Korean Plane Crash

[JD2168]

There has been a plane crash in South Korea at Muan Airport when a JeJu Air plane crashed into a wall after attempting a belly landing unfortunately killing 179 of the 181 passengers on board. The only survivors are two of the crew who were at the back of the plane.

The aircraft was a Boeing 737 & was flying from Bangkok towards South Korea.

The Black Box & Voice recorder have been recovered.

A number of countries including the United States have offered assistance to help with investigations into this tragedy.

All sympathies go to the families who have lost loved ones in this tragedy.

Jeju Air: South Korea plane crash kills 179 with investigation under way

Just two survivors were rescued from the wreckage of the passenger plane, which had been returning from Thailand.

www.bbc.com

The plane landed at Muan International Airport in the country's south, skidding off the runway and crashing into a wall in a fiery explosion.

Flight 2216 had been returning from Bangkok, Thailand with six crew and 175 passengers, many of them holidaymakers.

An investigation into the cause is under way - with experts and officials pointing to a number of possible factors.

Footage of the crash - which happened shortly after 09:00 local time (00:00 GMT) - showed the aircraft landing without wheels, overshooting the runway and crashing into the airport's perimeter wall, before it exploded into flames.

 

[Class15]

So sad to see so many people lose their lives in what sounds like a preventable tragedy. Not the first big one this week which is very worrying.

 

[edwin_m]

Denys Davidov has put some thoughts together. This was quite soon after the accident and the comments below it provide some potential extra information (all equally unverified of course), but none of the the usually informed YouTubers I'm aware of has posted anything more recent.

There seems to be a concensus that the localiser support structure off the end of the runway made this much worse, but not on why they landed much of the way down the runway at high speed with no gear or flaps, after initially approaching in the opposite direction. Possibly a go-around after a bird strike and actual or perceived loss of thrust leading to an immediate attempt to land rather than a planned second approach?

Here I just the know fact and only my opinion about the Crash. There are many questions that could not be answered at this point so we need more data and investiogation team will find out what happened.

A Jeju Boeing 737-800, registration HL8088 performing flight 7C-2216 from Bangkok (Thailand) to Muan (South Korea) with 175 passengers and 6 crew, landed on Muan's runway 19 at about 09:03L (00:03Z) with all gear up, overran the runway sliding on fuselage and engines, impacted a concrete fence about 300 meters (1000 feet) past the runway end and burst into a fireball. Two people have been rescued alive, 120 bodies have been recovered, there are no hopes for more survivors.

Muan's Fire Fighters reported the malfunction of the landing gear, likely caused by a bird strike, prompted a go around. The aircraft then attempted another landing in adverse weather conditions. However, the exact cause needs to be determined by a following joint investigation...

 

[Darandio]

Possibly a go-around after a bird strike and actual or perceived loss of thrust leading to an immediate attempt to land rather than a planned second approach?

@Class15 seems to know? ↓ ↓

So sad to see so many people lose their lives in what sounds like a preventable tragedy. Not the first big one this week which is very worrying.

Genuine question, what was preventable? I've only skimmed the BBC article on the crash and nothing seems forthcoming. Is there more information?

 

[Class15]

@Class15 seems to know? ↓ ↓



Genuine question, what was preventable? I've only skimmed the BBC article on the crash and nothing seems forthcoming. Is there more information?

The article I read said that the most likely cause was a bird stuck in the wing and that it was problematic because of the way Boeing built the plane. The article may well have been incorrect (I cannot find it now) and I apologise if I sounded over-confident, however I did say “sounds like” - I didn’t confirm anything. Clearly however Boeing have had their issues recently and this is unlikely to help their case.

 

[Ted633]

Something very unusual has happened here though. To land with no undercarriage and no flaps is very odd. It would take quite a sequence of events to knock both of them out completely. Hopefully data from the recorders is good and can point theories in the right direction soon.

Reports also indicate the aircraft touched down over halfway along the runway at quite a rate of knots.

 

[edwin_m]

The article I read said that the most likely cause was a bird stuck in the wing and that it was problematic because of the way Boeing built the plane. The article may well have been incorrect (I cannot find it now) and I apologise if I sounded over-confident, however I did say “sounds like” - I didn’t confirm anything. Clearly however Boeing have had their issues recently and this is unlikely to help their case.

