Jump to content

Boeing 737 crashes with 180 on board in South Korea


rpspeed

Recommended Posts

Looking on Google maps (assuming photo is accurate) it's about 475 feet from the end of the apron to what looks like the reinforced ILS they hit.  There appears to be nothing to the left or right of it so terrible fucking luck. Miss that and it's some green space and a road with some trees down it which may have clipped wings and caused chaos.  It wouldn't have been all kosher but they wouldn't have had the Dale Earnhardt HARD stop and would have had a chance to dissipate more energy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2024 at 9:04 PM, McCroskey said:

Tragic.

15 year-old 737-800...ADS-B tracking had it landing to the north on Runway 01 but clearly from the wreck it was landing to the south on Runway 19, at a seemingly much higher rate of speed than normal.  Supposedly 737s like this are tough to land gear-up given the plane has a manual gear deploy capability that gravity drops and locks the gear, usable even in situations of complete hydraulic failure.

So what you’re saying is, you picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, smuggs said:

I'm no pilot but it's astonishing to me that ~20 lb. goose can wipe out a ~75 ton aircraft. Although a nail through a car tire @ 80 mph can produce some crazy results so I guess it makes sense.

When they hit an Airbus at least it can land in the water. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smuggs said:

I'm no pilot but it's astonishing to me that ~20 lb. goose can wipe out a ~75 ton aircraft. Although a nail through a car tire @ 80 mph can produce some crazy results so I guess it makes sense.

Pretty much any bird or other foreign object can take out an engine. Doesn't have to be a big one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bird strike doesn't make just a whole lot of sense to me.  If it had a bird strike on short final, then its gear should've already been down and locked with flaps set for landing.  If the bird strike was on final before the flaps were lowered and the landing gear deployed, then it should've had plenty of altitude to start the APU and drop the landing gear.  So yeah--I just don't get it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video supposedly of the bird strike. First the flu, now they are taking out aircraft. Evil little dinosaurs.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-3341145/Video-Footage-shows-bird-strike-Boeing-737s-engine-moments-crash.html

Still doesn’t make sense to me. More info needed but a single engine landing is not extreme.

I am going to bet that cultural issues in the cockpit played a role in this.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:


Still doesn’t make sense to me. More info needed but a single engine landing is not extreme.

I am going to bet that cultural issues in the cockpit played a role in this.

Basing that off the SFO crash landing report or do you think that many 1st chair or whatever you call them just don’t know what to do in these events but the junior officers do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

A bird strike doesn't make just a whole lot of sense to me.  If it had a bird strike on short final, then its gear should've already been down and locked with flaps set for landing.  If the bird strike was on final before the flaps were lowered and the landing gear deployed, then it should've had plenty of altitude to start the APU and drop the landing gear.  So yeah--I just don't get it.

What if the bird was an unladen swallow?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guessing bird strike, they did a go around, shut off the wrong engine, lost all hydraulics, panicked and thought let's just put this down.

Didn't do much of a checklist if they forgot about manual landing gear procedure.

Probably never started the APU.

Cultural issues, pilot error and panicked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:


Still doesn’t make sense to me. More info needed but a single engine landing is not extreme.

I am going to bet that cultural issues in the cockpit played a role in this.

Forget it, Jake. It's Boeing.

Edited by Deej
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, t_eight said:

Guessing bird strike, they did a go around, shut off the wrong engine, lost all hydraulics, panicked and thought let's just put this down.

Didn't do much of a checklist if they forgot about manual landing gear procedure.

Probably never started the APU.

Cultural issues, pilot error and panicked.

That would be a scary set of crew decisions/actions. As a layman I’d think bird strike or other issue causing single engine failure would be high on the sim’d training situations, as one of the more likely real-life situations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way--who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to turn the ILS localizer into a goddamned barrier?

The ILS locator needs to be at the end of the runway, and for that reason it's usually made so that it will break away in case it is hit by an aircraft that overruns the runway:

What is an ILS Approach? | FlightDeckFriend.com

Check out what they did in Muan--they built a goddamned altar for it:

Jeju 737-800 crash at Muan airport in South Korea - Page 10 - PPRuNe Forums

If this plane hits the top ILS locator, which is installed consistent with ICAO standards, the plane blows right through the array and probably just keeps skidding for an extra few hundred yards.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How does a bird strike disable landing gear?  Did it fry the electrical system and the entire plane is fly by wire?

If both engines were hit, which has been the subject of some talk on CNN, electrics and hydraulics would almost certainly be impacted.

 

4 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Well and that thing where if it just struck one engine (unlike the Sully experience) you have a whole other engine.

