back to article Second Jeju Air 737-800 experiences mechanical issues following deadly crash

The disastrous crash of a Boeing 737-800 in South Korea over the weekend, which killed 179 of the 181 people onboard, was followed by a second incident involving Jeju Air. On Monday, the flight was forced to return to its origin due to a reportedly similar landing gear issue. It's still not clear what caused Jeju Air flight …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        re: BA would have blamed the pilot

        Do BA fly 737-800's?

    2. Paul Herber Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      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 ...

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        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)

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          "see also Doncaster Robin-Hood"

          Sorry folks.

          Robin-Hood went bang several years ago.

          1. UnknownUnknown

            Re: "see also Doncaster Robin-Hood"

            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c789706edd2o.amp

            1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
              Thumb Up

              "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c789706edd2o.amp"

              Well this is good news.

              A lot of people will be very happy for the local economy.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "attempting a similar landing at Southampton"

        Southampton wouldn't be so bad. There's the M27 at the south end with a number of low walls and a handful of unlucky cars to slow it down followed by a nature reserve. At the north end there's a traincare depot with a number of empty trains and collapsible buildings helping to scrub speed. An expensive mess but survivable.

        All airports will now need to wargame their largest plane sliding off each end of each runway at 150mph.

        1. 080

          If a 737 hit a class 60 loco, lots of redundant ones at Eastleigh, at speed the result would be much the same as hitting a concrete wall.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Interesting point, it weighs twice as much as the plane. I guess this all needs simulating to find the most effective way to "catch" an overshooting plane before it reaches critical infrastructure.

            1. Malcolm Weir

              The answer is known: EMAS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system

              Even though the Jeju aircraft had its wheels retracted, the whole thing would have ploughed into the bed of friable material and slowed dramatically before running out of space.

              1. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
                Black Helicopters

                And the backup system is a concrete wall to contain the damage. Obviously nothing can be 100% effective in every situation, but if the plane occupants are going to be in an un-survivable crash, there's no reason to add even more people to the mix.

              2. Alan Brown Silver badge

                EMAS relies on landing gear digging in and through the surface and the aircraft being below 80 knots - the design criteria are an intact and largely undamaged set of gear

                Belly landings risk skimming over EMAS as the contact pressure is unlikely to be high enough to break the frangible surface and belly skids tend to be LOOOOOOOONG - meaning the speed will likely be higher than the designs maximum for EMAS anyway

                Small dragon teeth for rasping the bottom of the aircraft might seem like a reasonable idea but they'd likely rip open fuel tanks and make any fireballs worse rather than actually slowing things down

                This kind of sitiation is difficult to deal with and very few airports are designed to cope with a long end-of-runway excursion. Heathrow has the M25 at one end and housing at the other, whilst Gatwick has a motorway and a railway station

                It's early days, but my money is on the pilots suffering situational overload, failing to lower the gear (which explains the long landing) and then perhaps trying a go-around instead of just deploying spoilers, etc. The aircraft had a nose-high attitude during the entire skid, which is not what you want if trying to slow down quickly

        2. FirstTangoInParis Silver badge

          Southampton Eastleigh airport has the M27 to the south, currently filled with masses of concrete barriers for the roadworks that are taking an age to complete. But what really worries the locals is a plane coming down on the docks.

          1. MalcolmL

            I'm a local and not worried about that. The approach from the south does fly near the docks but not over them. It virtually follows the River Itchen from the dockhead where the Itchen joins Southampton Water all the way to the airport although the river ceases to be large and tidal around a kilometer short of the runway.

        3. MalcolmL

          In 1993 a Cessna Citation 500 twin-engined jet did overrun the runway at Southampton and burst into flames after hitting cars on the M27. Full story here https://tinyurl.com/2bp9mwkl

        4. herman Silver badge

          Oh my god! At Southampton a sliding plane could kill a butterfly in the park!

      4. STOP_FORTH Silver badge
        Trollface

        Beastly Eastleigh

        I used to work in Eastleigh. There is no goodly part. Not since they closed down the bakery anyway.

