[HN Gopher] Jeju Air Jet Crashes in South Korea With Over 170 De...
___________________________________________________________________
Jeju Air Jet Crashes in South Korea With Over 170 Dead or Missing
Author : toomuchtodo
Score : 225 points
Date : 2024-12-29 01:40 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://archive.today/aX1Lw
| denysvitali wrote:
| The article doesn't mention it, but there are videos [1] on the
| internet where the landing gear is clearly missing / not open.
| Some sources report that the landing gear broke because of an
| impact with some birds.
|
| [1]: https://x.com/BNONews/status/1873174704720425440
| paxys wrote:
| > landing gear broke because of an impact with some birds.
|
| That seems...improbable.
| denysvitali wrote:
| Yep, same thought - although I'm not an aviation expert. Some
| people think the pilot "forgot" to deploy the landing gear -
| which seems very unrealistic too.
|
| I guess it's best to wait for an official investigation
| verelo wrote:
| Shockingly common in civilian aviation, it's actually one
| of the most common causes for accidents. Not sure about
| commercial but it was not uncommon in the military in the
| 50s.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Seems quasi-impossible on a commercial airliner. This
| thing is going to beep and alert like hell about the
| landing gears being up. The most likely cause is a
| complex series of event that led to the landing gears not
| coming down. Landing gears have multiple redundancies so
| this is predictably going to be an unfortunately very
| informative investigation for the aviation sector.
| sio8ohPi wrote:
| It has happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak
| istan_International_Airline...
| cjbprime wrote:
| If your engine had a bird strike than the system is
| already beeping and alerting like hell.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| The more likely scenario to me is that they attempted a
| go-around after the bird strike and failed, leading them
| to land with gears up, no flaps, at high speed.
| wis wrote:
| Not an aviation expert or enthusiast, but I'd imagine in
| a commercial airliner if the gear was not deployed and
| the pilot was trying to land, at a certain point the
| plane would start yelling at the crew something like "NO
| GEAR" "NO GEAR" "NO GEAR (deployed)"
|
| So I don't think a pilot can just "forget" to deploy the
| landing gear in a commercial airliner.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| TOO LOW GEAR
| snypher wrote:
| I think the 777 landing gear warning is based on flap
| position, eg flaps 0 you won't get a warning, but you
| will probably get a GPWS configuration warning instead!
| aaronmdjones wrote:
| > I think the 777 landing gear warning is based on flap
| position
|
| It isn't. If you're within a thousand feet of terrain, a
| runway is nearby, and you're at an approach for landing
| speed, it blares "TOO LOW, GEAR" in the cockpit over and
| over again. If you're going faster than approach for
| landing speed or there is no runway, it instead blares
| "TOO LOW, TERRAIN".
|
| Likewise if you deploy more than flaps 20 without the
| gear extended (regardless of your height above terrain or
| the presence of any runway), you get a master warning and
| "CONFIG GEAR" in red on the EICAS.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Youtube is full of examples pilots landing gear up, with
| the gear-up warning system clearly blaring in the
| background.
|
| https://youtu.be/5McECUtM8fw?si=DwasT3T_9vHxLczn
|
| This does not only happen to little propeller airplanes.
| Heres an Airbus A320 where the pilot managed to land gear
| up despite the presence of all kinds of safeguards and
| automation.
|
| https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/pia-a320-crews-fatal-
| lan...
|
| Humans are funny animals.
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gINDzJXpMLU
| Thorrez wrote:
| It sounds like there was an engine out due to a bird
| strike. The pilot might not have noticed the gear alarm
| because of the engine alarm.
| fransje26 wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Ai
| rli...
| wat10000 wrote:
| They say there are two kinds of pilots: those who have
| landed gear up, and those who will. I've seen it happen
| with small planes three times.
|
| It should be quite rare on airliners due to having two
| pilots and good warning systems. It's plausible that the
| pilot would forget, but both of them forgetting and never
| noticing the plane screaming at them is unlikely.
| verelo wrote:
| I want to agree but it has happened before, and with the
| stress of some other failure it's not going to be
| impossible...but it should be super rare.
| wat10000 wrote:
| It's definitely not impossible. Pilots can get fixated.
| "That noise is so annoying! Never mind, gotta finish this
| landing." It's rare enough that I think it's not the way
| to bet here, and there was probably another problem. But
| we'll have to wait for more info to know for sure.
| likeabatterycar wrote:
| > It's plausible that the pilot would forget, but both of
| them forgetting and never noticing
|
| Not drawing premature conclusions here without evidence,
| but Asian airlines and aviation culture have a documented
| history of the co-pilot not questioning fatal actions by
| the captain in order to save face.
| buildsjets wrote:
| I know someone who had a no gear low-approach and prop
| strike, pulled up, got the gear down, and landed straight
| ahead. Not sure what to call that one, but I bet that
| pilot won't do it again.
| jdietrich wrote:
| It's very easy to miss one alarm if there are several
| others going off simultaneously, which is highly likely
| if you've lost an engine due to a bird strike. Even if
| you hear or see the gear warning, you might be too
| cognitively overloaded to acknowledge and act on it.
| weaksauce wrote:
| the aviation term(probably others) for it is task
| saturation and loss of situational awareness.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Back in the day, there was a third crew member who was
| primarily tasked with navigation and monitoring systems.
|
| Airlines decided it would be cheaper to cut that position
| and here we are.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Manufacturers made planes that didn't need it, making
| their plane's TOC more attractive.
| echoangle wrote:
| Aviation is still much safer than back in the days where
| 3 or even 4 crew in the flight deck were standard. At
| some point the tradeoff between increased safety and
| increasing costs becomes unreasonable.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Airlines decided it would be cheaper to cut that
| position and here we are.
|
| It's not _that_ easy tbh - the advent of digital
| monitoring systems, fly-by-wire and glass cockpits
| plainly eliminated the need for it.
|
| On the other hand EASA is pushing for research into
| single-pilot operations [1]... now _that_ is nuts.
|
| [1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/research-projects/emco-
| sipo-ex...
