Video link of the crash* I had a hard time finding reporting from major (American) news outlets in reporting more than just the basic facts. The Wikipedia entry for this is actually really...
I had a hard time finding reporting from major (American) news outlets in reporting more than just the basic facts. The Wikipedia entry for this is actually really detailed.
The facts we know:
The control tower warned Flight 2216 of a bird strike just before landing.
About one minute after the bird strike warning, the pilot issued a 'Mayday'.
Landing was attempted
Landing gear failed to deploy or was not deployed (intentionally or not)
Plane overshoots runway, hitting a concrete structure holding the ILS (Instrument Landing System) antennas
Plane explodes killing 179 of 181 onboard.
The most in depth reporting I saw was this video from a former 737-800 pilot (the same plane type that crashed). One of most important things I took from this was that if the concrete structure holding the ILS antennas wasn't there and a more typical design was used, then the plane likely wouldn't have exploded, resulting in all the deaths. Heart wrenching to know that a similar design change could have potentially saved those people
*Content Warning. There isn't any blood shown but the explosion killed almost everyone onboard
I was thrilled by the footage. Pilots attemped landing without gear down and it looks like perfect example how such landing should be done - they gently took the plane down on the runway. Then...
I was thrilled by the footage. Pilots attemped landing without gear down and it looks like perfect example how such landing should be done - they gently took the plane down on the runway. Then there was the concrete wall and you can' argue with concrete wall - the flight was doomed at that point.
I think that investigators would advise all airports to leave the space before and after runway to be clear of such buildings if possible (ie. if there isn't a city at the end of the runway in which case such tragic accident could save more lives by stopping the plane rather than letting it plow into buildings - this is very hard to imagine either way).
I still can't believe someone built concrete structure at the end of the runway.
Especially since it was just an ILS support area. If it was there to protect a housing development that would be another matter. There are thousands of ILS around the world, and I don’t think most...
Especially since it was just an ILS support area. If it was there to protect a housing development that would be another matter. There are thousands of ILS around the world, and I don’t think most of them are in the way of a plane overreaching a runway.
I think standard practice is just steel rods protruding from the ground (with concrete base being complete in/under the ground). If that was the case here, plane would surely get damaged, maybe...
I think standard practice is just steel rods protruding from the ground (with concrete base being complete in/under the ground). If that was the case here, plane would surely get damaged, maybe even destroyed, but not like this. I believe there would be much more survivors if the ILS looked ie. like this one.
That looks much closer to what I expect. When I first read the description, I thought that planes don’t just explode after a belly landing. It makes sense seeing the video though. I hope they plan...
That looks much closer to what I expect. When I first read the description, I thought that planes don’t just explode after a belly landing. It makes sense seeing the video though. I hope they plan on rebuilding the ILS ASAP.
It really was awful all around, actually. The landing gear should have been down--mechanical issues do not prevent them; the manual release literally just needs gravity. Additionally, they didn't...
It really was awful all around, actually. The landing gear should have been down--mechanical issues do not prevent them; the manual release literally just needs gravity.
Additionally, they didn't touch down until super far down the runway and they came in extremely fast. Like, they left the runway going faster than they should have been going when they touched down. Unfortunately, it looks like it was entirely the pilots' fault.
And also unfortunately, I just came in these comments to share an update about how the black boxes stopped recording four minutes before the crash, so we may never know what happened.
I think there may be circumstances when you would rather not use landing gear - if you suspect it may be damaged or it wouldn't deploy the right way. If you have one main gear down and the other...
I think there may be circumstances when you would rather not use landing gear - if you suspect it may be damaged or it wouldn't deploy the right way. If you have one main gear down and the other not for example, it may be better to do belly landing. This is just my keyboard warrior theory, I have no experience.
if black boxes stopped recording maybe the plane had some bigger issues like damaged (electrical) systems. If I'm right, black boxes tend to be in the tail part of the planes while all the electronics and control systems would be rather on the other side of the plane...? Like from the wings more fowrard?
Well, no time for speculations. I'm no expert. I still think if they had clear path behind the runway, the death toll wouldn't be that catastrophic, though.
You're correct to a degree; there are absolutely circumstances where it's best to do a belly landing. In this instance, they had deployed the gear previously, then raised them up after they...
You're correct to a degree; there are absolutely circumstances where it's best to do a belly landing. In this instance, they had deployed the gear previously, then raised them up after they performed a go-around. So we had seen just a few minutes prior that the gear was working normally. I suppose it's possible that the pilots knew something about the gear that we don't know, but what I've seen from other pilots seems to indicate that the pilots shouldn't have had any reason to believe the gear was not functioning.