        It is also an anagram of eagle shit.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Beastly Eastleigh

          I currently work in Eastleigh and that anagram still gives it far too much prestige.

    3. PRR Silver badge

      > it could've been a thousand dead

      Not a thousand, but Teterboro Airport NJ USA is tightly bounded by highways. I remember when it was literally open field; those days are gone. "February 2, 2005,.. Bombardier CL-600...hurtled off a runway at Teterboro Airport, skidded across US 46 and slammed into a warehouse during the morning rush, ..... Later that year, Congress ....directed the FAA to install 1,000 feet (300 m) arrestor beds at all U.S. airports." I think they even did the arrestor at the tiny municipal airport near my house; the Koreans instead built a hill to protect some infrastructure?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

      As someone who was born in Lowfield Heath (use your map people and wonder why the A23 makes a right turn as it heads north out of Crawley...) before the new airport [1]was built, the issue if the A23 and London to Brighton mainline is ONLY relevant IF landings are done that way, after an approach from the SW.

      As the prevailing wind is from the SW most days, landings are done with an approach over the railway/M-23/A23. Anything running out of runway will crash through the perimeter fence, across a minor road and into fields. The sticky wealden clay will soon bring the thing to a halt.

      [1] I say new airport as there was an old airport before WW2. The remains of the control tower (aka the Beehive) can be seen on the right as the A23 swings left to run alongside the railway and go under the south terminal. There was even an airport station. What is now Gatwick Airport station was once called Gatwick Racecourse.

      1. Paul Herber Silver badge

        Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

        The road from Reigate used to head straight south across the runway and there were traffic lights to stop traffic when there was a plane movement. Late 50s/early 60s?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

          Pity they stopped, would have been a never ending source of YouTube videos

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

            See Gibraltar airport.

            And Bristol Filton. Not sure what it’s like nowadays.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

              Gisborne airport (NZ) is fun too - railway crossing the runway

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcnIiYxuzEM

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

        That's the Gatwick point here. As I understand it, the Korean plane belly landed in the "wrong" direction because it lost all power during a low pass being made in the right direction, presumably for the tower to inspect the bird strike damage. I imagine all airports will need to rethink their design for this scenario.

        And the reason Gatwick is worse than most is the railway line where it could meet 100mph trains with hundreds of people and no chance of stopping. Roads, carparks and buildings aren't great either but the potential outcomes must be better than rail.

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: all airports will need to rethink their design

          Yeah, that's obviously a really simple thing to do.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: all airports will need to rethink their design

            Airports that can't be made safe should be closed. Gatwick would be ideal for housing. Heathrow also isn't fit for purpose as a first world hub airport (Emirates' CEO called it a WW2 relic) so close this too for much needed housing and build a brand new hub airport somewhere along HS2.

            1. Paul Herber Silver badge

              Re: all airports will need to rethink their design

              "Gatwick would be ideal for housing"

              The only reason people want to live in that area is to be able to work at the airport or one of the nearby support businesses.

              1. Eurotard1

                Re: all airports will need to rethink their design

                That would change if the airport was replaced by a new garden city. It's because of the airport that anyone not involved in the airport doesn't want to live there.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Gatwick would be ideal for....

                Demolition.

                While you are at it, take the 'Sussex Gulag' aka Crawley with you. It is nothing more than a blot on the landscape. I say that because I had the misfortune to live there for 20+ years.

                Even a 'Project' on the edge of Moscow was nicer than that shithole.

                1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                  Unhappy

                  "Even a 'Project' on the edge of Moscow was nicer than that shithole."

                  Know that for a fact?

                  I saw a description of where Putin grew up and frankly it sounded more like Govern in Glasgow during the 50's.

                  Those who know Glasgow know what I'm talking about.

                  1. werdsmith Silver badge

                    Re: "Even a 'Project' on the edge of Moscow was nicer than that shithole."

                    Those who know Glasgow say Govan.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              HS2

              You mean Manchester airport in Phase 2? Anyway, wasn't the route of HS2 planned to improved connectivity to Heathrow?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: HS2

                Improve perhaps but it was always a compromise because of the need to change at Old Oak Common. If HS2 was instead integrated directly into a new airport, just south of Coventry for example, connectivity for HS2 passengers would be massively improved plus Old Oak Common would still be useful as an interchange.