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "here we are."
|
| _Here_ where precisely? Civil aviation is extremely safe
| in 2024, and this crash made worldwide news precisely
| because crashes are now very rare in the developed world.
|
| If you demand 100 per cent safety, you are bound to be
| disappointed forever. Not even walking is 100 per cent
| safe.
| hbarka wrote:
| I'm reading from aviation experts that the fundamental
| heuristic of "aviate, navigate, communicate" may have
| been forgotten as a result of panic following the bird
| strike incident (two minutes prior to the landing
| attempt). How should this principle have been executed in
| this situation?
| harshreality wrote:
| Panic is understandable momentarily, but any professional
| pilot should be able to overcome that within a few
| seconds, and remember their training, which in an
| emergency is something like aviate, identify the problem
| if possible, and run checklists. Panic doesn't solve
| anything, and there's a comfort in having checklists and
| procedures to run. Something must have gone very wrong in
| training or with the plane for this to happen.
|
| There's a standard short checklist for landing that
| includes flaps and landing gear. There may also be an
| emergency landing checklist that would also include those
| things.
|
| The voice recorder and flight data recorder almost
| certainly survived. We'll know more after those have been
| recovered and analyzed.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I don't want this to come across as second guessing a
| cockpit that I wasn't in, but speaking generally, recover
| the aircraft to a flying condition (aviate), if not on a
| stabilized approach with high certainty of continuing to
| be (mostly aviate and some navigate), go around and hold
| at a safe altitude (A&N) while you run the checklists and
| assess the aircraft state (A) and tell ATC what your
| intentions are (communicate).
|
| I don't know what the exact state in that cockpit was,
| but the video of the aircraft sliding down the runway
| sans gear at a speed that looked well higher and well
| longer than normal touchdown suggests that they didn't
| have a stabilized approach at the end, whether for good
| or bad reasons is something for the investigators to
| figure out.
| weaksauce wrote:
| the airplane is perfectly fine to continue flying for a
| while on one engine so their momentary shock should not
| have been an issue. they've trained extensively for this
| kind of scenario and should probably have gone around if
| the bird strike happened on final approach. like the
| other person said... the voice recorder almost certainly
| survived and will give more information as to the root
| cause.
| hbarka wrote:
| It may have been both engines out and there was not
| enough time to turn on the APU for landing gear
| deployment. The belly landing was executed just fine but
| tragically it was the wall at the end of the runway.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Isn't the point of rigorous pilot training and selection
| to pick out those who will not be 'cognitively
| overloaded' by a dozen or two alarms at the same time,
| even under great stress?
| cjbprime wrote:
| Not every country/airline has "rigorous pilot training
| and selection" -- US airlines require around 5x the
| number of flight hours as non-US. There are, generally,
| not enough pilots.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How is this relevant when the country, South Korea, is
| known?
|
| It's not a mystery where these pilots were licensed.
| cjbprime wrote:
| It is relevant that the US requires ~6x more flight hours
| for airline hiring than South Korea, and the accident
| happened in South Korea, no?
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Can you link the source for the flight hour difference?
|
| If true it does have some signal but it's not entirely
| persuasive. After all there clearly are midwit pilots too
| with a lot of flight hours, who just manage to scrape by
| on each step of the way.
|
| Edit: Who may very well perform worse in extremus than a
| less experienced genius pilot.
| cjbprime wrote:
| The US FAA has required 1500 flight hours to receive an
| ATP (airline pilot) certificate since 2010: https://www.e
| cfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
|
| South Korea requires 250 hours as a country (6x), and
| Jeju Air specifically requires 300 (5x):
| https://epicflightacademy.com/hiring-requirements-jeju-
| air/#...)
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Are you taking that number out of your arsenal or from a
| source? AFAIK most South Korean pilots are actually doing
| their training in the US, since it's much easier to
| accumulate the hours, and there's more GA. I would think
| their training is about the same as US pilots.
|
| Although the US airways system is much more developed and
| used than Korea's, given that Korea is a smaller country
| and has an extensive bullet-train network. So I could buy
| an argument where US pilots just fly more.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Most flights in Korea are international flights, so a
| pilot for Korean air probably flies as much as a pilot in
| the states. If the airlines need fewer flights, they
| could just go with fewer pilots rather than the same
| number of pilots flying less.
|
| In the 1990s Korea and Taiwan had issues with accidents
| caused by military pilots without modern crew management
| cultures ("never question the captain", which is a big no
| in modern commercial aviation), so they went with more
| career pilots trained from scratch (at American schools)
| rather than just transitioning military pilots into the
| role.
| cjbprime wrote:
| You should probably apologize for the suggestion that I
| am making up numbers.
|
| The US FAA has required 1500 flight hours to receive an
| ATP (airline pilot) certificate since 2010: https://www.e
| cfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
|
| South Korea requires 250 hours as a country (6x), and
| Jeju Air specifically requires 300 (5x):
| https://epicflightacademy.com/hiring-requirements-jeju-
| air/#...)
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Oh sure, I do apologize, just wanted to know if the
| numbers came from somewhere or if they were a wild guess.
| Thanks for bringing up the references.
|
| The difference is drastic indeed. I almost would qualify
| for Jeju Air.
| Mawr wrote:
| Flight hours are not a good metric, experience does not
| imply skill.
|
| See:
|
| - https://youtu.be/o6c3ENr_CRM?t=1731
|
| - https://youtu.be/cUAYQTzXpsg?t=87
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Flight hours are increasingly useless. The planes fly
| themselves enough that there are serious problems when
| something goes wrong and situational awareness is
| lacking.
| Mawr wrote:
| Every single person's mind is going to become overloaded
| at a certain stress & task complexity threshold.
| Establishing where exactly that point is for a given
| person is difficult/impossible - e.g. throwing pilots
| into genuine life-threatening situations to test their
| responses doesn't seem ethical.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Of course you don't set the bar at that exact threshold,
| you set it higher so even after accounting for
| difficulties of assessment there would still be a
| comfortable margin.
| aaronmdjones wrote:
| > It's very easy to miss one alarm if there are several
| others going off simultaneously
|
| The GPWS would literally be screaming "TOO LOW, GEAR" at
| you, over and over again. I find this difficult to
| believe. Being too distracted or overloaded to respond to
| it I can believe.