A bird stuck in the wing would be highly unlikely to prevent the landing gear going down. Multiple birds in both engines could have led to a total loss of power at low altitude and with little option but to turn back or attempt an off-field landing. Lack of flaps and gear could have been due to them being raised as part of the go-around, and then when it turned out they had no thrust the resulting mental overload led to them forgetting they needed to set them back for landing.

However, belly landings are normally survivable and this might have been much more so if the antennas at the runway end hadn't been on top of a concrete wall.

 

[Class15]

A bird stuck in the wing would be highly unlikely to prevent the landing gear going down. Multiple birds in both engines could have led to a total loss of power at low altitude and with little option but to turn back or attempt an off-field landing. Lack of flaps and gear could have been due to them being raised as part of the go-around, and then when it turned out they had no thrust the resulting mental overload led to them forgetting they needed to set them back for landing.

However, belly landings are normally survivable and this might have been much more so if the antennas at the runway end hadn't been on top of a concrete wall.

Thanks for this information. Best to wait for an investigation I guess!

 

[azOOOOOma]

Given the reports of smoke/fumes in the flight deck, I wonder if they were severely impaired by fumes if they didn’t don their mask before the cognitive affects began to take their toll on the decision making processes. I know engine oil smoke can cause nasty symptoms.

On paper it could appear to be a major yet avoidable error but it wouldn’t surprise me if we find the crew to have high levels of nasty stuff in their bloodstream.

 

[najaB]

Given the reports of smoke/fumes in the flight deck, I wonder if they were severely impaired by fumes if they didn’t don their mask before the cognitive affects began to take their toll on the decision making processes. I know engine oil smoke can cause nasty symptoms.

On paper it could appear to be a major yet avoidable error but it wouldn’t surprise me if we find the crew to have high levels of nasty stuff in their bloodstream.

That is entirely possible, and needs to be conclusively determined.

However, they managed an on the runway belly landing and there's no reason to believe that anyone on board suffered significant injuries prior to impact with the (reportedly concrete) wall and ILS support structure.

There is no way that such a substantial, immovable obstruction should have been that close to the end of the runway.

 

[edwin_m]

To update my previous post, the video of the plane flying over obviously showing the puff of smoke from one engine has a less obvious puff from the other. So this could be a Sully-type incident when hitting a flock of birds disabled both engines (and another bird could have wedged in the wing). Would loss of electrical supply also account for loss of the FlightRadar24 data shortly before passing over the runway?

Even with both engines out they would have retained flight control and would have been able to lower the gear and I think also operate the flaps, but some of this would be impossible if they couldn't or didn't start the Auxiliary Power Unit.

Two more videos have appeared:

Suggestion of shutting down the wrong engine, possibly APU inoperable.

 

[TravelDream]

There are a lot of thoughts and ideas online about this crash, but I think this is really one where we need the investigation to release information/ their report to have any idea of what really happened.

There are lots of maybes, perhaps, could haves and 'certainties', but we really don't know.

The article I read said that the most likely cause was a bird stuck in the wing and that it was problematic because of the way Boeing built the plane. The article may well have been incorrect (I cannot find it now) and I apologise if I sounded over-confident, however I did say “sounds like” - I didn’t confirm anything. Clearly however Boeing have had their issues recently and this is unlikely to help their case.

Very weird article to state such a thing. I don't recall a Boeing accident because of a bird 'stuck in the wing' (whatever that means). And I don't see what that would have to do with the landing gear anyway.

Suggestion of shutting down the wrong engine, possibly APU inoperable.

Even with both engines out they would have retained flight control and would have been able to lower the gear and I think also operate the flaps, but some of this would be impossible if they couldn't or didn't start the Auxiliary Power Unit.

Shutting down the wrong engine is a possibility. It's happened before. But it's simply a possibility and there are other possibilities too.

The APU being inoperative is also possible. The 737 is allowed to fly with it inop (generally, but not always), but it's hardly ideal. Though an inop APU shouldn't have caused a crash. For those who don't know, the APU is a little engine in the tail that can provide electrical and pneumatic power.

The landing gear and flaps are both operable without the APU. Though the flaps require either hyd. sys. B or any one AC electrical power source to be operable.
The landing gear can be lowered on the 737 in two ways. The normal way is by using hydraulic system A. The backup way is through the manual gear extension control which releases the latches and then uses gravity to lower the landing gears (they are heavy and fall easily).
The flaps also operate in two ways. The normal way uses system B's hydraulic system. The second way is the 'alternate flaps' using a back up electrical motor. Whilst a flapless landing would be much faster than normal and require a long runway (2800m is pretty long BTW), it is more than possible to land the 737 flapless and it has been done many times.