            3. IGotOut Silver badge

              Re: all airports will need to rethink their design

              "build a brand new hub airport somewhere along HS2."

              Anyone with half a brain knows the whole point of HS2 was to get people to fly in and out of Birmingham. Basically a London extension.

              It certainly wasn't for the benefit of anyone else.

              1. Alan Brown Silver badge

                Re: all airports will need to rethink their design

                Virtually all UK airports have the same problem of poor connectivity and/or being hemmed in. Just like railway lines, you can build one in the middle of nowhere and people will immediately build housing near it, then complain about the noise, etc (look at the history of UK's old lines)

                It's hardly unique to the UK. The Dutch spent a lot of time and effort making Schipol easily accessible from anywhere in the Randstad as well as protecting the overruns and yet someone still managed to drop a 747 on a block of flats

            4. spold Silver badge

              Re: all airports will need to rethink their design

              You are just looking for people to have a reason to visit Milton Keynes.

              1. werdsmith Silver badge

                Re: all airports will need to rethink their design

                Hi 1980s!

        2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

          Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

          I've witnessed a crash where a plane went across a main road. This was a bird strike on take-off of an HS-125 from Dunsfold (home of Top Gear). The aircraft lost both engines and belly flopped across the main Horsham-Guildford road and came to a halt in a field just beyond the road. All on board were uninjured. Sadly, it took the roof off a passing car during the crash landing. On board was the wife and children of one of the Hawker Siddley test pilots. He was in the control tower and saw it all happen.

          They were unlucky.

          |The same luck or lack of it would apply to a plane crash landing at Gatwick.

          1. STOP_FORTH Silver badge

            Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

            Main road?

          2. FirstTangoInParis Silver badge

            Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

            See also the East Midlands airport crash, known as Kegworth air disaster. B737 came down short of the runway straight on to the M1.

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

              I think it was generally the embankment on the west side of the M1.

              1. David Hicklin Silver badge

                Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

                From the reconstruction of the event for TV it implied it had gone across the M1 which aerial photos also seem to show

                1. werdsmith Silver badge

                  Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

                  The aerial photos show that the 737 impacted on the field on the East side of the M1, hopped over the carriageway and impacted the bank on the West side to the right of the extended centre line. A piece of undercarriage that was stuck on the central reservation barrier came off in the first impact and landed there.

                  The approach the the runway at EMA is perpendicular to the M1 and the M1 is recessed into a cutting at that point.

          3. spold Silver badge

            Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

            Google Air France 358 Toronto crash - apparently it was really smart that we had a big ditch with a road and a stream running through it just beyond the end of the runway (more your sort of 20+m deep and 50m wide and 100m long sort of thing) without putting some sort of cover over the top of the thing or making it a tunnel.

          4. Korev Silver badge

            Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

            > Main road?

            Presumably the A281.

            Where I think the crash above happened has now gained a roundabout in preparation for a load of houses. The road is already over-capacity and naturally there's no talk of reopening the old railway line that runs nearby...

        3. Andrew Scott Bronze badge

          Re: re: end of Gatport Airwick runway

          lot of things might have gone wrong with that landing. not enough time to do the checklist. there was a news briefing where i believe there was speculation that the wrong engine might have been shut down. Can't see the wings or engines from the cockpit. Bird strike on a single engine shouldn't have brought the plane down normally. there are redundant systems to lower the landing gear, might even have been a manual way if total power failure if they had time. Direction of takeoff or landing on runway depends on wind direction and in an emergency it's any way you need.

    5. martinusher Silver badge

      Running out of runway doesn't automatically result in a fireball. One of our local airports, Burbank, has the east-west runway -- the one that planes land on -- end abruptly at a road Hollywood Way). There's a blast screen, a wire fence and the sidewalk (pavement). Since this is the runway that's used for landings and all landings come from the west towards this street coming into Burbank is always exciting. To add to the thrills there used to be a gas (petrol) station over the road from the runway but it was removed after a 737 ended up in it.