The pilot put the plane down nearly a mile down the runway (1300 m or something like that--~4250 ft). The pilot is supposed to put the plane down in the first 3000 feet (900m) of the runway. They aim for the marks ~1000 ft down the runway and then flare to make the touchdown gentler. The problem in this case is that the plane was still going ~160 kts when it exited the runway with the flaps completely undeployed (they provide lift and drag to slow the plane). A typical target for landing is between 134 kts and 156 kts, depending on the weight of the plane.
At this time, the landing weight of the plane is at least not public, but we can probably estimate it to be ~60,000 kg with 175 passengers, so the target landing speed would be ~150 kts with flaps at 30° and engines idling.
The actual landing speed is similarly unknown, but I've seen estimates that it exited the runway at 160 kts and that it did not appear to decelerate, so we can guess that it was certainly in excess of 150 kts, probably closer to 160 kts at landing, with flaps completely undeployed and engines probably delivering significant thrust.
Additionally, yes, there are two black boxes, both in the back of the plane: the Flight Data Recorder (rear galley) and the Cockpit Voice Recorder (aft cargo hold). Aft is the technical term and rear is used for "customer-facing" areas. I suspect they are located there because it's the safest place in the event of a crash.
And, yes, if the localizer was not concrete-encased above ground inside a berm, the crash likely would have been less catastrophic. There was still the cinder block wall to deal with after that, too.
I really regret watching the footage of the crash. Thank you for sharing it (with a content warning). I’m feeling a bit sick to my stomach now. Those poor people.
I really regret watching the footage of the crash. Thank you for sharing it (with a content warning). I’m feeling a bit sick to my stomach now. Those poor people.
This 737 was produced one year before Boeing was mandated to provide power backups to the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders in 2010. I initially thought that the loss of data so...
This 737 was produced one year before Boeing was mandated to provide power backups to the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders in 2010.
I initially thought that the loss of data so close to a crash must be malicious.
Interesting comment on the Aviation subreddit:
It's not that strange, all the info we have ties together pretty well.
We already knew the ADS-B went out right after the bird strike, that would suggest both engine generators going offline. The FDR and CVR going offline corroborate that also.
We know they made the decision to land in the absolute quickest way possible, and this is consistent with the crew not believing they could keep the aircraft flying, which is also consistent with issues with both engines.
We know only the #2 reverser was deployed on landing, and it seems that there is no visible jet exhaust from #1 on landing, consistent with #1 being inop and #2 operating to some degree. We know that #2 suffered a bird strike and comp stall from the go around footage.
This adds up to engine #1 being completely failed, engine #2 being partial power, the aircrew go around before they realise just how bad the lack of thrust situation is, this makes the quickest option to land circling around to 19, they raise gear and flaps because they are concerned they won't have energy to get all the way around to 19.
We can speculate that by the time they were close to landing on 19 and realised they had too much energy, they were unable to lower the flaps (they likely only had elec flap extension, this takes minutes, they had seconds), and they were unable to lower the gear (to release the uplocks manually one of the pilots has to motor their seat all the way back, open the hatch, pull each long cable individually, this takes a while, once again they only had seconds).
They end up with too much energy, no way to slow down, going around is not an option, all they can do is put it down long and hope to keep it under control for as long as possible, the localiser berm unfortunately gives them no chance.
So did they shut down #1 by mistake or did it fail because of a bird strike? It could be either, however this we should end up knowing, because the FDR and CVR will work up until the complete electrical loss, and that will tell us whether the engine was operating normally and was shut down, or whether it failed due to bird strike. After that point we probably don't really need the FDR and CVR (although it would obviously be useful to have), because with the aircraft not producing enough thrust to maintain flight all the rest of the crew's actions make perfect sense.
Video link of the crash*
I had a hard time finding reporting from major (American) news outlets in reporting more than just the basic facts. The Wikipedia entry for this is actually really detailed.
The facts we know:
The most in depth reporting I saw was this video from a former 737-800 pilot (the same plane type that crashed). One of most important things I took from this was that if the concrete structure holding the ILS antennas wasn't there and a more typical design was used, then the plane likely wouldn't have exploded, resulting in all the deaths. Heart wrenching to know that a similar design change could have potentially saved those people
*Content Warning. There isn't any blood shown but the explosion killed almost everyone onboard
Edit: Here is another video going over with some new data and angles camera angles.