 

[Skymonster]

Almost all airlines will dispatch with a dead APU, but if its operational its rare to run in the air under normal circumstances - usually started on the ground during taxi after landing. If there’s a sudden need for it while airborne it’s going to take a while to wind up. If there was a loss of power on both engines and the crew needed to get the aircraft down quickly (downwind landing, reverse of the first approach?) then the time available and crew priorities / capacity to start the APU might have been rather limited. Sadly a clean aircraft (no gear deployed) will slide a long way on its belly a hard runway especially if its moving fast - which it would have been if it was a downwind landing with no flaps. The biggest issue in terms off lives lost seems to be the structure on which the ILS Localiser was mounted - the vertical bars should have been frangible but the ground feature clearly wasn’t.

 

[najaB]

The biggest issue in terms off lives lost seems to be the structure on which the ILS Localiser was mounted - the vertical bars should have been frangible but the ground feature clearly wasn’t.

Correct. There's no reason to believe that anyone on board received any significant injury before contact with that structure. After contact, all but two were either dead or fatally injured.

 

[TravelDream]

Almost all airlines will dispatch with a dead APU, but if its operational its rare to run in the air under normal circumstances - usually started on the ground during taxi after landing. If there’s a sudden need for it while airborne it’s going to take a while to wind up. If there was a loss of power on both engines and the crew needed to get the aircraft down quickly (downwind landing, reverse of the first approach?) then the time available and crew priorities / capacity to start the APU might have been rather limited.

The biggest issue in terms off lives lost seems to be the structure on which the ILS Localiser was mounted - the vertical bars should have been frangible but the ground feature clearly wasn’t.

Of course they will (if the MEL allows, which it doesn't for ETOPS operations for example), but it's far from ideal.
You're also right the APU isn't normally used in flight and it's usually shut down after the two engines are both stabalised and are on their buses.
It can be used pretty quickly though. The APU can be used to supply electrical power around one minute after starting it when the APU Gen Off Bus light illuminates. Pneumatic load is recommended at three minutes with one minute as the minimum.
Of course we don't know what they were dealing with. It's quite possible their options were limited

Have to agree on the last point.
Looking at the photos, the concrete platform it was built on was hefty as. Then they embedded it in a berm for extra sturdiness.
It's not a Korean thing - here is the LOC at Incheon - Korea's main airport (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1078576820938059).
Even for airports built on hills where the LOC needs to be raised up (not in this case), that design would be bad. See Menorca as a good example of what should be done then (https://exelcomposites.com/wp-conte...localizer_antenna_support_Menorca_airport.jpg)

 

[66701GBRF]

There are reports it landed halfway down the runway, IF that is the case why would you give up so much crucial distance?

 

[Bungle158]

The press in my neck of Asia are speculating this morning, that a bird strike alone would not have caused this tragic event.

I am no techie, but the suggestion seems to be that modern aircraft have dual hydraulic systems and that as a last resort, landing gear can be lowered manually/helped by gravity.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/experts-question-bird-strike-cause-deadly-south-korean-airliner-crash-2024-12-29/

Christian Beckert, a flight safety expert and Lufthansa pilot, said the video footage suggested that aside from the reversers, most of the plane's braking systems were not activated, creating a "big problem" and a fast landing.
Beckert said a bird strike was unlikely to have damaged the landing gear while it was still up, and that if it had happened when it was down, it would have been hard to raise again.

 

[najaB]

There are reports it landed halfway down the runway, IF that is the case why would you give up so much crucial distance?

It wasn't intentional. They were performing a no flaps landing which resulted in a much higher landing speed than usual.

This meant that the ground effect* was a lot stronger, so they floated further down the runway than ideal.

*Additional lift experienced when an aircraft is less than a wingspan above the ground.

 

[edwin_m]

The press in my neck of Asia are speculating this morning, that a bird strike alone would not have caused this tragic event. I am no techie, but the suggestion seems to be that modern aircraft have dual hydraulic systems and that as a last resort, landing gear can be lowered manually/helped by gravity.

This is all correct. Various apparently knowledgeable commentators are asking the same questions.