| Roark66 wrote:
| Perhaps there are too many alarms in case of a bird
| strike in a modern airliner? "Hydraulic pressure
| LOW","Voltage in System B Out of SPEC", "Cabinets in the
| kitchen area Open", "and by the way,the landing gear is
| not down".
|
| One would imagine there are psychology experts at Boeing
| and others who do nothing else all day ,but decide if one
| or the other alarm should be prioritised and at which
| volume (too low and they don't hear it, too loud and it
| disorients).
|
| It is a complex subject. I think in time we realise
| removing the third crew member was an error.
| aaronmdjones wrote:
| Most of those alarms would only be shown as text on the
| EICAS (Boeing) or ECAM (Airbus). Very few warning systems
| (the most important, like GPWS, TCAS, RAAS, the engine
| fire alarms, and the stall warning system) are aural
| and/or tactile in their annunciation.
|
| EDIT: For a practical example, low hydraulic pressure in
| the left-hand system in a 777 would be yellow text on the
| EICAS that says "HYD SYS L".
| cjrp wrote:
| I don't think any 737 variant has an EICAS
| oefrha wrote:
| > quite rare
|
| This right here is literally a super rare incident --
| hull loss + everyone-2 killed.
|
| Having read quite a few Admiral Cloudberg[1] posts, task
| saturation seems fairly common among fatal incidents
| IIRC.
|
| [1] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/
| Eavolution wrote:
| It has happened before due to another higher priority
| warning suppressing the "too low, gear" warning, so if
| there's a lot going on already including other warnings,
| it's not inconceivable that it was overlooked and the
| plane didn't issue a warning depending on the
| circumstances.
| Figs wrote:
| If the plane can tell it's super low the ground -- low
| enough to sound an alarm for it -- and that's a common
| mistake... why not just have the plane automatically
| deploy the landing gear?
| hansvm wrote:
| Doing so complicates other hairy scenarios because of the
| increased hydraulic/power demands, reduced clearance,
| increased drag on the plane, worse handling, and the fact
| that in some emergencies you want a gear-up landing and
| would expect pilots to simply make the opposite error
| (forgetting about the gear being automatically deployed)
| some fraction of the time.
| Figs wrote:
| Hmm. Are those situations more likely than forgetting to
| put the gear down? (Serious question -- I don't know the
| answer, and I'm curious.)
| hansvm wrote:
| I think so, and they're definitely more severe. Gear-up
| landings occur in something like 1/150k flights, and
| they're rarely fatal. Stalls happen in roughly 1/100k,
| near-stalls more frequently, and if unrecovered then they
| are almost always fatal.
|
| The one plane I know of with auto-retracting gear had a
| fatal stall because of the feature, so it's not exactly a
| theoretical argument, but there haven't been a lot of
| empirical studies.
| tekla wrote:
| You do not want auto gear down. There are situations
| where having the gear down might makes much much worse
| and you might not be able to be in a situation where you
| can bring them back up.
| hackernewds wrote:
| this is why there are 2 pilots? doesn't add up
| fransje26 wrote:
| More pilots doesn't necessarily help..
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1
| 951
| andsoitis wrote:
| > although I'm not an aviation expert
|
| In this case, you need to be an aviation and an avian
| expert.
| yardstick wrote:
| With the engine issue 1km out, seems plausible the pilot
| forgot while dealing with that issue.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > Some people think the pilot "forgot" to deploy the
| landing gear - which seems very unrealistic too.
|
| No, it happens.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Airl
| i...
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| That seems to be lost in translation. In my understanding of
| breaking news, some _engine_ (not a landing gear) was broken
| due to the bird strike so the plane went around but landed
| without landing gears down.
| denysvitali wrote:
| Yes, after reading a bit more sources it looks like one of
| the engines failed 1km before landing. Not sure on why the
| landing gear wasn't deployed though.
| daedrdev wrote:
| From what I read it's possible for a bird strike to
| disrupt hydraulics. However there were probably a few
| additional engineering or pilot errors because that
| should not prevent a plane from putting down its landing
| gear, and a lack of landing gear should not prevent the
| plane from slowing down enough to not crash.
|
| Its cases like these where I think the lining up of Swiss
| chesse model for failure makes a lot of sense
| wkat4242 wrote:
| A bird strike in one engine could disrupt hydraulics yes
| but not all three circuits. It's weird. I'm sure there's
| more to this story.
|
| Also the landing gear can be extended though gravity even
| without hydraulic pressure.
| weaksauce wrote:
| it is quite improbable. they can deploy landing gears using
| gravity so unless the birds killed that system(they can't) it
| was probably pilot error. just like in pakistan in 2020 that
| destroyed the engines so they couldn't perform the go around
| and they crashed.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Looking at google maps it's not really clear why having a wall
| at the end of your runway is necessary.
|
| But 9100' isn't super short.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Two possibilities come to mind. The first is that it's South
| Korea so airports are military assets that need to be secure.
| The other is that it's meant to protect the road and hotel
| south of the end of the runway from aircraft overshooting the
| end but that was intended for much lower speed collisions.
| jarsin wrote:
| People survived that? Looks like a giant ball of fire engulphed
| the entire plane as it smacked into a wall going 100+ mph.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| nypost article i saw said two people confirmed _alive_
| cjbprime wrote:
| Two people survived it (or at least, they have survived it so
| far) by being at the tail of the plane as it separated on
| impact and avoided the fireball, I imagine.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| The AP article[0] list the survivors as crew members(flight
| attendants). By looking at the main pic in the article with
| only the tail section as looking anything like it was once a
| plane, I am guessing they were saved from the brunt of it by
| the back galley wall
|
| > "Emergency workers pulled out two people, both crew
| members, to safety, and local health officials said they
| remain conscious."
|
| [0] https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-plane-
| fire-68da9b0bd5...
| kumarvvr wrote:
| Looks like back and front landing gear are not deployed. Highly
| unlikely for that to happen due to a bird hit.
| fransje26 wrote:
| Agreed. Landing gears can be gravity-operated when hydraulics
| are out.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| > The plane appears to have hit a concrete wall, according to the
| photos.
|
| Can anybody point out why there is a concrete wall at the end of
| the runway?
| denysvitali wrote:
| By looking at the streetview image [1], and assuming this is
| the correct concrete wall they hit, my best guess is that this
| is just the "fencing" around the airport. Letting an airplane
| run past the wall would have meant allowing an airplane to
| cross a few streets past the end of the runway.
|
| It would be nice to know what are the regulations around this
| topic though, having a concrete wall at the end of a runway can
| definitely be fatal (as we've seen here)
|
| [1]: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yFx9u1AE1kZhM9iW8
| SteveNuts wrote:
| Seems like a matter of "fatal for the airplane passengers"
| vs. "fatal for the airplane passengers plus motorists"
| kijin wrote:
| Could be worse. There was an accident in Brazil a while ago
| in which a runaway plane almost hit a gas station.
| zetalyrae wrote:
| This happened in Argentina:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPA_Flight_3142
| do_not_redeem wrote:
| It looks like a trolley problem to me sadly. If that wall
| wasn't there, the plane would have kept skidding (from the
| looks of that picture) downhill into traffic for who knows
| how long. Planes have a lot of inertia. And those look like
| power lines just past that wall too; those would not help the
| situation either.
| neom wrote:
| I was curious so I went and looked at what other airports do,
| yyz, jfk, icn, lhr are all chainlink, some areas of yyz if
| you over-ran and went through he chainlink, it looks like
| surely you'd be on a road considerably bigger than the one at
| Muan.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Here's a better streetview link. You can see the dirt berm
| that the aircraft hit is located far inside the perimeter
| wall. Also the wall is pretty dang thin and would not have
| stopped a 737 like that.
|
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/NHh9eDtAGGtZY9fH7
| buildsjets wrote:
| New pics in the media seem to show most of the wreckage
| came to a stop between the dirt berm and the perimeter
| concrete wall. At least one of the engines looks like it
| reached and penetrated the wall.
| drtgh wrote:
| If the video we all are seeing is from this accident, then it
| is not the fencing around the airport. It is some kind of
| mound, apparently hardened earth with antennas from the
| instrument landing system on it ( the fence seems to be
| further back ).
| buildsjets wrote:
| There isn't one. There is a dip, and then a marshy area, and
| then there is a soil berm that supports the runway lighting
| system which is at the same height as the runway surface.
|
| https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1108904845802471515...
|
| I'd like to know if his runway had an EMAS system, and if EMAS
| is effective against an aircraft without the landing gear down.
| In satellite photos, both ends of the runway are marked with
| yellow chevrons, which indicates that the surface is not
| supposed to be taxiied on, and it has a blocky/pixelated
| coloring which is typical of EMAS but I cant find an airport
| facility directory that covers MXW.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_...
| ranger207 wrote:
| FYI the Discord image link will expire after a few hours. If
| you could link the original source or reupload the image onto
| another image host such as Imgur, that'd be nice for people
| reading the thread later
| buildsjets wrote:
| So let it be written, so let it be done. Sorry, too late to
| edit my original post, and the original was a webp that
| imgur won't take so I had to screenshot it.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/nu3wSZJ
| Animats wrote:
| Runway info: [1]. No mention of EMAS. There are chevrons at
| each end, but EMAS markings are not yet standardized
| internationally, which ops.group complains about.
|
| At that speed, with gear up, and possibly still under power,
| EMAS might not help much. Unclear from the video.
|
| Expect more solid info tomorrow.
|
| [1] http://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2015-01-07-AIRAC/ht
| ml/...
| paxys wrote:
| Better for planes to hit a concrete wall than take out a
| neighborhood downstream from the runway.
| blitzar wrote:
| Unfotunately the neighbourhood downstream from the runway is
| a field followed closely by a body of water.
| hipadev23 wrote:
| Because it's the start of the runway, not the end.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Related:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42536707
| loeg wrote:
| (Essentially no discussion in the other thread.)
| s5300 wrote:
| Maybe the end of an airport runway should be some form of elastic
| plane-load rated material & not essentially a solid wall.
| buildsjets wrote:
| There is such a system available. It's called EMAS. It's
| unclear if it installed at this airport and if this accident
| was within it's capabilities, if it was installed. But it did
| save Mike Pence once. Also A-Rod.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_...
| sokoloff wrote:
| EMAS is common (
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arresto...
| ), but many airports are built in areas where you're inherently
| locked in and there's a choice of runway, EMAS, grass overrun,
| but a fixed total distance available.
| MoreMoore wrote:
| Not sure what you understand with "common". According to that
| wiki page, EMAS is installed on 112 runways in the US and
| there are over 1000 commercial runways in the US (as of 2007:
| https://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/2007/9CCARDCA/9ccardcai.
| ..). There are only 15 non-US installations and none of them
| are in South Korea.
| supernova87a wrote:
| In this video of the plane going along the runway, it just seems
| to me it's going very fast well into a no-gear landing. Like they
| didn't set it down for more than half the runway (and the runway
| was 9200 feet)
|
| https://x.com/BNONews/status/1873174704720425440
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muan_International_Airport
|
| The thrust reversers are open though? (maybe?)
| cjbprime wrote:
| They probably started trying to go-around (accelerating) the
| moment they realized they'd landed half way down the runway
| with the gear up.
| amazingamazing wrote:
| I'd be very curious to know where the survivors were seated on
| the plane.
|
| It's a miracle anyone survived.
| userbinator wrote:
| Likely at the very back, which is nominally the safest place to
| be on a plane.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Note that the survivors of the Russian shoot-down of the
| Embraer 190 were all in the tail section. Nominally, of
| course, as here have been accidents where the tail struck
| first and that is where there were more injuries or
| fatalities.
| tim333 wrote:
| Apparently the two survivors were crew sitting in the back,
| so they also had the rear facing seats crew use.
| brunohaid wrote:
| Wow, that is indeed quite strange - that's a very high speed for
| having scraped along a 9000 foot runway.
|
| They either landed extremely long or it rhymes a bit with the
| Pakistani Airlines accident of an attempted gear-up landing go
| around a couple of years back, both not implausible in the
| context of already dealing with a bird strike. There are also
| edge cases where the plane won't yell Landing Gear at you, and
| it's really really hard to get a 737 to a point where you can't
| lower the gear anymore (multiple hydraulic systems failing,
| gravity pins and pulleys as well, Stig Aviation did a great video
| on that.)
|
| Pretty sure there was no EMAS, as the plane dips down into the
| dirt at the end of the runway right away, ie not that much lift,
| and EMAS would do orders of magnitude more arresting.
| buildsjets wrote:
| I'm leaning toward no EMAS. I found a facility directory that
| lists the size of the runway-end safety area where EMAS would
| be but it has no description of any EMAS system.
|
| https://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2022-09-07-AIRAC/html...
|
| I'm not sure EMAS would have helped though. I believe EMAS
| relies on the weight of the aircraft bearing on the relatively
| small contact area of the tires/wheels to punch thru the
| unreinforced concrete. The weight of the aircraft distributed
| across the area of the belly may not be sufficient to break
| through the surface.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Plane was likely going too fast for EMAS to be effective.
| gpderetta wrote:
| And apparently EMAS require gears down to be effective.
| verdverm wrote:
| Quite a bit of links, information, and speculation on r/aviation
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1holbp4/jeju_air_...
| dredmorbius wrote:
| For those preferring old: <https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/co
| mments/1holbp4/jeju_air_...>
| RheingoldRiver wrote:
| If you want to always use old.reddit and not have to rely on
| being logged in: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/redirector/
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Useful, yes, though not universally so.
| loeg wrote:
| Some guy's notes from that thread (fft82):
| https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IYwcfDV2gQ4KW7zfi_sAiowu...
| tedd4u wrote:
| Birdstrike #2 engine possibly captured on video:
|
| https://x.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1873181671375421703
| buildsjets wrote:
| Bird concentration chart for the airport, as published by the
| Korea Office of Civil Aviation. Really not sure what they would
| expect a pilot do with this information. Also not really sure
| how they convince the birds to stay in the marked areas.
|
| http://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2022-06-30/pdf/AD/RKJB...
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I like Delhi's solution. They shoot cannons (unclear what's
| in them) all day to keep the birds away from the runway. This
| is probably super common, I just haven't seen it done
| elsewhere.
| kijin wrote:
| They shoot blank rounds. The noise is what chases birds
| away, and you don't want any stray projectiles flying about
| in an airport.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Uh, no. That would be WAY too expensive and difficult to
| automate. They run off of propane. Search your favorite
| engine for "bird scare cannon". Or buy this one off
| amazon.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/SlavicBeauty-Wildlife-Propane-
| Scarecr...
| kijin wrote:
| Not sure what they use in Delhi, but here in Korea we
| actually have rangers who shoot blank rounds at birds to
| chase them away at airports.
|
| See first photo in
| https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20230307131700056 (article
| in Korean)
|
| The machine in the second photo looks like a cannon but
| actually sprays insecticide. The goal is to remove
| insects that the birds feed on, giving them less reason
| to approach the area in the first place.
|
| Due to the proximity of most Korean airports to
| residential areas and important military targets, an
| automated cannon that makes explosive sounds at random
| would be a big no-no. People would think the airport was
| being bombarded, or more likely, the President had
| declared martial law again :(
| phil21 wrote:
| It's pretty common, cannons or guns shooting blanks.
|
| My son actually has a temporary gig for the next 3 months
| at a major U.S. airport where he's tasked with flying a
| drone to scare birds away as needed.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I have to give him props, that is a pretty cool gig!
| yard2010 wrote:
| He probably already has props, but I'm sure he can use
| some extras
| rplnt wrote:
| I remember airports having birds of prey that they would
| keep around and deploy for this purpose. Drones are
| probably much cheaper.
| buildsjets wrote:
| That only addresses birds on or very near the airport
| property, and at very low altitudes. It's not particularly
| effective, because the birds just move somewhere close by
| and settle down. It can also be counterproductive, because
| scaring birds generally causes them to fly. In the air.
| Where the airplanes are.
| deadbabe wrote:
| It's been a very deadly year for airplane safety?
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Is flying getting less safe, or are incidents just getting more
| attention?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I don't think so, but if they broadcast all horrific car
| crashes daily, people may really get spooked
| winwang wrote:
| ...makes me wonder if we should do that. would it lead to
| safer driving?
| imoverclocked wrote:
| Aviation is safe largely because of training and adherence
| to procedure. I'm not sure about elsewhere in the world but
| the US population of drivers seems largely immune to both
| of these things for driving a car.
| rplnt wrote:
| A lot of people see driving a car as a right, instead of
| a privilege it is (or should be). It goes hand in hand
| with little required training and lenient punishments.
| keyle wrote:
| I know it's technically safer to be in an airplane than a car,
| but for some reason the helplessness of being inside a plane
| always gets to me.
|
| This idea of being in a metal barrel thrown at 900kmh relying
| on a hundred years of fuck-around-&-find-out at the mercy of a
| pilot who I do not know "but trust me". Yeesh.
|
| Still, statistically, undeniably, the safest way to move
| people.
| wat10000 wrote:
| So safe that it's getting hard to quantify in places. The
| last airline passenger fatality in the US was almost seven
| years ago. Compare with an average of well over 100 per day
| on the roads. There's a lot more driving, but only by a
| factor of ~10.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| > technically safer to be in an airplane than a car
|
| Safer per mile. I doubt it's safer per hour.
| mmiyer wrote:
| No definitely safer per hour. "In 2022, the fatality rate
| for people traveling by air was . 003 deaths per 100
| million miles traveled. The death rate people in passenger
| cars and trucks on US highways was 0.57 per 100 million
| miles." [1] Adjusting for a speed difference of 10x it's
| 0.03 for planes and 0.57 for cars. Which makes sense - it's
| pretty easy to crash a car, and much harder to crash a
| plane (there's not much to crash into in the air).
|
| 1. https://usafacts.org/articles/is-flying-safer-than-
| driving/
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| Huh, interesting.
| n144q wrote:
| > at the mercy of a pilot who I do not know "but trust me"
|
| Well, I trust a professionally trained commercial airline
| pilot more than a random Uber driver any day. Literally been
| on cars where driver is watching TikTok while driving, among
| other dangerous behavior.
| raincom wrote:
| The dangerous parts of flying are landing and take off.
| Everything else is safe.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| This is not the case near Russian airspace.
| raincom wrote:
| That's why SFO to Delhi is routed more towards the eastern
| part of Russia after the war.
| loeg wrote:
| No and yes.
| jonas21 wrote:
| Flying commercially has been getting dramatically safer over
| time:
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/aviation-fatalities-per-m...
|
| The numbers aren't in for the current year yet, but they will
| likely be just a little bit worse than 2019, placing this year
| in the top 5 on record for safety (all of which have been in
| the past decade).
