Another airliner crash - South Korea

[onetrack]

The general opinion amongst all the discussion is that some degree of power is still being produced from at least one engine, or both, and that engine spool down noise is still on the audio for several seconds after the aircraft exploded.

Despite the long float and the touchdown more than halfway down the runway, the general impression is there's no appreciable loss of aircraft speed in the slide, despite the full contact sliding on the tarmac for 800-900 metres, and over 200 metres of dirt past the end of the runway.

 

Juan Brown estimates the aircraft was still doing close to 150mph when it hit the localiser berm, other figures I have seen people calculate, come out at around 125kts, that's 144mph, so some pretty close estimates there. 

The B737 approach speed is normally 142kts, the aircraft seems to be going faster than that on the approach in the video, but it landed, so it must have been doing 145-150kts on touchdown, that means it only lost maybe 20-25kts in speed over more than a kilometre - that shows some degree of engine power was still being produced, well above idle.

 

Why that happened, we can only guess. Perhaps the bird strike damaged engine controls, and the crew were unable to bring the engines back to idle on touchdown? Juan points out just how robust the hydraulic system is on the B737, it has triple redundancy and the electric motors will still drive the systems, provided they have power. The aircraft shows an approach that is under good control.

 

The CVR and FDR have been recovered, but it appears both show signs of damage. As their location and mounting/protection arrangements are built to withstand fires and serious levels of impact, I'd be surprised if useful information can't be acquired from them. Another angle is why the ADS-B signal and information ceased 7 minutes prior to the crash? Perhaps the bird strike released engine debris that damaged electrics? More questions than answers at present.

 

Decoding plane black boxes to take over a month

WWW.KOREAHERALD.COM

---

Decoding the black boxes from the Jeju Air crash in Muan, which claimed 179 lives, is expected to take at least a month, with one box partially damaged the Transport Ministry reported. If the damage...

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by onetrack

[Bosi72]

I wonder how much of "seniority gradient" was involved in this accident..

[facthunter]

Latest suggestion is an electrical fault. Transponder went OFF while Airborne. The recorders will tell. The cockpit one has suffered a bit but they reckon they'll get info from it.  Nev

[red750]

A Jeju Air flight has been forced to turn around after experiencing landing gear issues just a day after South Korea's deadliest airline disaster in decades.

 

This morning, another Jeju Air flight departed Seoul's Gimpo International Airport for Jeju island, but was forced to turn around after a landing gear issue was detected shortly after takeoff, the South Korean airline said.

 

'Shortly after takeoff, a signal indicating a landing gear issue was detected on the aircraft's monitoring system,' Song Kyung-hoon, head of the management support office at Jeju Air, told a news conference.

 

'At 6.57 am, the captain communicated with ground control, and after taking additional measures, the landing gear returned to normal operation. 

 

'However, the decision was made to return to the airport for a thorough inspection of the aircraft.'

 

Local media reported that 21 passengers chose not to board an alternate flight to Jeju, citing concerns over safety and other reasons. 

 

The airline has seen a surge in customers cancelling their flight reservations since Sunday's incident, with a total of 68,000 tickets cancelled, Yonhap news agency reports. 

 

Jeju Air's 41 plane fleet includes 39 Boeing 737-800 aircraft.

[red750]

CNN.  An Air Canada Express flight “experienced a suspected landing gear issue” after arriving at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Nova Scotia on Saturday night, though no injuries were reported, according to the airline.

Flight AC2259 – which took off from St. John’s, Newfoundland – was subsequently “unable to reach the terminal and customers were offloaded using a bus,” Air Canada spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick said in a statement to CNN. The flight, operated by partner PAL Airlines, was carrying 73 passengers, the statement said.

The plane – a De Havilland DHC-8-402, according to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada – skidded down the runway for a “decent” distance, and passengers saw flames on the aircraft’s left side, passenger Nikki Valentine told CNN newsgathering partner CBC.

“The plane shook quite a bit and we started seeing fire on the left side of the plane and smoke started coming in the windows,” Valentine said.

 

[onetrack]

These last two reports have nothing to do with the Jeju Airlines crash. The media love to link any aircraft crashes together, just so the clickbait headlines draw in the money.

[3rd harmonic]

This accident has to qualify as one of the most brutal EVER! Obviously, there was decision making process (or lack there of) that led to the A/C ending up where it did. Happen to be watching ABCnews24 and they had live footage from a BBC reporter showing the accident scene this morning. The concrete slabs on top of the dirt mound which the localised antenna structure were mounted looked to be at least 0.6m thick by several meters square. Maybe there should be concrete slabs at the end of every runway, that would focus the mind of pilots so they are on-speed and on-point OR decide to go-around early? Crying out loud...

[facthunter]

The  Flight recorders WILL give us the answers.  Hang about for a while before you JUST blame the Pilots.  Nev

[spacesailor]

An " air-strike " .

It could have been two . One through the engine the other through the front " windscreen " ! .

Again speculation. But in the realm of feasibility. 

spacesailor

  PS. : IF THE PIC WAS taken-out , the co-pilot would be in shock .

