Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jeju Air737-800 Crash at MWX (Muan International Airport, South Korea)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    New footage from different angle



    Comment


    • #17
      That kills the failed GA theory. There is a short video showing a compressor stall on #2 but not sure when exactly. Gear and flaps appear up. Could be on this final, fatal approach. Nice that they put a reinforced wall at the end of the threshold to hold up lights or whatever. Nobody ever thought “what if” in designing that.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Observer View Post
        That last video plus these particular sentences from AvHerald: https://avherald.com/h?article=52225189

        A ground observer reported that the aircraft flew through a flock of birds, two or three pop-sounds were heard as if the birds were ingested into engines, flames were seen from the right hand engine. The aircraft climbed a little but seemed to be unable to climb further and landed opposite direction.

        ADS-B data received from the airplane ceased at 900 feet at 08:58L (23:58Z Dec 28th) while on approach to runway 01 - previous flights were received until the transponder was switched off at the apron.
        ... makes me think of a different hypothesis (more or less already stated by Evan): dual generators failure (which may mean dual engine failure) during go around. Ger was retracted, flaps set to 15, birds ingested, loss of both engines / hydraulic pumps / generators, too much workload while turning back to the opposite runway from a low altitude with limited mechanical backup control only and essential instruments only left them without "bandwidth" to start the APU or perform an alternate landing gear extension, they end up fast and high and touched down too long with no means to decelerate other than friction (no reverser, no spoilers, no brakes), and friction was small since at least initially the airplane was making as much lift as its weight which left little "weight on engines/belly".

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
          That kills the failed GA theory. There is a short video showing a compressor stall on #2 but not sure when exactly. Gear and flaps appear up. Could be on this final, fatal approach. Nice that they put a reinforced wall at the end of the threshold to hold up lights or whatever. Nobody ever thought “what if” in designing that.

          https://x.com/AviationSafety/status/1873301584085655787
          As I explained earlier, the plane did not hit the reinforced wall, not in one piece anyway. Yes, AvHerald and others say it did, but it didn't. It can be clearly seen in the first video (first post in this thread) that the plane was destroyed when it hit an earth embankment on top of which the ILS antenna is mounted. That is a common thing you see in many runways around the world. Said embankment / ILS antenna is more than 250m away from the end of the runway, and half of that distance is a paved stopway area. Runways are not designed for airplanes touching down 2/3 down the runway, with an airspeed higher than normal, possibly with a tailwind, and with no brakes, no reversers and no spoliers. The wall is like 50m after said embankment.

          And in any event, after the wall there is a public road, you don't want runaway planes killing people on the street either.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
            That kills the failed GA theory. There is a short video showing a compressor stall on #2 but not sure when exactly. Gear and flaps appear up. Could be on this final, fatal approach. Nice that they put a reinforced wall at the end of the threshold to hold up lights or whatever. Nobody ever thought “what if” in designing that.

            https://x.com/AviationSafety/status/1873301584085655787
            the concrete wall may be there to stop airplane from reaching the residential area near the end of the runway.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

              As I explained earlier, the plane did not hit the reinforced wall, not in one piece anyway. Yes, AvHerald and others say it did, but it didn't. It can be clearly seen in the first video (first post in this thread) that the plane was destroyed when it hit an earth embankment on top of which the ILS antenna is mounted. That is a common thing you see in many runways around the world. Said embankment / ILS antenna is more than 250m away from the end of the runway, and half of that distance is a paved stopway area. Runways are not designed for airplanes touching down 2/3 down the runway, with an airspeed higher than normal, possibly with a tailwind, and with no brakes, no reversers and no spoliers. The wall is like 50m after said embankment.

