Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Jeju Air737-800 Crash at MWX (Muan International Airport, South Korea)
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by Observer View Post
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.
--- 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
-
Originally posted by xspeedy View PostThat 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
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
-
Originally posted by xspeedy View PostThat 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
Comment
-
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.
Sigh, still can’t attach images.
This guy talks about the localizer and the concrete it was built on amongst other things.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Observer View Post
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
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI think was is (and isn't) on the CVR might tell the tale.
--- 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
-
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.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by bstolle View PostFurthermore with 2 windmilling engines, the deceleration rate during the flare would be higher IMO.
--- 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
-
-
Originally posted by bstolle View PostDoesn'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.
Comment
-
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Post
That’s a lot more than useless, IMO.
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
Comment