 

[mpthomson]

It wasn't intentional. They were performing a no flaps landing which resulted in a much higher landing speed than usual.

This meant that the ground effect* was a lot stronger, so they floated further down the runway than ideal.

*Additional lift experienced when an aircraft is less than a wingspan above the ground.

The FR24 blog states that they were actually attempting to do a flypast (from the ATC comms that they were aware of) to check for landing gear status/damage etc, which might explain the speed and distance down the runway. The AOA does look as if they're trying to fly it out somehow, but it doesn't explain why at leat one of the reversers is deployed, from the clear pictures, or why it's hit the runway at all. It's all a mystery as yet though, it is one of those cases where we'll just have to wait and see what the investigation brings up.

 

[Skymonster]

If they took a bird into one of the engines on the initial approach (as seems to again be suggested by news reports) and it lost power… SOPs at some airlines is to go around on the other good one rather than continue the approach… And then the other loses power too (or God forbid they shut down the wrong one)… They’d need to turn back to the airport quickly (opposite direction) and have to be on top of their energy management, in which gear and flaps would add drag and reduce the glide distance.

 

[najaB]

The FR24 blog states that they were actually attempting to do a flypast (from the ATC comms that they were aware of) to check for landing gear status/damage etc, which might explain the speed and distance down the runway.

I hadn't seen that one, thanks. Though that doesn't make loads of sense since you'd expect them to do that in landing configuration - flaps extended, gear down.

 

[edwin_m]

I hadn't seen that one, thanks. Though that doesn't make loads of sense since you'd expect them to do that in landing configuration - flaps extended, gear down.

Could be a second birdstrike on the good engine before they lowered the gear and flaps for the flypast, and no time to do anything other than turn it into a belly landing. But still seems pretty improbable - I doubt the tower would be able to see much about the condition of the landing gear beyond probably up, probably down or somewhere in between, and the flaps would be even worse.

 

[mpthomson]

Could be a second birdstrike on the good engine before they lowered the gear and flaps for the flypast, and no time to do anything other than turn it into a belly landing. But still seems pretty improbable - I doubt the tower would be able to see much about the condition of the landing gear beyond probably up, probably down or somewhere in between, and the flaps would be even worse.

Worth looking at the blog for their reasoning. In truth everything about it seems a bit improbable at the moment.

 

[thejuggler]

Unexpected event(s), aircrew overwhelmed, cognitive dissonance, 'Swiss cheese effect', result worse than was ever imagined.

 

[185]

I flew with Jeju just three months ago from Taipei back up to Incheon, on another secondhand Ryanair 738. They seemed extremely professional - not like one of the dodgy Indonesian carriers I've been on in the far east. I'm hoping this was a no-win scenario, but the KOCA investigation will ultimately answer questions.

 

[TravelDream]

The FR24 blog states that they were actually attempting to do a flypast (from the ATC comms that they were aware of) to check for landing gear status/damage etc, which might explain the speed and distance down the runway. The AOA does look as if they're trying to fly it out somehow, but it doesn't explain why at leat one of the reversers is deployed, from the clear pictures, or why it's hit the runway at all. It's all a mystery as yet though, it is one of those cases where we'll just have to wait and see what the investigation brings up.

It's possible, but I haven't seen other sources stating this.

A low pass would not be a top priority in this situation. Better to climb, hold and troubleshoot/ run checklists.
Also, you'd expect a fly past of the tower to be in full landing config. i.e. landing gear down with landing trailing/ leading edge devices out.

 

[Tetchytyke]

God forbid they shut down the wrong one

I'm wondering if that's exactly what they did. They wouldn't have had any time to fix it if they did, as we saw at Kegworth all those years ago.

 

[edwin_m]

The latest update is that the voice and data recorders stopped a few minutes before the crash, probably at the same time as the ADSB data, so we may never understand the exact sequence or the pilots' reason for doing what they did.

The below is the best interpretation I have seen of what little data is available, suggesting they lost most or all engine power and both main electrical systems a few seconds after initiating a go-around. This would have left them with flight controls but not much else, and apparently the 737 recorders aren't fed from the emergency supply. Then failed to lower the landing gear, possibly because they left it until the last moment then realised too late that they had to extend it manually.

 

[AlterEgo]

Tragic. It all points to pilot overload, either incapable or unaware the gear needed to be down, after a catastrophic electrical failure and multiple actions needing to be taken immediately.