• No gear while landing
• No flaps while landing
• No spoilers while landing
• Landed in the wrong direction for the runway

 

Either the pilot panicked, forgot the gear, flaps, and spoilers, and landed in the wrong direction, or the plane was severely damaged and basically falling out of the sky.  I think it's much more likely the pilot had no choice given the electrical failure and both engines were involved.

 

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Errr  The plane touched down in the opposite direction of the initial approach and intended landing direction, That would mean the bern is at the beginning of the runway... not the end.

24 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

 

Given what we know:

• One engine out while landing
• Other running engine was hit by bird strike
• Electrical failure
• No gear while landing
• No flaps while landing
• No spoilers while landing
• Landed in the wrong direction for the runway

 

Either the pilot panicked, forgot the gear, flaps, and spoilers, and landed in the wrong direction, or the plane was severely damaged and basically falling out of the sky.  I think it's much more likely the pilot had no choice given the electrical failure and both engines were involved.

 

 

The other engine was fine. It can even be heard  running in the video. Every 6 months, pilots are proficiency checked for landing and taking off with one engine. 

 

There is no grand electrical failure that disables everything. And the pilots were still hand flying the aircraft when they landed. They were straight inline with the runway and leveled it off properly

11 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

 

 

Errr  The plane touched down in the opposite direction of the initial approach and intended landing direction, That would mean the bern is at the beginning of the runway... not the end.

The airport has a single runway and numbered 01 and 19, depending on which way it is approached.

 

Aircraft generally will land into the wind to improve control, reduce ground speed, and shorten landing distance. Air traffic controllers assess wind conditions using real-time data from airport weather stations, to determine which side of approach is to be used.

 

So the bern was a the beginning which the aircraft made it initial approach on runway 01, but was at the end of the runway when the plane crashed after landing on runway 19.

 

Jeppesen chart used for flight planning and in-flight navigation. for the airport is below. (Airpots codes IATA: MWX, ICAO: RKJB)

 

4 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

The other engine was fine. It can even be heard  running in the video.

 

The running engine was the one hit by a bird in the video.  You have no way to know it was "fine".  Given the electrical failure, it is likely that engine was severely damaged also.

56 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

 

The hydraulics is 3 times redundant on these aircraft before it even gets to the RAT.  They did not lose hydraulics. The flight surfaces were still working. Hence how they lined it up with the runway and leveled it off properly for the belly landing.  

 

They lost one engine from a bird strike. Airliners can take off and land with one engine. And it is practiced all the time. 

There is a contradiction in your logic. Ponder this.

 

If he had one good engine, why didn't the pilot continue with the normal go around and make a fresh approach, deploying flaps, spoilers and landing gear? As you yourself point out he could have done that with ease on one engine.

 

Instead he chose to make a very hasty turn back and landed without flaps, spoilers or landing gear. Now that, in my mind adds up to double engine failure. Think back to the so called 'Miracle on the Hudson'. That event took 3 1/2 minutes unfold. It was a similar time frame for this incident as well.

 

 

 

 

My (purely speculative take is) they had a bird strike on the starboard engine con tuned to overfly the airport as they shutdown the (port) engine by mistake tryed landing in the opposite direction thinking they had possibly lost both engines.landed long the aircraft caught up in ground effect exacerbated the problem of slowing down and we know the rest.perhaps they did indeed lose both engines we will find out in due time,that being said it was a horrific accident my condolences to the bereaved a very very sad outcome.

12 hours 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 ...

 

So the gear, engines, flaps were all available then. No comparison. 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

12 hours 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 ...

 

 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

So the gear, engines, flaps were all available then. No comparison. 

And it wasn't at the same airport either!

10 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not funny,

5 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

A Geek's View of the crash.

 

Please do not underestimate this guy's analysis.....Thank you.....

 

This Geek always does his homework.

Always Hard to fault him in his analysis.

 

 

 

 

This "geek" is obviously as clueless as you are.

1 hour ago, Phillip9 said:

 

Given what we know:

• One engine out while landing
• Other running engine was hit by bird strike
• Electrical failure
• No gear while landing
• No flaps while landing
• No spoilers while landing
• Landed in the wrong direction for the runway

 

Either the pilot panicked, forgot the gear, flaps, and spoilers, and landed in the wrong direction, or the plane was severely damaged and basically falling out of the sky.  I think it's much more likely the pilot had no choice given the electrical failure and both engines were involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to all that please.

14 hours 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.  

This plane was involved in an incident 2 days before already.

The airport was opened in 2007. The runway is long enough according international standard. Plus 240m extra. So the wall at the end is not a problem in general, but there are better effective safety constructions available. (Glas/concrete bed). The pilot probably wanted to pull up again but failed due to the birds in the engine 

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Not funny,

He is one real jerk.

56 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

If he had one good engine, why didn't the pilot continue with the normal go around and make a fresh approach, deploying flaps, spoilers and landing gear? As you yourself point out he could have done that with ease on one engine.

 

Instead he chose to make a very hasty turn back and landed without flaps, spoilers or landing gear. Now that, in my mind adds up to double engine failure. T

 

Note also that gear hydraulics are run by the left engine (the one that appears to be completely off), and the flaps and spoiler hydraulics are run by the right engine.  Something else pointing to a double engine failure.

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Link to all that please.

 

Watch all the videos posted on this thread already.  All this info is in them.

23 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

 

Watch all the videos posted on this thread already.  All this info is in them.

 

You mean your list of guesswork?

1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

There is a contradiction in your logic. Ponder this.

 

If he had one good engine, why didn't the pilot continue with the normal go around and make a fresh approach, deploying flaps, spoilers and landing gear? As you yourself point out he could have done that with ease on one engine.

 

Instead he chose to make a very hasty turn back and landed without flaps, spoilers or landing gear. Now that, in my mind adds up to double engine failure. Think back to the so called 'Miracle on the Hudson'. That event took 3 1/2 minutes unfold. It was a similar time frame for this incident as well.

 

Acute stress and thus panic. 

How do we know electrical failure?  

Couldn't they have risen above that wall at the end and then landed in the sea?

19 hours ago, Moonlover said:

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.

 

Stop proving you know nothing about Aeronautics. 

On 12/29/2024 at 2:16 PM, Rimmer said:

The aircraft suffered a bird strike and possibly had one engine out.

Were the crew preoccupied with that event and maybe forget to lower the gear following the bird strike? (speculation)

From the speed it could be they were trying to take off again. (speculation)

 

There is a longer video on the ABC website it shows 13 seconds between touchdown and overrun.

Runway length is 9186 feet. If they touched down at the 1000-foot marker they touched down late and were very fast and used all of the EMS (Engineered Materials Arresting System) before hitting the perimeter wall,   average ground speed to over run could be as high as  208kt.

 

A sliding aircraft on a concrete runway is not easy to slow down, they would have slowed quicker on the grass at the side of the runway..

 

Were slats and spoilers deployed in order to slow the plane down?

Were thrust reverses deployed  in order to slow the plane down

 

 

 

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?