              And in any event, after the wall there is a public road, you don't want runaway planes killing people on the street either.
              I used Google Street View and saw the earthen embankment, but it looked steep, as though it was dirt packed against a constructed wall or raised foundation. This is the wall I’m referring to and not the perimeter wall. Regardless, I think a plane going through a fence onto a fairly rural road would result in a gain of lives saved. Things should be constructed assuming an overrun could happen. I thought most lighting was designed to break away if impacted for this reason. Part of the complication is in having runways bidirectional as you may not want to create a problem for an early touchdown while solving for an overrun.

              Sigh, still can’t attach images.

              This guy talks about the localizer and the concrete it was built on amongst other things.


              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Observer View Post
                So, definitely landing without gear. I see two possibilities...[/QUOTE]

                I see a third, albeit unlikely, possibility. The pilots may have decided on a gear-up, flaps 15 approach and landing (as last-seconds alternate gear would have required too much time/focus) in order to extend the glide if they were without effective thrust. They do seem to have had a surplus of energy coming in to land, however. From the new video it appears that #2 is at least running and #1 might not be. The compressor stall we see in #2 on the video might have been the second one, after #1 got taken out. My guess is that #2 was crippled but turning and landing asap was critical. It appears that, if they had managed to stick the initial landing attempt things might have ended well. But, physics...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  I think was is (and isn't) on the CVR might tell the tale.
                  A complication may be that if both engines failed, and the engine-driven generators failed too, and the APU was not started or did not have time to get online (the APU start cycle takes like 30 seconds), the CVR and FDR may have stopped recording at about the same time when the transponder stopped transmitting: at 900 ft in the first approach to RWY 01.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Doesn't look like a double engine failure to me. On the videos showing the right side of the plane the reverser sleeve is open on eng #2 and on the videos showing the front/left, the exhaust plume from #2 engine ist visible during the final and flare.
                    Furthermore with 2 windmilling engines, the deceleration rate during the flare would be higher IMO.
                    bernt stolle aviation photos on JetPhotos
                    Bernt Stolle - Art for Sale | Fine Art America​​

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Could this have been intentional configuration to maximize range to the threshold, and they just overdid things? Maybe they thought they were a flying brick and had range panic? I think the BA 38 crew reduced flaps to 15 for extra glide. But then again, no spoilers on landing are seen either.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bstolle View Post
                        Furthermore with 2 windmilling engines, the deceleration rate during the flare would be higher IMO.
                        With gear and flaps up (very low parasitic drag) and in ground effect (very low induced drag), deceleration would be painfully slow.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by thor View Post
                          airport official said bird strike.
                          That’s a lot more than useless, IMO.

                          15 posts.

                          No obvious acknowledgement.

                          Evan does get a “pilot error” in; however.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bstolle View Post
                            Doesn't look like a double engine failure to me. On the videos showing the right side of the plane the reverser sleeve is open on eng #2 and on the videos showing the front/left, the exhaust plume from #2 engine ist visible during the final and flare.
                            Furthermore with 2 windmilling engines, the deceleration rate during the flare would be higher IMO.
                            I also noticed the reverser open and apparent engine noise but perhaps the reverser could get dragged open by the friction and the engines may have been still turning but not producing much, if any, thrust. This was the case with Cactus 1549 and the reason they still had some hydraulics.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                              With gear and flaps up (very low parasitic drag) and in ground effect (very low induced drag), deceleration would be painfully slow.
                              From my own experience with in the 767 sim, that's not the case.
                              We tried various flap settings and with the recommended full flap config, drag is so high that you can't even flare due to the rapid deceleration.
                              bernt stolle aviation photos on JetPhotos
                              Bernt Stolle - Art for Sale | Fine Art America​​

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                                That’s a lot more than useless, IMO.

                                15 posts.

                                No obvious acknowledgement.
                                Please explain what the curse you mean with 15 posts / no obvious acknowledgement?

                                Gabriel:

                                Evan and I mentioned birds, reports of bird ingestion, reports of flocks crossing the flight path, etc 7 times in different posts.

                                "I hereby solemnly affirm that I acknowledge that thor commented that airports officials reported bird strike, so help me God"

                                Obvious enough now?


                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X