Jeju Air

[Bede]

Not good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfHxKpVr100

[TeePeeCreeper]

Not good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfHxKpVr100

I was just about to post the same video.

Brutal and very hard to watch.

Are those TR’s deployed? Looks like it to me… can one override the wow on a -800 or any Boeing product in order to even do so?

TPC

[truecolours]

No gear. No flaps. No spoilers.

A lot had to have gone wrong for all those systems to fail. System A and B. Alternate flaps. Manual gear.

Will be an interesting one to follow.

[digits_]

No gear. No flaps. No spoilers.

A lot had to have gone wrong for all those systems to fail. System A and B. Alternate flaps. Manual gear.

Will be an interesting one to follow.

And even then. Aren't these planes designed to survive this?

[SpyPilot]

Gear up, no flaps or spoilers. Survive which exactly.

As for vacating the runway and sliding cockpit first head-on into a concrete barrier? No, but miraculously some did.

[planenuts]

Not good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfHxKpVr100

I was just about to post the same video.

Brutal and very hard to watch.

Are those TR’s deployed? Looks like it to me… can one override the wow on a -800 or any Boeing product in order to even do so?

TPC

I can't tell if the RH side is actually deployed or if the reverse cowl was damaged from landing on it. The LH is definitely stowed. On the 737 the FCC's provide an alternate ground for the deploy system to enable the TR's to be deployed below 10' RA....so yes it is possible it was deliberately deployed. I don't believe that's possible on any other Boeing.

There would have to be so many failures to have it disabled to that extent that it would be improbable. I reckon some form of pilot error will be a factor in this.

[enbt]

I read that they hit a bird and declared mayday. It’s hard to imagine how a bird strike could lead to this outcome but I don’t fly Boeings.

[Dry Guy]

I wonder if Boeing is considering restricting which countries they sell their aircraft to. This reputational damage can't be good for them. Or perhaps they could make their aircraft more idiot proof like Airbus.

[Speedbrakes]

From a post on reddit, so take it for what it's worth:

According to a comprehensive report by the Hankook Ilbo on the 29th, the 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 length of the runway, smoke and toxic gases entered the aircraft, so we had to make an emergency landing without taking any measures such as draining the fuel.” “The engine system deteriorated, so the electronic and hydraulic systems did not work, and it seems that the landing gear did not come down because of that.”

It is reported that the control tower had a dedicated fire department on standby near the runway in the event of an emergency. An airport official said, “If we had known about the landing gear failure earlier, we could have let all the fuel (remaining in the aircraft) out, applied a substance to the runway floor that would increase the coefficient of friction, and cool the flames,” but “Time was running out.”

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."

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comme ... a/m4bk814/

All of these events separately should be quite manageable. Is is possible for a birdstrike to cause enough damage for not only an engine fire, but to allow smoke and fumes into the air conditioning system?

[boeingboy]

From a post on reddit, so take it for what it's worth:

According to a comprehensive report by the Hankook Ilbo on the 29th, the 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 length of the runway, smoke and toxic gases entered the aircraft, so we had to make an emergency landing without taking any measures such as draining the fuel.” “The engine system deteriorated, so the electronic and hydraulic systems did not work, and it seems that the landing gear did not come down because of that.”

It is reported that the control tower had a dedicated fire department on standby near the runway in the event of an emergency. An airport official said, “If we had known about the landing gear failure earlier, we could have let all the fuel (remaining in the aircraft) out, applied a substance to the runway floor that would increase the coefficient of friction, and cool the flames,” but “Time was running out.”

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."

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comme ... a/m4bk814/

All of these events separately should be quite manageable. Is is possible for a birdstrike to cause enough damage for not only an engine fire, but to allow smoke and fumes into the air conditioning system?

There is so much wrong with that Reddit post It's not worth dissecting.

As for your question....yes - it's possible, but there are procedures for all those issues - and I don't think it would be so bad they had to just dump it on the ground....at least from the video I saw.

[boeingboy]

I wonder if Boeing is considering restricting which countries they sell their aircraft to. This reputational damage can't be good for them. Or perhaps they could make their aircraft more idiot proof like Airbus.

Yea - cause Airbus is idiot proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_ ... light_8303

[ZBBYLW]

I wonder if Boeing is considering restricting which countries they sell their aircraft to. This reputational damage can't be good for them. Or perhaps they could make their aircraft more idiot proof like Airbus.

Yea - cause Airbus is idiot proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_ ... light_8303

In fairness, this is so far beyond any concept of an idiot. If they survived they should have been charged criminally.