A good 10 cents worth

Edited December 31, 2024 by spacesailor

[red750]

Jeju Air flight 2216 flew 13 times in just 48 hours and had previously been damaged in a runway accident before it was involved in one of the deadliest crashes in South Korean history, it has been revealed. The Boeing B737-800 crash-landed on its belly before skidding off the runway and smashing into a concrete wall, erupting in a fireball and killing all but two of the 181 people on board. The plane is believed to have experienced a landing gear malfunction during its descent towards Muan International Airport, 180 miles south of Seoul, after taking off from Bangkok on Sunday.

 

Airline bosses insisted that the plane had 'absolutely no history' of accidents or maintenance issues, but it has emerged today that the tail of the plane collided with the runway almost four years ago. Described as a 'tail skid', the incident on February 17, 2021, saw a bumper attached to the rear of the plane's fuselage scrape along the runway during takeoff from Gimpo Airport. South Korea's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport reportedly imposed a fine of 220 million won (more than £100,000) on Jeju Air at the time, stating: 'It is a violation of safety regulations to fly without properly checking for damage to a part of the plane.'

 

Minister Park Yong-gap today raised concerns that the incident was covered up, saying: 'The plane involved in this recent accident also crashed during takeoff three years ago... Jeju Air claims that there is no history of accidents at all. Isn't that a false explanation?' Jeju Air said in a statement that it had classified the collision as a 'non-accident' under aviation law as the damage to the plane was not significant, defending its earlier claim that the plane had no accident history. 'We have paid the full amount of the fine and completed all inspections and maintenance, and are now operating normally,' the airline said in a statement.

 

It comes as industry experts have reportedly raised concerns that Jeju Air may have overused the plane in question in the days before the crash, scheduling excessive charter flights to meet the demand of the peak end-of-year season. Flight records cited by Yonhap news agency show that in the two days before the disaster, the jet traveled between Muan, Jeju Island and Incheon, as well as international destinations including Beijing , Bangkok, Kota Kinabalu, Nagasaki and Taipei. Data also shows that Jeju Air had the highest average monthly flight time among the six domestic low-cost airlines in South Korea , between July and September this year, according to Korean media.

 

Jeju Air also paid the largest amount of fines between 2019 and August of this year, JoongAng reports. Regional airports in South Korea are often reliant on charter planes operated by low-cost carriers such as Jeju Air, with travel agencies filling the jets with their passengers during the holiday seasons. It was the first fatal flight for Jeju Air, a budget airline founded in 2005 that ranks behind Korean Air Lines and Asiana Airlines as the country's third largest carrier by passenger numbers.

 

A total of 101 aircraft, operated by six airlines using the same model as the plane that crashed on Sunday, will be 'thoroughly reviewed', Joo said, adding that the inspections would last until January 3. Sunday's crash was the worst for any South Korean airline since a 1997 Korean Air crash in Guam that killed more than 200 people, transportation ministry data showed. Devastated family members of the victims have been demanding answers from the authorities. Jeon Je-young, whose daughter Mi-sook was one of 179 who died on board Jeju Airlines flight 2216, says he still cannot believe what happened. 'When I saw the accident video, the plane seemed out of control,' the 71-year-old father said.

 

Video of the plane's approach show it hitting a bird, before it circled the runway and attempted to land with its flaps up. Experts believe this suggests the aircraft suffered hydraulic failure, which could have also prevented the landing gear from deploying. Leading air safety expert David Learmount told Sky News that having a concrete wall at the end of the runway was 'verging on criminal' and said the collision with the object was the 'defining moment' of the disaster. He suggested that had the wall not been there, the plane would have instead hit a fence, slid over a road and likely stopped in a nearby field. However, Tim Davies, an ex-RAF Tornado fighter pilot, was skeptical this was the sole cause of the tragedy and feared 'pilot error' may have contributed to the disaster.

[turboplanner]

59 minutes ago, red750 said:

Leading air safety expert David Learmount told Sky News that having a concrete wall at the end of the runway was 'verging on criminal' and said the collision with the object was the 'defining moment' of the disaster. He suggested that had the wall not been there, the plane would have instead hit a fence, slid over a road and likely stopped in a nearby field.

 

However,  Tim Davies, an ex-RAF Tornado fighter pilot, was skeptical this was the sole cause of the tragedy and feared 'pilot error' may have contributed to the disaster.

A lot of flap jawing above these two paras.

 

Para 1        Where is counts; the survival of passengers and crew in an accident the concrete was a stupid                      design and hard to comprehend.

                  The T VASI landing systems manufactured in Australia had a mandatory requirement for the                            mounting feet to be  frangible because these locations were usually where an aircrtaft would be                      out of control; aircraft could skid into it or  could charge into the light  area.

 

Para 2        Of course it wasn't the cause of the trajedy but it certainly killed the people who crashed into it.

Edited December 31, 2024 by turboplanner

[Marty_d]

More clickbait.  Having a "bumper attached to the rear of the plane's fuselage scrape along the runway during takeoff" 4 years ago, would in no way would contribute to the recent disaster.

[facthunter]

It's caused by an over-rotation on take off. Not rare and unlikely to have any bearing   at all on this accident. This 737 stayed intact till the colossal impact. The engines keep the fuselage from contacting the runway. A flapless landing is Bloody fast. Most people never do one on a Jet even in a simulator.  There are alternate ways of extending the flap, usually electrically But THAT was probably not available. You are looking at a TTS of around 200 knots. The Aeroplane was fully loaded Pax wise.  Nev