I haven't been following it today, but I don't think it's been confirmed that only one engine was hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we infer anything from the apparent loss of ADS-B data at basically the same time as the (first?) bird strike? Does that suggest a major electrical failure or disruption? Also, kinda weird that as far as I've seen, there were no comms at all past the first go-around.  I know flying the aircraft comes first but you'd think they'd at least say something about a second landing attempt.

Nothing about this makes sense unless they actually had a dual engine failure, or shut down the wrong one as user t-eight posted above. But the video seems to show some thrust (blurry heat waves) from the #2 engine at the time of landing, while showing seemingly nothing from the #1 engine. Although those could be compression artifacts in the video. And "some thrust" from one engine would not necessarily be enough to hold altitude or go around again.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, wood said:

If both engines were hit, which has been the subject of some talk on CNN, electrics and hydraulics would almost certainly be impacted.

 

I haven't been following it today, but I don't think it's been confirmed that only one engine was hit.

Hence the word "if"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

By the way--who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to turn the ILS localizer into a goddamned barrier?

The ILS locator needs to be at the end of the runway, and for that reason it's usually made so that it will break away in case it is hit by an aircraft that overruns the runway:

What is an ILS Approach? | FlightDeckFriend.com

Check out what they did in Muan--they built a goddamned altar for it:

Jeju 737-800 crash at Muan airport in South Korea - Page 10 - PPRuNe Forums

If this plane hits the top ILS locator, which is installed consistent with ICAO standards, the plane blows right through the array and probably just keeps skidding for an extra few hundred yards.  

After the run way, it slopes down so they had to build it up...not saying the berm was the right idea, but that's why.

At the speed they were going they were likely going to skid into other residential/commercial structures.

The fact that they were able to do a go around, suggests at some point after the go around they lost all power...again, i think they shut off the wrong engine at some point and panicked.

No communications to the tower, no fuel dump pre-belly landing....just get on the ground as fast as possible....must have had zero power and forgot to activate the APU or couldn't....still doesn't explain not lowering the landing gear...which is why i think they were not going through any checklists. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, t_eight said:

After the run way, it slopes down so they had to build it up...not saying the berm was the right idea, but that's why.

At the speed they were going they were likely going to skid into other residential/commercial structures.

The fact that they were able to do a go around, suggests at some point after the go around they lost all power...again, i think they shut off the wrong engine at some point and panicked.

No communications to the tower, no fuel dump pre-belly landing....just get on the ground as fast as possible....must have had zero power and forgot to activate the APU or couldn't....still doesn't explain not lowering the landing gear...which is why i think they were not going through any checklists. 

Air Disasters tells me that pilots have shut down the wrong engine before on other crashes, so I’ve asked in the past, why not have closed circuit camera where the pilots can see the engine/wing/tail etc?  Clearly the instruments alone don’t do the job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t_eight said:

The fact that they were able to do a go around, suggests at some point after the go around they lost all power...again, i think they shut off the wrong engine at some point and panicked.

No communications to the tower, no fuel dump pre-belly landing....just get on the ground as fast as possible....must have had zero power and forgot to activate the APU or couldn't....still doesn't explain not lowering the landing gear...which is why i think they were not going through any checklists. 

I mean--I'm not doubting you.  Your explanation certainly fits the facts as we know them.  But that really would involve a cascading number of fuck-ups that is almost unimaginable.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

that road isn't elevated. source: street view.

Then even more potential space to slide along.  I mean at some point there could have been tumbling, turning etc so who the hell knows but just like any race wreck those usually are not the worst ones vs the sudden stop wreck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won’t know what happened on this for months. The FDR and the CVR will probably clear it up at some point.  Landing in that condition would only make sense if they lost both engines or thought they had an uncontrollable fire on board.  But even under those conditions there are ways to get the gear and the flaps out. 

A couple of minor points that don’t change the big picture here at all…

The 737 has both leading edge slats and leading edge flaps. The inboards are flaps and the outboards are slats. 

There is no fuel dumping capability on a 737.  

Flaps and gear are powered hydraulically with redundancies built in.  An engine failure alone doesn’t prevent you from operating the gear or flaps.  But if you do have an entire hydraulic system failure the flaps have an electric back up and the gear has a manual/gravity back up.   

A not so insignificant the point is that some EMAS installed at the end of that runway would’ve come in very handy there.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2024 at 11:31 AM, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Dead stick landings are very difficult in modern airliners.

dumb question amnesty here but I infer from your statement that it was less difficult on older airliners?  it seems like if you “lose” everything you should still be allowed the control to manually do what is necessary to get the plane on the ground however possible in the “safest” way possible.  why would newer models take that away?  not sure if I asked that right but the idea that a newer, more advanced plane would be worse at something so vital in a disaster situation doesn’t make sense to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...