[Bede]

None of this computes. Look how far down the runway they were still trying to keep the nose off the ground. It seems that they touched down really long, tried to milk it and ran off the end at like 130 knots.

[truecolours]

Avhearld is reporting the gear was down on the first approach (rw 01) and there is video of the number 2 engine being hit by birds. I’m starting to believe the smoke reports as it sounds like they made an urgent turn back for reciprocal runway - 19.

This sure is going to be an interesting investigation.

1) they were able to raise the gear and flaps (they worked) after the first approach and impact with birds.
2) I still can’t piece together the damage required to render all hydraulics and alternate systems inop.
3) WHY is there a giant cement wall at the end of a runway?


Lots of airlines have a go around for any failure on final. This might just change that.

[airway]

Avhearld is reporting the gear was down on the first approach (rw 01) and there is video of the number 2 engine being hit by birds. I’m starting to believe the smoke reports as it sounds like they made an urgent turn back for reciprocal runway - 19.

This sure is going to be an interesting investigation.

1) they were able to raise the gear and flaps (they worked) after the first approach and impact with birds.
2) I still can’t piece together the damage required to render all hydraulics and alternate systems inop.
3) WHY is there a giant cement wall at the end of a runway?


Lots of airlines have a go around for any failure on final. This might just change that.

IMO whether you should go around or not depends on the failure and how close to the runway you are. If you are at 100' and get a caution light or a simple engine failure, it would probably be best to just land and deal with it on the ground. If you have the gear and flaps down on 5 mile final with time to do the memory items, depending on the failure, it might be best to just land. Clean and 10 miles final, you have more options.

Another thought I have about this accident, is it does appear that these pilots were holding the aircraft off in the flare. This is an issue that happens often in planned gear up landings (sometimes complicated with flap, slat, spoiler, and speed issues), ending with a slide off the end of the runway. The aircraft is going to float much further than you are used to (especially if you elect to shut down and feather the props on short final), so depending how much runway you have, you probably want to start your flare prior to the threshold. Use full flaps if you can. Don't worry about flap damage. If you find yourself floating further than you expected, consider going around (if you can safely do that) or forcing the aircraft on the ground. The problem with feathering the props before touchdown, is you have eliminated the go around option.

There was also talk about possibly foaming the runway. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, as it will make the runway more slippery.




.

[rookiepilot]

I wonder if Boeing is considering restricting which countries they sell their aircraft to. This reputational damage can't be good for them.

Winning comment of the day! Keeps me reading!

They can start with their home country, then Canada.

Korea doesn’t even appear on this list.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262 ... nd-region/

[co-joe]

The right TR appears to be unlocked the left one not so, one video looks like there is smoke coming from the right engine but nothing from the left. It has been suggested that the bird strike was on the right engine, but that possibly the crew shut down the wrong engine leading to the total loss of hydraulic A and B, and only partial power on the right engine necessitating the immediate flapless landing. Why they didn't bother to manually extend the gear or raise the speed brakes is a mystery.

[cdnavater]

The right TR appears to be unlocked the left one not so, one video looks like there is smoke coming from the right engine but nothing from the left. It has been suggested that the bird strike was on the right engine, but that possibly the crew shut down the wrong engine leading to the total loss of hydraulic A and B, and only partial power on the right engine necessitating the immediate flapless landing. Why they didn't bother to manually extend the gear or raise the speed brakes is a mystery.

That was my first thought and I will not be surprised if the investigation confirms it, a de facto double engine fail by shutting down the wrong engine.
What would surprise me is a transport category aircraft that loses all hydraulics in a double engine failure, is this true on the 37? No electric back up pumps? Or is it because there is no RAT?
If this is the case, why would the APU not be an approach item, I would want the APU running in the background for the entire flight but at the very least for the take off and landing phase!

[Me262]

The right TR appears to be unlocked the left one not so, one video looks like there is smoke coming from the right engine but nothing from the left. It has been suggested that the bird strike was on the right engine, but that possibly the crew shut down the wrong engine leading to the total loss of hydraulic A and B, and only partial power on the right engine necessitating the immediate flapless landing. Why they didn't bother to manually extend the gear or raise the speed brakes is a mystery.

That was my first thought and I will not be surprised if the investigation confirms it, a de facto double engine fail by shutting down the wrong engine.
What would surprise me is a transport category aircraft that loses all hydraulics in a double engine failure, is this true on the 37? No electric back up pumps? Or is it because there is no RAT?
If this is the case, why would the APU not be an approach item, I would want the APU running in the background for the entire flight but at the very least for the take off and landing phase!