      See:- https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-06-mn-6031-story.html

      (Compared to this Gatwich's got plenty of room before the A23 and the railway.)

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    These two flights may have similar symptoms, gear failed to deploy, but the root causes might be totally unrelated.

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      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.

      1. chuckufarley

        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?

    2. HereIAmJH Silver badge

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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.

        1. Gene Cash Silver badge

          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.

          1. cyberdemon Silver badge
            Terminator

            Re: Not a landing gear problem

            A common factor seems to be having humans as pilots

          2. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
            Black Helicopters

            Re: Not a landing gear problem

            I've recently been watching a lot of Mentour Pilot on YouTube - an excellent series of thoughtful, in-depth analyses of air crashes and near misses, well worth watching.

            Almost every single time, I see elements of bad UI design that wouldn't be tolerated on basic PC applications. I've started to wonder when the last truly clean-sheet ground-up new aeroplane design happened, using everything we now know about proper subsystem interaction, UI/UX and human failings of perception and action. It seems to me that all the big planes are just a mish-mash of systems layered upon systems with other systems crow-barred in between them, resulting is many, many unintended and unforeseen interactions which lead to pilot confusion and crashes.

            Still, what do I know?

            GJC

            1. ArrZarr Silver badge

              I've started to wonder when the last truly clean-sheet ground-up new aeroplane design happened

              I'd put money on the year starting with a "1".

              The whole "Systems layered upon systems" thing will be a direct consequence of the time and effort it takes to get these core systems certified (for more examples of taking shortcuts to avoid recertifying, just look at the 737-MAX and all the issues that faced). The difference between getting a whole new unified stack certified compared to building a new system on top of an existing stack will be utterly vast, so if the existing stack already has the kinks worked out, why change it?

              The other issue is that when somebody does go about making a whole new software stack for their planes, you'll just end up with a similar problem in 20-30 years.

              Fully agree on the horrid UX that pilots need to deal with. I've always found business software to be markedly inferior to consumer software in terms of usability. Personally I think that this is because the people using the software tend not to be the people paying for the software - a situation that happens much less in the consumer space.

              1. David Hicklin Silver badge

                Re: I've started to wonder when the last truly clean-sheet ground-up new aeroplane design happened

                > The whole "Systems layered upon systems" thing will be a direct consequence of the time and effort it takes to get these core systems certified (for more examples of taking shortcuts to avoid recertifying, just look at the 737-MAX and all the issues that faced).

                Not to mention all the retraining that would be required, its bad enough with cars that have the wiper and indicator stalks on differing sides of the steering wheel, never mind trying to fly a plane. Plus accidents have been caused by controls on one mark of aircraft working differently (but seeing very similar) on the next

          3. Potty Professor
            Boffin

            Re: Not a landing gear problem

            IFIRC, the Kegworth crash was caused by shutting down the wrong engine, but in that case the pilots thought they were shutting down the failed engine, but a crossed pair of sensors somewhere in the wiring loom deep in the fuselage gave them the wrong information. That was a clear case of a potentially lethal fault being designed into the loom, as both left and right plugs were identical, and could be (and were) transposed during routine maintenance.

            In 1989 I was living and working in Rugby, and remember it happening only a few miles North of us.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          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.

          1. Andre Carneiro

            Re: Not a landing gear problem

            From my armchair I seem to see hot exhaust gases coming out of the engines so to me neither of them looked to be shut down.

            It's all very odd. It seems the pilots wanted that plane on the ground PDQ and, as alluded earlier, didn't properly configure the aircraft, touched down half way down the runway with engines running.... It's a mystery to me, I will be looking forward to the interim analysis of the FDR and CVR.

        3. HereIAmJH Silver badge

          Re: Not a landing gear problem

          In addition, they were on final approach and configured for landing prior to the bird strike. They should have just continued to land. If both engines had been damaged in the strike they wouldn't have aborted. Which supports the opinion that they shut down #1 by mistake. I suppose there could have been a subsequent second bird strike on the abort, but it's not supported by the video and would require exceptionally bad luck.

          Ironically, flaps and gear down would have helped them. Flaps, because once lined up for the runway they needed lift and not speed. Since they underestimated, or didn't account for ground effect, putting the gear down would have shed speed to help offset the fact that they wasted 1/3 of the runway.

          1. jospanner Silver badge

            Re: Not a landing gear problem

            Absolutely not. If you have anything the destabilises your approach while on final, you go around and fix the issue.

        4. ComicalEngineer Bronze badge

          Re: Not a landing gear problem

          Far from the first time that this has happened:

          Kegworth Air Disaster (UK East Midlands, narrowly missed the M1) 737-400, 1988 (47 fatalities)

          USAF Bombardier E-11, 2020 (4 fatalities - all n board)

          TransAsia Airways Flight 235, Feb 2015 (43 fatalities, 17 survivors)

          Azerbaijan Airlines Flight A-56, 1995, Tu-134 (52 fatal)

          South African Airlink Flight 8911, 2009, 1 fatality BAe Jetstream

          Transair Flight 810, 2021, Boeing 737-200 freighter (0 fatalities)

          Air India AIRBUS A320-21 VT-GOS, 2017, Delhi (Landed safely after engine restart at very low altitude. Change of underwear required)

          I can probably cite a dozen other occasions on large transport aircraft (i.e. 18 seater and above). Having flown gliders and light aircraft, I find modern jets over complicated and pilots often overloaded with spurious information when soething does go wrong. Sitting in a simulator with a pilot friend (as an abserver) I counted over 30 separate warnings (verbal and on the screens) within a 3 minute interval. For example, during an engine failure exercise there were warnings about fuel flow, engine temperature, speed, angle of attack, altitude, thrust etc, some of which were repeated multiple times by "Bitching Betty".

          1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
            Holmes

            Re: Not a landing gear problem

            "It's fine, we gave them a checklist for that."

            GJC

        5. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

          Re: Not a landing gear problem

          Yikes!

          As stated below, this seems to be a common error. Without power, deploying gear, flaps and spoilers could have stalled the plane short of landing, resulting is just as bad a situation. That is, if with both engines shut down would there be enough power to even deploy them.

      2. O'Reg Inalsin

        Re: Not a landing gear problem

        This aviation expert [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzmptA6s-1g ] "Blancolirio" notes that if the wheels are not down then the flaps and spoilers will not deploy. But the landing gear can be deployed by hand by pulling on emergency cables - the video even shows footage of the emergency cables being deployed. So if they had done that (manual deployment) then the flaps could have been deployed. The flaps/spoilers lockout will be released even if the landing gear is up when the aircraft is under 10 feet from the ground. But they were floating for over the runway quite high so ....

        1. O'Reg Inalsin

          Re: Not a landing gear problem

          I should have said that "Blancolirio's" video includes stock footage of emergency deployment of landing gear using those manual cables. (Not during the flight in question).

    3. John Miles

      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."

    4. Ianab

      Yeah, the only common point is "landing gear".

      If the 2nd flight had just taken off, then the problem would have been a failure to retract. Crew ran the checklist for that, got the gear locked down again, and returned safely. All good, everyone safe.

      The fatal crash seems to have multiple factors. Bird strike(s) (a compressor stall was caught on video as it made it's first approach). Then a very hasty turn and landing attempt, with no flaps / gear / spoilers deployed. So factors Other than just a landing gear fault. A single engine failure or problem lowering the gear (or even both) isn't a reason for hasty crash landing. When those things happen, the crew declares an emergency, but has time to circle and properly prepare for landing, maybe even burn off excess fuel to reduce the landing speed and fire risk. But if BOTH engines had failed, then it was a matter of looking for the least worst place to crash land, and they got it wrong.

