South Korea To Inspect Boeing Aircraft as It Struggles To Find Cause of Plane Crash (apnews.com)
- Reference: 0175795511
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/12/30/2018226/south-korea-to-inspect-boeing-aircraft-as-it-struggles-to-find-cause-of-plane-crash
- Source link: https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-muan-jeju-air-crash-investigation-37561308a8157f6afe2eb507ac5131d5
> Sunday's crash, the country's worst aviation disaster in decades, triggered an outpouring of national sympathy. Many people worry how effectively the South Korean government will handle the disaster as it grapples with a leadership vacuum following the recent successive impeachments of President Yoon Suk Yeol and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the country's top two officials, amid political tumult caused by Yoon's brief imposition of martial law earlier this month.
>
> New acting President Choi Sang-mok on Monday presided over a task force meeting on the crash and instructed authorities to conduct an emergency review of the country's aircraft operation systems. "The essence of a responsible response would be renovating the aviation safety systems on the whole to prevent recurrences of similar incidents and building a safer Republic of South Korea," said Choi, who is also deputy prime minister and finance minister.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-muan-jeju-air-crash-investigation-37561308a8157f6afe2eb507ac5131d5
It wouldn't have been a crash (Score:2)
If some idiots hadnt green lit the building of a concrete wall just off the end of the runway.
Re: (Score:2)
And years after what happened at midway airport
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to judge, but if you look at [1]the satellite map [flightaware.com] of the airport, there is a road which runs along bottom end of the runway. Not the service road, but a road where people would normally drive. At the top of the image it looks like construction. At the end of the runway looks to be the mounds of dirt/concrete/whatever the jet ran into.
It appears they wanted to be absolutely certain a jet couldn't run off the runway based on its proximity to people.
[1] https://www.flightaware.com/resources/airport/RKJB/map/satellite
Re: (Score:2)
Crushable concrete or other arresting materials need to be mandated by aviation authorities at the ends of runways for situations like these where overrunning the runway could reasonably lead to a collision with infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
EMAS exists but likely wouldnt have had much of an effect in this case, because the aircraft would probably have skipped over it due to no landing gear deployed.
Make no mistake, that aircraft was going like a bat out of hell at a point where it shouldnt have had any energy at all - it had a huge amount of kinetic energy, and the fact that it went through the localiser antenna earthwork shows that. Theres very little currently in existence which would have stopped that aircraft safely.
Boeing? (Score:2)
Well, color me surprised (not)!
Re: (Score:2)
At least all the executives who fired the competent employees to cut costs got their bonuses already.
Two incidents same day (Score:4, Informative)
Same airline had a second Boeing 737-800 report a hydraulic failure the same day, which is why they're inspecting all planes of this type in South Korea. But it surprises me that no other country or airline is conducting any kind of safety check, even on a small sample of aircraft.
The sequence of events seems to be roughly this:
1. Hydraulic power was lost.
2. One aircraft made a successful emergency landing. The jet that crashed failed on first attempt.
3. On second attempt, all power was lost, resulting in no capacity to deploy flaps. Thus suggests the power loss is a result of slow damage caused by hydraulic loss, but we won't be sure until investigation is done.
4. Plane landed third of the way down runway and skidded into concrete radio beacon and mound.
5. Black boxes severely damaged by crash and explosion.
The black boxes are in an unknown state, as they're going to be electronic and there was no power. We have no guarantee that they will reveal anything after that power loss, even if the data survived.
My guess is that the investigators will find more on the plane that survived. There's not much info on it, but if the power lines were damaged when the hydraulic system failed, that might tell us a lot more than the exploded plane can.
But because it didn't explode or crash, I'm not sure if it'll be part of the investigation or merely repaired. I'm firmly convinced that the decision on this aircraft will prove critical.
The concreted radio beacon is considered safe, as that's the wrong way to land on that runway, but I'm unclear from the reports what, precisely, it is an aid for. If you just want a radio beacon, place the circuit below ground in a concrete box and have just the aerial on the surface. Colliding with an aerial is less likely to be dangerous and underground circuits will be easier to reach and subjected to fewer climate stresses.
I don't think they could have easily stopped the plane, but I'm unaware of any effort to dump fuel or otherwise lessen the risk of fire. If such measures were taken, they're not being reported.
The failure of two different systems also tells me that there's no redundancy and that both systems occupy the same space in at least one point, possibly along the same ducts. There's just about no other way the failure of one could cause the failure of the other.
The pilots did not follow the recommended remedial procedures for electrical failure, according to aviation reports, which might suggest they knew the system was fubar, but they might also have been too busy.
We will know more later, obviously, but I would be very cautious of Boeing 737-800s if they're not being inspected anywhere else. Until we know what the fault actually is, assuming it is local to one carrier in one country, where said country is good on aircraft safety checks, is probably risky.
Re: Two incidents same day (Score:2)
My theory is the engines failed DURING the go-around. The gear and flaps were up for a climb that never happened, and with no altitude to work with, they didn't have time to change that. The real mistake was failing to cut off the fuel flow to the failed engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Possble, certainly. A few reports are saying the reversers were deployed, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were functional. That bit isn't mentioned at all, and as only some reports mention the reversers, it's not certain that those reports are accurate.
Note to Slashdot admins (Score:2)
I'd posted a related story describing a second jet from the same airline that failed in the same way on the same day. Please could you add the link to that as an addendum to this, as it seems a very important part of events. You can then junk my submission as we don't really need two discussions about this.
No reverse thrust (Score:2, Informative)
Multiple failures: Both engines failed. The emergency power generator failed, causing hydraulics issues and failure to deploy the landing gear. Despite all the failures, the pilots did a perfect glide and belly landing, but the runway ended in a crazy concrete wall. I would like to string up the person who had that wall built.
Re: No reverse thrust (Score:3)
The landing gear on a 737 can lower via gravity. If theres enough time of course.
Re: (Score:3)
The flaps can also be extended using an electric motor, and leading edge flaps have a pre-charged hydraulic tank that can deploy them in a hydraulic failure. I've been watching some pilots who fly this plane and they are all confused by the whole thing. Going to be interesting when the flight data recorder and voice recorder are accessed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes as someone who studies a lot of air incidents, the fact the flaps weren’t down (which would be your best bet at slowing the plane given all other failures and lack of time to gravity deploy the landing gear), is nearly inexplicable. A well guided belly landing onto the runway implies some level of control..but why no flaps? Time will tell.
Re: (Score:3)
Way too soon for this level of speculation. Engine sounds indicated that one engine was making power. Emergency landing gear lowering is trivial for flight crew to perform and does not require hydraulics.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem sounds an awful lot like when my friend asks what's wrong with his Ford. Probably the fact that it's a Ford and was built by Ford and designed by Ford engineers. So far SK is claiming the maintenance records were spotless.
Re: (Score:3)
I kinda presume the wall is a last resort and might be the only thing here that actually functioned properly.
Better that a plane-full of people die, than a plane-full and a building-full and a road-full or whatever else is on the other side of the wall, you know? What an awful situation.
Re:No reverse thrust (Score:4, Informative)
From what I've been reading, the current theory seems to be that one engine failed, the pilots made a mistake diagnosing it and shut down the wrong one (this happens distressingly often), then panicked and did a no-flaps, no-gear landing despite the backup options that existed to deploy either one. That meant a high landing speed, no brakes, and a plane that "floated" in ground effect longer than normal so it touched down halfway down the runway. Then it hit the antenna berm/wall. Note that some distance beyond the wall are things like trees and houses, so letting the plane slide further into those would not necessarily have produced a better outcome.
The investigation will answer these questions. If the above is true then while the wall would be a contributing factor, it would not be primary cause.
Re: (Score:1)
Its not a wall, its an earthwork for the localiser antenna, and that end of the runway is several metres below the altitude of the runways threshold, so the localiser antenna needs to be elevated. Hence why its on an earthwork.
Whether its a earthwork or a metal structure, that aircraft would have been going through a significant structure at that point and the end result would likely have been the same.