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| Variance sometimes comes in groups.
| franciscop wrote:
| Flying can become safer WHILE also having more number of
| accidents, by just having more people fly now than ever.
| cyberlimerence wrote:
| Tragically it appears that out of 181 onboard only two have
| survived. If true, this would be South Korea's worst domestic
| civil aviation disaster. [1][2]
|
| [1] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241229001054315 [2]
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/dec/29/south-kor...
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| After watching the video it's amazing that anyone survived
| cyberlimerence wrote:
| Apparently two survivors are the crew members who were at the
| tail section. Even if (big if) their physical injuries are
| not critical, they are likely permanently psychologically
| scarred. I somehow doubt you can continue working in an
| airline after that.
| aaron695 wrote:
| > I somehow doubt you can continue working in an airline
| after that.
|
| Like people in fatal car accidents never drive again?
|
| Could we at least try and not jump to man-child
| expectations for others.
|
| I know it's cool to be a 'survivor' on Facebook, but in the
| real world people work hard to move on even when they are
| real survivors of fatal accidents.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Look I understand the sentiment to be annoyed by some
| people think they are traumatised because someone called
| them by the wrong name or called them a bigot or
| something.
|
| This is not that.
| michaelsshaw wrote:
| I think Aaron is referring more to the unreal
| expectations placed on people who experience shocking
| events. You'll hear things like "how can you still do
| this?" Or being treated like not a person, but a vessel
| to receive the sympathy of others. The expectations of
| you being "fucked up" or "scarred" is imposed on you from
| others and is obnoxious, if I'm being honest.
|
| I'd go easy on him, it sounds like he may have
| experienced that feeling recently.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Fair point, I didn't think of that possibility. And I do
| agree, it is sometimes like people see those kinds of
| traumas experienced by other people as marketing
| opportunities for themselves.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >The expectations of you being "fucked up" or "scarred"
| is imposed on you from others and is obnoxious,
|
| It's worse than that. Societal expectations of whether
| one ought to be traumatized play a huge part in whether
| people are traumatized. So all these people are making
| the problem worse.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| No one said "man-child" until you did.
| andaja wrote:
| " a Serbian flight attendant who survived the highest fall
| without a parachute: 10.16 kilometres (6.31 miles) or
| 33,338 feet ... She had little to no memory of the incident
| and had no qualms about flying in the aftermath of the
| crash. Despite her willingness to resume work as a flight
| attendant, Jat Airways (JAT) gave her a desk job
| negotiating freight contracts, feeling her presence on
| flights would attract too much publicity."
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Not everyone is that fragile.
|
| A lot of people would assume that their odds of being
| involved in two crashes are basically zero and go on
| working.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| To the contrary, the psychological reaction is likely "If
| the nearly impossible could happen to me, the chances are
| much higher than I thought." It may not be correct, but
| traumatic experiences don't exactly lead to rational
| thought.
| CapcomGo wrote:
| Interesting use of fragile - you must be an aviation
| accident survivor? I would love to hear the details!
| drowsspa wrote:
| Yeah, calling "fragile" someone who's afraid after an
| airplane crash has to be peak Hacker News
| RealityVoid wrote:
| To be fair, the way he worded it called them NOT fragile.
| I think he has a point. We don't know how they are
| mentally, some might be fine, some might be not.
| Ascribing the way we think we would feel about it to the
| survivors feels wrong somehow.
| drowsspa wrote:
| Some other people would recognize that the failures are
| basically independent, so their odds of getting in
| another accident is the same.
| daedrdev wrote:
| Its probably not entirely independent, anyone who knows
| these two were the only survivors of a crash will
| probably work to ensure things are extra careful
| unconsciously
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Fragile? Did you watch the video?
|
| How bad must it be for you?
| snozolli wrote:
| _A lot of people would assume that their odds of being
| involved in two crashes_
|
| Their odds?! These are crew members. They likely looked a
| good number of these people in the eye and interacted
| with them before seeing them all violently killed in
| front of them. That's a profoundly traumatizing
| experience.
|
| Additionally, our brains aren't wired for odds. A veteran
| is unlikely to be hit by artillery in the US, but that
| doesn't stop them having PTSD episodes when fireworks go
| off.
| nicce wrote:
| Would it be reasonable to increase the length of the runway
| (or longer non-blocking area) based on these incidents, even
| if they are extremely rare.
| EthicalSimilar wrote:
| Do gravel traps work with planes..?
| cjrp wrote:
| There's similar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineere
| d_materials_arresto...
| kashunstva wrote:
| Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) are installed
| in the overrun area of many but certainly not all
| runways. No idea about this airport. And I'm not sure how
| effective EMAS is in a gear-up landing such as this
| accident.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| EMAS does not help in a belly landing at all. It's
| engineered to be crushed by the wheels.
| nikolay wrote:
| Why didn't they land on water?!
| loeg wrote:
| Runway is always preferable.
| bombcar wrote:
| Unless the water ditch would have killed everyone, that's not
| immediately clear.
|
| Had they known what was going to happen they'd likely have
| chosen some other option.
| mango7283 wrote:
| Unless the water is very calm it's quite possible to break
| up and lose the plane and passengers on a water landing as
| well.
| loeg wrote:
| Expectation in a water ditch is the plane breaks up and
| everyone either dies on impact or dies of hypothermia or
| drowns.
|
| > Had they known what was going to happen they'd likely
| have chosen some other option.
|
| Yeah, absolutely.
| cakealert wrote:
| The extended footage shows that the plane was not slowing down
| much.
| kijin wrote:
| No landing gears = no brakes.
|
| There are a few other ways to stop a plane, but none are as
| effective as applying brakes to the wheels.
|
| The thrust reverser might not have been operational due to
| earlier bird strike.
|
| There are speculations that the pilot might have been trying to
| extend the flaps and increase the angle of attack in a last-
| ditch effort to slow the plane, resulting in a surprisingly
| stable nose-up attitude as the plane skidded along the runway.
| (This is not an easy thing to maintain. Most planes landing on
| their bellies will skid sideways or roll over before long.) In
| any case, this could be a misinterpretation as the pilot could
| also have been trying to execute a go-around.
| blindriver wrote:
| Is there a reason why a runway landing was preferred over a water
| landing?
| ipnon wrote:
| We don't know if the pilots were aware of emergency yet. It's
| plausible they erroneously thought landing gear was down and
| attempted a fatal go-around once the airframe hit the runway.
| The SOP for broken landing gear is to land on the runway anyway
| because you have immediate access to emergency services.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| Runway landing is _always_ preferred over a water landing.
| tennisflyi wrote:
| What does the QRH say to do in this circumstance?
| tw1984 wrote:
| WTF, why they have to put a wall at the end of the runway? so
| sad. that is 170 real lives that could have been mostly saved
| without that fxxking wall.
| rand0mx1 wrote:
| https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/norwegian-runway-overrun-...
| brabel wrote:
| Don't be outraged at rumors.
|
| Here's the wall in question, apparently (I can't be sure that's
| correct, of course, link taken from another comment):
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9756691,126.381087,3a,53.5y,...
|
| Does it look like it can stop a plane to you? No freaking wall
| would do that.
|
| Most likely it was the uneven terrain that caused the front of
| the plane to hit a mound and caused the rest to collapse behind
| it.
| anttihaapala wrote:
| It definitely hit _this_
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/Npbyqgiy57y7jZDj7 instead.
| mikequinlan wrote:
| https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2024122913460001941?_...
|
| Translation from Korean...
|
| >Article
|
| >The Korea Times
|
| >Plane carrying 175 people crashes while landing at Muan Airport
|
| >Reporter Park Kyung-woo
|
| >Passenger KakaoTalk, control tower communication contents, etc.
| confirmed.
|
| >Engine flames during circling for second landing, fuselage
| landing attempted at an urgent moment KakaoTalk conversation of a
| Jeju Air passenger who crashed at Muan Airport. He told an
| acquaintance that he could not land due to a flock of birds.
|
| >KakaoTalk conversation of a Jeju Air passenger who crashed at
| Muan Airport. He told an acquaintance that he could not land due
| to a flock of birds.
|
| >The Jeju Air passenger plane that crashed after straying from
| the runway while landing at Muan International Airport was
| confirmed to have collided with a flock of birds while
| approaching the airport. This caused a fire in the engine, and
| smoke and toxic gases entered the aircraft, causing the plane to
| attempt a hasty landing.
|
| >According to a comprehensive report by the Hankook Ilbo on the
| 29th, the accident passenger plane was scheduled to land at Muan
| Airport at 8:30 AM that day. However, while approaching the
| airport while lowering its altitude for landing, a flock of birds
| struck the right wing and engine at an altitude of 200 meters.
|
| >The passenger plane gave up landing and raised its nose. It
| seems that they judged that landing would be difficult. The Muan
| Airport control tower received this report from the captain. The
| captain then communicated with the control tower that he would
| attempt a second landing and circled over the airport, but in the
| meantime, flames broke out in the engine. An official familiar
| with the communication said, "Despite the sufficient runway
| length, smoke and toxic gases entered the aircraft, and an
| emergency landing was made without time to take measures such as
| draining fuel." "It seems that the engine system deteriorated, so
| the electronics and hydraulic systems did not work, and that is
| why the landing gear did not come down."
|
| >In an emergency, the control tower reportedly had a dedicated
| fire brigade on standby near the runway. An airport official
| said, "If we had known about the landing gear failure earlier, we
| could have dumped all the fuel (remaining in the aircraft) and
| applied a substance to the runway floor that could increase the
| coefficient of friction and cool the flames. However, time was of
| the essence."
|
| >During the second landing attempt, the runway approach and
| landing angle were good, and the captain switched to manual
| control. An airport official said, "After landing on the runway,
| we had no choice but to rely on wing (engine) reverse thrust to
| decelerate," and "Since steering was also impossible, we collided
| with the outer wall at the end of the runway."
|
| >A KakaoTalk message from a passenger on the accident plane was
| also confirmed, suggesting a bird strike just before landing.
| According to the message, at exactly 9 o'clock, a passenger told
| an acquaintance, "A bird got caught on my wing, so I can't land."
| Animats wrote:
| Give this a day to settle. There's a lot of misinformation out
| there.
|
| NYT: "Its landing gear appeared not to have dropped down from
| under the plane, and the flaps on its wings apparently were not
| activated for landing, Mr. Tonkin added. "The aircraft was
| essentially in a flying configuration," he said. That meant the
| plane was likely "flying faster than it would normally be in a
| landing situation.""
|
| That's consistent with the video. The aircraft is sliding down
| the runway, lined up with the runway, going too fast, wheels up,
| flaps up, possibly still under power.
|
| "Why" is days away.
| wuming2 wrote:
| Given that The Guardian reported they attempted landing and
| then took off again before the fatal landing happened, meaning
| they had control and power, and that the airport sits on a
| peninsula I wonder why not to attempt landing on water. Perhaps
| sea was rough.
| Arn_Thor wrote:
| I don't think water is preferable to a runway, gear or not.
| Both will be very hard surfaces indeed at the right speed,
| and water has additional hazards that more than make up for
| the fact it has more space.
| Xixi wrote:
| I'm not competent to judge, but from what I read on another
| website, two additional elements [1]. On the video of the bird
| strike flaps were deployed, but during the crash they weren't.
| The plane did a 180o and landed on a different runway than it
| was initially approaching (tailwind, making it worse).
|
| This suggests (this is only speculation) a scenario akin to:
| normal approach for landing -> brid strike -> go around
| (retract flaps and full power on the remaining engine) -> loss
| of power on the second engine (so no more hydraulic power, and
| no power to climb) -> attempt to land in very unfavorable
| conditions.
|
| As you say, give it a couple at least a day if not more to
| settle.
|
| [1] airliners.net
| briandear wrote:
| Can't speak for Jeju, but at United flaps 5 is the go-around
| flap configuration. Never heard of flaps zero on a 737 for a
| go-around.