      Then there is the issue of a concrete / dirt wall for the navigation lights at the end of the runway, that the plane ended up hitting, while still doing ~150 mph. Most airports have those systems on lightweight structures that will sheer off if hit by an overshoot / undershoot plane, or practically at ground level just short of the tarmac. Either way it's not the proverbial "brick wall on the motorway". Wellington (NZ) airport has it's issues, but if you crash landed like this you would probably end up with a mostly intact plane in the harbor, with a some chance of surviving.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        The problem is that 150 mph is faster than the aircraft should be traveling when it reaches the ground, let alone after it has skidded a long ways. So they clearly landed at far above the normal speed, and overshot the touchdown location (they landed halfway down the runway) so it was a comedy of errors. You almost have to suspect some form of sabotage or rogue pilot type situation at some point for so many things to go wrong at once.

        1. cryptopants

          The flaps were retracted when it landed, so it would’ve been coming in faster than usual.

          This unfortunately this tends to create a ground effect where the airplane begins to ride on top of a cushion of air. So the aircraft floats down the runway only lightly scraping the pavement and not putting the full weight onto the ground, which is needed to stop it.

    5. xyz Silver badge

      There was a KLM 737 800 flight in Norway the day after the Korean crash that had a hydraulic failure....

      https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/air-france-klm-group/klm-royal-dutch-airlines/boeing-737-800-experiences-hydraulic-failure-skids-off-runway-in-norway/

  3. spold Silver badge

    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...

    1. Paul Herber Silver badge

      This is a flight by Ambidextrous Airlines and you are welcome to it.

  4. Grumpy Rob

    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)

    1. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      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.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Clickbaity title

        That's way all media is. Every story I've seen emphasizes that it is "Boeing", because they know they're more likely to get clicks than if they didn't mention it. If it was an Airbus they would not put that in the title, because fewer people would read it - they'd think to themselves "well that's just an outlier since I know Boeing is the one with all the problems".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Clickbaity title

          Except Boeing brought this upon themselves when they decided to prioritise profit over safety.

          1. cryptopants

            Re: Clickbaity title

            This is a 737–800 and enjoys a good reputation in the industry. It’s not a 737 max that you’re thinking of which came later.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Clickbaity title

              Reputation doesn't work like that.

        2. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: Clickbaity title

          The investigation is not going to source its evidence from The Register so keep your hair on.

    2. Marty McFly Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Clickbaity title

      Let's change this up a bit...

      "A 2009 Chevy Malibu crashed when the vehicle failed to stop due to bad brakes. Other vehicles owners also report recently having brake problems. Embattled manufacturer, Chevrolet, has not yet responded to media inquiries as they try to start the year on a positive note."

      Seriously. A 15 year old bird, at least a 2nd hand owner, operated in countries with regulations far removed from the United States....Hey, let's all blame Boeing! I agree, blame Boeing where they deserve it, but the constant battering for every tiny thing is getting old.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Clickbaity title

        Well remember what happened to Audi in the late 80s here in the US with the "unintended acceleration" claims. There may have been a few legit instances of that but most were people who hit the wrong pedal in a panic situation and later insisted they were victims of a vehicle defect that caused so much acceleration that no matter how hard they pressed the brake they couldn't stop the car (which anyone who has ever driven a car knows is ridiculous) Took a decade or more for Audi to recover its US market, and the legacy of that is having to hold down the brake when shifting an automatic out of park (not that this is a bad thing, but that's why it became a thing)

        So you don't even have to really screw up to lose your reputation. Just get enough bad press. Boeing is absolutely deserving of the poor reputation but now is getting a bum rap from the press in addition to that.

        1. Potty Professor
          Boffin

          Re: Clickbaity title

          "no matter how hard they pressed the brake they couldn't stop the car (which anyone who has ever driven a car knows is ridiculous)"

          Not ridiculous, happened to me when the throttle linkage of a brand new (under 1000 miles) Pontiac overcentred and ran away with me, and no matter how hard I pressed the brake, it just kept on accelerating. Only way to stop it was to switch off the ignition and wait for it to slow down. Local cops were not impressed at my 110MPH dash through Sutter, Illinois.

          1. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: Clickbaity title

            Bullshit. Brakes are far better at stopping a car than any engine is at accelerating it, so for that to happen your brakes had to fail AND your accelerator became stuck. I don't buy it, and it sounds like the cops didn't either.