No RAT, it uses the forward speed. Airbus has RAT.

[cdnavater]

The right TR appears to be unlocked the left one not so, one video looks like there is smoke coming from the right engine but nothing from the left. It has been suggested that the bird strike was on the right engine, but that possibly the crew shut down the wrong engine leading to the total loss of hydraulic A and B, and only partial power on the right engine necessitating the immediate flapless landing. Why they didn't bother to manually extend the gear or raise the speed brakes is a mystery.

That was my first thought and I will not be surprised if the investigation confirms it, a de facto double engine fail by shutting down the wrong engine.
What would surprise me is a transport category aircraft that loses all hydraulics in a double engine failure, is this true on the 37? No electric back up pumps? Or is it because there is no RAT?
If this is the case, why would the APU not be an approach item, I would want the APU running in the background for the entire flight but at the very least for the take off and landing phase!

No RAT, it uses the forward speed. Airbus has RAT.

Ok, I used RAT(Ram AIr Turbine) as a term for other source of electrical power, using forward speed to power something that drops into the airflow after loss of all power, RJ has the ADG(air driven generator).
What does the 37 use for alternative electric supply, forward speed could be windmilling which is useless if the engine blows up!

[planenuts]

The right TR appears to be unlocked the left one not so, one video looks like there is smoke coming from the right engine but nothing from the left. It has been suggested that the bird strike was on the right engine, but that possibly the crew shut down the wrong engine leading to the total loss of hydraulic A and B, and only partial power on the right engine necessitating the immediate flapless landing. Why they didn't bother to manually extend the gear or raise the speed brakes is a mystery.

That was my first thought and I will not be surprised if the investigation confirms it, a de facto double engine fail by shutting down the wrong engine.
What would surprise me is a transport category aircraft that loses all hydraulics in a double engine failure, is this true on the 37? No electric back up pumps? Or is it because there is no RAT?
If this is the case, why would the APU not be an approach item, I would want the APU running in the background for the entire flight but at the very least for the take off and landing phase!

So first of all at least one engine was running....you can hear it and see it in the videos. If an engine is turning then you have both hyd systems operating. Even a windmilling engine will provide hyd power. Failing that each system also has an electric pump. If the apu is not running...you move the switch to on and its on line withing 90 secs.

We can see 1 TR deployed meaning that - again they had some hydraulic power. There should be no reason why they landed like this unless there was a lot of crew panicking.

With at least 1 generator operating Both A and B hyd systems have electric pumps...if those fail for whatever reason or the systems are damaged and run out of fluid - there is still the standby hyd system. Standby will still give you rudder, LE, and reverse, and trailing edge flaps are on an electric motor. Remember the 737 is a cable operated airplane that can be flown with a hyd failure

In the unlikely event you have a loss off all generators - the airplane will go to standby power (you can manually do this)...the batteries will go to parallel and power the standby systems for 60 min. You will loose pretty much everything except for reverse, landing gear is extended manually and braking would be from the brake accumulator.

If you want to start playing out the theory that they lost both engines, all hyd, most electrical power and some kind of traumatic damage to the gear or manual systems - well then they were screwed no matter what airplane they were flying.

[boeingboy]

Don't know if anyone has seen this second video of the approach.
You can see the exhaust of the RH engine - so it was still running. The LH is hard to tell in the grainy video but doesn't appear to be running. Someone in another forum was speculating that maybe the video of the compressor stall was flipped...meaning the LH engine failed instead of it looking like the right? Dont know about that.

He did float a long way down the runway and kinda greased it on when he should have just planted it firmly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0mHOP-Cp3I&t=261s

[Dias]

Built in 2007. Korean safety culture at its finest.

KoreaCrash.jpg (57.21 KiB) Viewed 5395 times

[DanWEC]

I'm wondering if there was an oversaturation on the second approach and the gear was simply missed altogether. I'm not familiar with the Boeing, but if a master caution was going off the whole time for various reasons and didn't get cancelled, is there a gear alarm that has priority? Regardless, if you're maxed out you might not even notice. I'm not speculating it was pilot error at this point- either way this is a combo of terrible circumstances including that airport design.

[BTD]

Built in 2007. Korean safety culture at its finest.



KoreaCrash.jpg

This is the most criminal thing.

Like the ravine off the end of YYZ 06R that was never filled in or runway arrest system installed after air france?

And Air France wasn’t the first. An AC DC9 went into that ravine after an RTO in 1978. It’s all still there. At least they move quickly to fix this stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_189