That seems...improbable.
I guess it's best to wait for an official investigation
So I don't think a pilot can just "forget" to deploy the landing gear in a commercial airliner.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
It’s not a mystery where these pilots were licensed.
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.
South Korea requires 250 hours as a country (6x), and Jeju Air specifically requires 300 (5x): https://epicflightacademy.com/hiring-requirements-jeju-air/#...)
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.
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.
The US FAA has required 1500 flight hours to receive an ATP (airline pilot) certificate since 2010: https://www.ecfr.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/#...)
The difference is drastic indeed. I almost would qualify for Jeju Air.
See:
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951
In this case, you need to be an aviation and an avian expert.
No, it happens.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Airli...
Its cases like these where I think the lining up of Swiss chesse model for failure makes a lot of sense
Also the landing gear can be extended though gravity even without hydraulic pressure.
But 9100’ isn’t super short.
> "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...
Can anybody point out why there is a concrete wall at 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)
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_...
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/html/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_...
https://x.com/BNONews/status/1873174704720425440
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muan_International_Airport
The thrust reversers are open though? (maybe?)
It’s a miracle anyone survived.
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.
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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1holbp4/jeju_air_...
http://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2022-06-30/pdf/AD/RKJB...
https://www.amazon.com/SlavicBeauty-Wildlife-Propane-Scarecr...
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 :(
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.
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.
Safer per mile. I doubt it’s safer per hour.
1. https://usafacts.org/articles/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
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.
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).
[1] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241229001054315 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/dec/29/south-kor...
A lot of people would assume that their odds of being involved in two crashes are basically zero and go on working.
How bad must it be for you?
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.
Had they known what was going to happen they’d likely have chosen some other option.
> Had they known what was going to happen they’d likely have chosen some other option.
Yeah, absolutely.
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.
Something went horribly wrong on that plane and in that cockpit. Emergency services didn't even have a chance to prep the runway.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vjMRCG7Mjg
it is basically a crime endangering public safety.
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."
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.
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
- "Skidded off the runway" - no, the aircraft landed straight, gear up, and too fast, and stayed on the runway to the end.
- "Hydraulic failure" - don't know that yet.
- "Shut off good engine" - then why so much engine noise in video?
The flight recorders have been recovered but are damaged. They can still be read, but not just by plugging in a cable as normal.
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/...
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.
They can definitely go through plane windshields.
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f40a81ebb9201ba52c7e3...
To me this seems more like pilots mishandling the situation after an engine failure caused by bird strike...
I'll add that I'm not saying that is a factor in this at all - the accident report will do that in time.
The NTSB identified poor crew communication and crew resource management as important factors. Reuters and AFP reported negative repetitional impact to Korean air carriers.
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/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1dhi0...
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/663324-jeju-737...
Very nitpicky but I have to say it:
The requirement is „one engine out“, not „one engine available“.
This makes a significant difference when looking at planes with more than 2 engines, like a 747 or an A380. Those have to be flyable with 3 engines remaining (which gives them an advantage because 2 engine planes have to calculate takeoff with 1/2 engine performance while 4 engine planes can assume 3/4 engine performance).
> 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.
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.
You can hear at least one engine running before it touches the ground AND you can see that the plane is at least in somewhat in control, considering it lines up with the runway properly and does a flare AND a thrust reverser is active before it hits the ground.
The control surfaces work without power (with great effort) since they are mechanically linked in the case of emergency on the 737 NG. If the gears were down, it should have triggered automatic flaps to slow the plane down on touchdown.
None of this makes sense, unless we assume the pilots royally fucked up basically everything. They missed the optimal landing point and only used about 40% of the runway traveling at what appears to be at least 80 knots above the normal max landing speed.