I was thrilled by the footage. Pilots attemped landing without gear down and it looks like perfect example how such landing should be done - they gently took the plane down on the runway. Then there was the concrete wall and you can' argue with concrete wall - the flight was doomed at that point.
I think that investigators would advise all airports to leave the space before and after runway to be clear of such buildings if possible (ie. if there isn't a city at the end of the runway in which case such tragic accident could save more lives by stopping the plane rather than letting it plow into buildings - this is very hard to imagine either way).
I still can't believe someone built concrete structure at the end of the runway.
Especially since it was just an ILS support area. If it was there to protect a housing development that would be another matter. There are thousands of ILS around the world, and I don’t think most of them are in the way of a plane overreaching a runway.
I think standard practice is just steel rods protruding from the ground (with concrete base being complete in/under the ground). If that was the case here, plane would surely get damaged, maybe even destroyed, but not like this. I believe there would be much more survivors if the ILS looked ie. like this one.
That looks much closer to what I expect. When I first read the description, I thought that planes don’t just explode after a belly landing. It makes sense seeing the video though. I hope they plan on rebuilding the ILS ASAP.
It really was awful all around, actually. The landing gear should have been down--mechanical issues do not prevent them; the manual release literally just needs gravity.
Additionally, they didn't touch down until super far down the runway and they came in extremely fast. Like, they left the runway going faster than they should have been going when they touched down. Unfortunately, it looks like it was entirely the pilots' fault.
And also unfortunately, I just came in these comments to share an update about how the black boxes stopped recording four minutes before the crash, so we may never know what happened.
I think there may be circumstances when you would rather not use landing gear - if you suspect it may be damaged or it wouldn't deploy the right way. If you have one main gear down and the other not for example, it may be better to do belly landing. This is just my keyboard warrior theory, I have no experience.
if black boxes stopped recording maybe the plane had some bigger issues like damaged (electrical) systems. If I'm right, black boxes tend to be in the tail part of the planes while all the electronics and control systems would be rather on the other side of the plane...? Like from the wings more fowrard?
Well, no time for speculations. I'm no expert. I still think if they had clear path behind the runway, the death toll wouldn't be that catastrophic, though.
You're correct to a degree; there are absolutely circumstances where it's best to do a belly landing. In this instance, they had deployed the gear previously, then raised them up after they performed a go-around. So we had seen just a few minutes prior that the gear was working normally. I suppose it's possible that the pilots knew something about the gear that we don't know, but what I've seen from other pilots seems to indicate that the pilots shouldn't have had any reason to believe the gear was not functioning.
The pilot put the plane down nearly a mile down the runway (1300 m or something like that--~4250 ft). The pilot is supposed to put the plane down in the first 3000 feet (900m) of the runway. They aim for the marks ~1000 ft down the runway and then flare to make the touchdown gentler. The problem in this case is that the plane was still going ~160 kts when it exited the runway with the flaps completely undeployed (they provide lift and drag to slow the plane). A typical target for landing is between 134 kts and 156 kts, depending on the weight of the plane.
At this time, the landing weight of the plane is at least not public, but we can probably estimate it to be ~60,000 kg with 175 passengers, so the target landing speed would be ~150 kts with flaps at 30° and engines idling.
The actual landing speed is similarly unknown, but I've seen estimates that it exited the runway at 160 kts and that it did not appear to decelerate, so we can guess that it was certainly in excess of 150 kts, probably closer to 160 kts at landing, with flaps completely undeployed and engines probably delivering significant thrust.
Additionally, yes, there are two black boxes, both in the back of the plane: the Flight Data Recorder (rear galley) and the Cockpit Voice Recorder (aft cargo hold). Aft is the technical term and rear is used for "customer-facing" areas. I suspect they are located there because it's the safest place in the event of a crash.
And, yes, if the localizer was not concrete-encased above ground inside a berm, the crash likely would have been less catastrophic. There was still the cinder block wall to deal with after that, too.
I really regret watching the footage of the crash. Thank you for sharing it (with a content warning). I’m feeling a bit sick to my stomach now. Those poor people.
Update:
South Korea Jeju Air jet blackboxes stopped recording 4 minutes before crash, ministry says
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-jeju-air-jet-blackboxes-stopped-recording-4-minutes-before-crash-2025-01-11/
This 737 was produced one year before Boeing was mandated to provide power backups to the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders in 2010.
I initially thought that the loss of data so close to a crash must be malicious.
Interesting comment on the Aviation subreddit: