Second Jeju Air 737-800 experiences mechanical issues following deadly crash
- Reference: 1735668379
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/12/31/second_jeju_air_mechanical_issues/
- Source link:
It's still not clear what caused Jeju Air flight 7C2216, originating in Bangkok, Thailand, to crash Sunday at Muan International Airport in South Korea shortly before landing. Preliminary investigation of video footage of the accident, however, suggests multiple factors leading to the crash, in which only two flight attendants seated at the rear of the plane survived.
According to [1]reports describing the leadup to the crash, 7C2216 was warned of bird activity in the area, followed by a report from the aircraft that, despite the warning, it had struck a bird. Aviation experts at FlightRadar24 [2]said the craft made a low-altitude flyover of the airport, likely in an attempt to have officials on the ground confirm the state of the plane and suggest next steps.
[3]
FlightRadar24 said that ADS-B broadcasts from 7C2216 stopped during its flyover, which could have multiple explanations, "including loss of electrical power to the transponder, a wider electrical failure, or pilot action on the flight deck," the flight tracking site explained.
[4]
[5]
Regardless of the reason, video of the crash landing on 7C2216's second approach showed that the landing gear on the aircraft wasn't deployed, and flaps and slats used to slow the aircraft appeared to be stowed. After landing, 7C2216 crashed into a concrete barricade and burst into a fireball, killing nearly everyone onboard.
To make matters worse, this could have been the first of a pair of accidents involving a Jeju Air flight, as [6]yesterday , a second flight was forced to return to its point of origin after allegedly suffering a similar landing gear issue.
[7]
Jeju Air flight 7C101, from Seoul to Jeju Island, experienced a mechanical issue with its landing gear on Monday morning local time. The aircraft, another Boeing 737-800, was able to resolve the matter but returned to Gimpo Airport as a precautionary measure to switch aircraft.
Answers likely to take time
Given two similar incidents with two Jeju Air Boeing 737-800 aircraft in as many days, South Korean officials aren't taking any chances and have [8]decided to inspect every single 737-800 in use by the country's airlines. That will amount to the review of 101 737-800 aircraft, 39 of which are operated by Jeju Air.
Whether the issue could be another snag for Boeing, which has faced considerable scrutiny following a [9]pair of crashes and [10]mechanical [11]issues in recent years, isn't immediately clear, and the aerospace firm didn't address such a possibility when asked.
[12]Report claims FAA ignores most whistleblower complaints
[13]Boeing again delays the 777X – the plane that's supposed to turn things around
[14]Another Boeing whistleblower comes forward – with receipts
[15]Boeing's new captain promises U-turn after Q3 nosedive
"Consistent with US law and the UN International Civil Aviation Organization protocol known as Annex 13, we will refer you to Korean authorities for any information about the accident," a Boeing spokesperson told The Register when asked whether the accident could be due to issues with the 737-800 or problems at Jeju Air.
"We are in contact with Jeju Air regarding flight 2216 and stand ready to support them," the spokesperson added. "We extend our deepest condolences to the families who lost loved ones, and our thoughts remain with the passengers and crew."
While it wouldn't comment on the possibility of additional issues with Boeing aircraft, the company did point us to the National Transportation Safety Board's [16]statement indicating NTSB and Federal Aviation Administration officials, along with Boeing employees, were on the way to South Korea to assist in the examination of the 7C2216 wreckage - a process that's unlikely to be quick.
According to South Korean news agency Yonhap, the aircraft's flight data recorder was damaged in the crash, and was found to be missing a connector that links its data storage unit to its power supply. Retrieving data from the unit will be complicated by the damage, may necessitate sending it to the US for extraction. The cockpit voice recorder is reportedly in better condition.
[17]
US and Boeing investigators, along with 11 members of South Korea's Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board, are still inspecting the wreckage at the site of the accident in an attempt to piece together clues as to what caused the deadly failure. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/south-korea-plane-crash-final-six-minutes-105fdaf3
[2] https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/jeju-air-2216-muan/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z3R3lyqfLBQIO550D__4lwAAAQM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z3R3lyqfLBQIO550D__4lwAAAQM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z3R3lyqfLBQIO550D__4lwAAAQM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241230001500320
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z3R3lyqfLBQIO550D__4lwAAAQM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-muan-jeju-air-crash-investigation-37561308a8157f6afe2eb507ac5131d5
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/15/boeing_might_be_criminally_prosecuted/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/07/ntsb_boeing_door_plug/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/09/nasa_boeing_sls/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/31/faa_whistleblower_complaints/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/14/boeing_layoffs_delays/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/24/boeing_whistleblower_q1_2024/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/23/boeing_q3/
[16] https://x.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/1873402731698024709
[17] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z3R3lyqfLBQIO550D__4lwAAAQM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Don't be daft - it would have run out of fuel long before reaching Gatwick.
Also, BA would have blamed the pilot for saving the plane.
As if Heathrow and the M25 car park is any better!
Or, if attempting a similar landing at Southampton it could take out a goodly part of Eastleigh ...
That's the advantage of 'London' Stansted - there is nothing within miles and miles that you can hit and that anyone would care about (see also Doncaster Robin-Hood)
Back in 2001 I was working just north of Eastleigh, needless to say after 11th September became much more aware of the flights from Southampton
These two flights may have similar symptoms, gear failed to deploy, but the root causes might be totally unrelated.
I guess the question here is - is it the planes or is it the airline maintenance (or some weird form of sabotage)?
It could be an age related plane issue, but given that two incidents happened in the same week for the same airline when this is an old plane with loads of them in the sky across the globe... I'd start with the airline.
I doubt it's some wierd form of sabotage...
...I mean, greed has sabotaged so many things throughout human history we can hardly call it weird. Amirite?
Not a landing gear problem
They aren't similar symptoms. The second flight had a 'landing gear issue' shortly after take-off. So either the landing gear failed to retract or the system couldn't determine it's state. They turned around and landed. Wouldn't have even made the news if it wasn't for the previous crash.
The crashed flight appeared to make no attempt to prepare the plane for landing. No landing gear deployed, no flaps, no spoilers. One thrust reverser deployed. It doesn't appear that there was any kind of problem with the landing gear.
Once the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder are analyzed there will be answers, but currently it's looking like the flight crew made a series of mistakes following a bird strike on #2 engine.
Re: Not a landing gear problem
The consensus of opinion amongst armchair experts is the plane had a birdstrike on #2 engine and the crew shutdown the good, #1 engine. This meant they had to curtail the already initiated go-around and perform a teardrop turn on limited or no power, panicking while doing so and thus failing to prepare for landing (flaps and gear down).
That seems to be the only plausible explanation that fits the existing, publicly available facts.
Re: Not a landing gear problem
> the crew shutdown the good, #1 engine
It's happened so many times, there's a Wikipedia category for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_caused_by_wrong_engine_shutdown
They're all different types of aircraft, so there doesn't seem to be a common bad UI or design thread.
Re: Not a landing gear problem
"The consensus of opinion amongst armchair experts is the plane had a birdstrike on #2 engine and the crew shutdown the good, #1 engine."
Shades of the Nottingham crash, then. And that was very close to landing on the M1.
On a BBC article it said "Jeju Air had paid the most fines and faced the most administrative action of any Korean airline over the last five years, But insisted the airline has consistently improved its safety record."
Aaha! They were likely in the same repair shop - given the big pile of tyres, perhaps they mistakenly put all the left hand wheels on one plane and the right hand wheels on the other one...
This is a flight by Ambidextrous Airlines and you are welcome to it.
Clickbaity title
What is it about The Register and Boeing? In Australia both Qantas and VIrgin have 737 700's and 800's which have flown millions of passenger-miles without any dramas. Concentrating on the aircraft make just gives the airline a "get out of jail free" card, if indeed there were issues with maintenance or pilot training. Does the Register think its readers are too dumb to comprehend that almost all commercial aircraft accidents are caused by a combination of factors? (Swiss cheese accident model)
Re: Clickbaity title
Thank you!
I'm the last one to give messed-up Boeing a pass, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the make&model. It could have happened with an Airbus or an Embraer. By every account and analysis I've so far seen from what I consider reputable aviation analysts (rather than MSM), this points at severe crew mistakes from the moment of the bird strike.
As someone else commented, MSM is pointing towards a horrifyingly-frequent wrong engine shutdown. Though until I hear something on this from someone like Juan@blancolirio I'll reserve judgment.
It would explain lack of gear and flaps/spoilers to try and extend the glide. "trimming for best glide" is something I got drilled into me every time my CFI reached for the throttle with an evil grin.In a retractable that means keeping things as clean as possible for less drag.
I had also wonder whether the pilots were familiar enough with the airport that they knew about the absolutely idiotically placed medieval siege defense wall that they put the Localiser on, keeping the gear up for a better chance to clear it. But if they already messed up with the engine shutdown, methinks they were headless chicken in the cockpit. They wouldn't have thought about that. Maybe. Probably.
If it had happened at Gatwick it could've been a thousand dead because the A23 and the London to Brighton mainline are right at the end of the runway.