| ajb wrote:
| Discussion on prune (professional pilots rumour network):
| https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/663324-jeju-737...
| nextworddev wrote:
| Interesting that everyone in the prune thread thinks bird
| strike is not the likely cause, but something else
| madaxe_again wrote:
| Doesn't seem to be unanimous - reading through, one working
| hypothesis is that the pilots were incapacitated or killed by
| bird strike - not impossible - and someone else was
| attempting landing.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Maybe I'm missing something - how would pilots sitting
| inside the plane be incapacitated by birds on the outside
| dannyw wrote:
| Planes fly very fast
|
| Commercial airliner windows are chemically strengthened
| and designed to withstand bird strikes, but it's not
| impossible if you're really unlucky.
|
| See here for another plane with weaker glass: https://old
| .reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/12iqve4/...
| nextworddev wrote:
| Ah thanks. But even then, there's two pilots for
| redundancy, so it would take an extreme event that both
| pilots got knocked out..?
| TypingOutBugs wrote:
| It won't be this. People on that forum talk about hitting
| many more birds at much higher speeds with much less
| issues. The landing gear should have been deployed before
| the strike too? Happened at 200 meters I believe?
| tim333 wrote:
| That was a light aircraft with a very different
| windscreen. The ones in airliners are very tough.
| Moru wrote:
| Someone not familiar with the front windshield of cars
| might think they go straight through. Don't think
| airplanes have any less strong windshields than cars.
|
| A deep-frozen bird hitting the windshield straight on
| might be a problem but a live bird hitting at less than
| 45 degrees is not a problem for the plane or the pilots.
| The bird becomes red mist.
| rwyinuse wrote:
| Extremely unlikely considering the speed of the aircraft at
| the time of bird impact, and the fact the cockpit door is
| locked & it would take some time from others to enter it.
|
| To me this seems more like pilots mishandling the situation
| after an engine failure caused by bird strike...
| trollied wrote:
| The previous worst Korean air disaster was mostly caused
| by crew communication failures. See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801
|
| I'll add that I'm not saying that is a factor in this at
| all - the accident report will do that in time.
| wbkang wrote:
| This is from more than 25 years ago, there has been big
| changes since then.
| tedd4u wrote:
| I'm glad to hear there have been big changes. However,
| there is a more recent accident associated with a Korean
| operator: Asiana flight 214 crash at SFO in 2013.
|
| The NTSB identified poor crew communication and crew
| resource management as important factors. Reuters and AFP
| reported negative repetitional impact to Korean air
| carriers.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214
| Arn_Thor wrote:
| They seemed perfectly lined up with the runway and
| descended at the right pace though. That'd be real tough
| for a non-pilot to achieve.
| antonium wrote:
| There are auto-landing systems now.
|
| There was a video of a layman in a pilot seat (in a
| professional simulator) guided over radio landing plane
| with just few simple actions.
|
| Here, found it - https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsintere
| sting/comments/1dhi0...
| amelius wrote:
| In every airliner model?
| eps wrote:
| Yes, of course. Even in paper ones.
| TypingOutBugs wrote:
| Then they'd have lost comms with the ATC which would have
| been mentioned by now surely? With two pilots
| incapacitated in a go-around procedure?
| diggan wrote:
| "Top Answer" as of right now seems to say they were trying to
| go around but failed and tried to get out again, but
| "probably" with one engine because of "bird ingestion".
| eszed wrote:
| The speculation in this answer also seems plausible:
|
| https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-
| calls/663324-jeju-737...
| anshumankmr wrote:
| IANAP but from what I know a plane can theoretically fly on
| one engine.
| tekla wrote:
| Basically every commercial aircraft are required to at
| least be able to fly straight and level on one engine. The
| 737 NG can climb perfectly fine on a single engine,
| especially since this one was at the destination and would
| have burned off most of the fuel.
| golly_ned wrote:
| The article itself says the landing gear wasn't deployed.
|
| > Yonhap reported that the landing gear of the Boeing Co.
| 737-800 jet malfunctioned, causing it to land on its belly
| without its wheels deployed. It then hit a wall at the end of
| the runway.
|
| From all the speculation about birds I'm guessing the article
| was updated with this after many of these comments.
| eddywebs wrote:
| Whats up with all the plane crashes lately blaming bird hits.
| kittikitti wrote:
| There's no one accountable like Boeing if they can blame it on
| a random bird.
| blueflow wrote:
| avherald: https://avherald.com/h?article=52225189&opt=0
| panny wrote:
| Okay, reading comments here, I'm expected to believe a bird
| strike in the engine took out the landing gear, the pilot circles
| for a while but didn't dump fuel in preparation for a crash
| landing, and then pilot decided to land on the runway with a wall
| at the end of it for no reason at all.
|
| I'm losing faith in humanity as you guys are supposed to be the
| smart ones.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| The same plane was in the news a couple of days earlier. Not a
| technical issue but medical emergency, probably coincidence
| https://www.ekn.kr/web/view.php?key=20241228028449548
| stogot wrote:
| CNN initially reported 170, then changed it to 47 and now reports
| 170 again. I was hoping the 170 was a mistaken report
| eggy wrote:
| An informed take on what may or may not have happended:
|
| https://youtu.be/w1r8dl4RqMw?si=BzEnCzbgv7oYNNwe
|
| Only one engine was in reverse, and flaps were not down. The YT
| video also excerpts manuals and diagrams to good effect for a lay
| person who is not a pilot. Video of engine failing near airport
| may have been bird strike. They were in flight 4+ hours, so fuel
| should have been used to an extent, but don't they dump fuel when
| they are going to land in an emergency like this? The fireball
| was big, and they should have shut fuel pumps before flare up of
| reversing engines on runway.
|
| The 1-foot-thick concrete wall for the atenna array seems to have
| caused it to impact hard enough to cause the most damage and
| fireball. The video points out there are lots of these with less
| robust structures at most airports.
| tekla wrote:
| 737 NG does not have fuel dump capability. Its hard to use the
| thrust reverser if the fuel pumps are off.
| byyoung3 wrote:
| bird strikes dont prevent you from deploying a landing gear
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-29 23:02 UTC)