  5. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge

    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.

    1. HereIAmJH Silver badge

      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.

      They wouldn't have been looking to clear it. If they were aware of it at all, they would have been expecting to stop long before they got to it. I think they trimmed for the abort and quit thinking rationally at that point. It has me wondering what their simulator requirements are and if they train for engine failures on approach.

      Probably going to be a while, I'm looking forward to blancolirio analyzing the CVR.

      1. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge

        I'm not sure what you mean by "expecting to stop before it": this rampart was where the localiser sat. I.e. the very front of the runway. Stopping *before* even reaching the runway? Could you clarify?

        1. HereIAmJH Silver badge

          Localiser location

          The localiser was on the far end of the runway. They didn't need to clear it because they weren't flying over it. They touched down 1200 meters into the runway and skidded off the remaining ~1600 meters and then an additional 250 meters into the ILS berm. To be clear, they were touching ground for nearly a mile before hitting the berm and still estimated to be moving at 150 mph.

          1. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: Localiser location

            Not sure if you'll see this, but yes, my bad. I just watched the actual final flight path and while I had (naturally?) presumed they would have reflown the pattern for landing, I see that instead they did a 180 and came "against" the preferred landing direction at that time. Hence sliding along the runway and slamming into the localiser rampart.

            Looking at the timeline, it's just shocking how quickly everything happened. From bird strike and mayday declaration to turning around and emergency landing was 3 minutes! 8:59 to 9:02.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "MSM is pointing towards a horrifyingly-frequent wrong engine shutdown."

      Boeing cockpits are an ergonomic disaster area, which doesn't help when things go pear-shaped

  6. Alan Birtles

    Boeing bashing is fine when it's actually their fault but if there was a mechanical issue on this 15 year old plane then it's far more likely to be a maintenance issue than a manufacturing one, there isn't even any publicly available information that there were any issues with the plane before the apparent bird strike

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      You'd like to think so. But there have been cases in the past where aircraft have crashed down to mechanical issues caused by design rather than maintenance. The Boeing 737 suffered numerous "hard over" failures which didn't materialise until the aircraft had been in use for 10/20+ years.

      We need to keep an open mind, but a bird strike doesn't stop a plane putting it's landing gear down.

  7. ecofeco Silver badge

    Several things first

    There was a very experienced pilot of YouTube (not some rando, but someone I know for a fact is verified as such) who was doing a preliminary analysis, complete with Boeing's own manuals and diagrams, and has actually flown this model, showing that while the cause of the emergency was unknown at this time, the pilots definitely screwed up their emergency checklist. The biggest point being that aircraft's landing gear CAN deploy, and lock into position, without any hydraulic and/or electrical power.

    The second incident points to a PROBABLE systemic failure of maintenance by JeJu Air.

    So yeah, Boeing is still rotten to the core, but THIS time it MIGHT not be Boeing.

    However, I'm not betting either way right now.

    Holy cow, and now I see someone has pointed out a probable wrong engine shut down? Well damn.That will do it.

    1. Denarius

      Re: Several things first

      agreed. Also note the high nose once on ground during slide into wall. Seems odd as maximising friction would mean getting fuselage onto ground also. Also sounds like another root cause being modern manglement beancounters

    2. Ianab

      Re: Several things first

      Shutting down the wrong engine is possible, black box will tell the story there. It's also possible they took birds in both engines. As pointed out above, the procedure for a bird strike / engine failure is to go around on the remaining (hopefully good) engine, and set up for a single engine approach. If they had started the go around, and then found the other engine was also damaged, at that point they had run out of good options. So they trimmed the plane for best glide (no flaps or gear deployed), got turned around and came in dead stick, and faster then normal. Only to find some muppet had put a concrete wall at the end of the runway.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blame the birds

    But I’ll back human error 90% of the time.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Accountants At Work??

    (1) At Boeing (see the news since 2010)

    (2) At airlines (trying to cut the cost of training aircrew. See the news since 2010)

    (3) At airlines (trying to minimise maintenance costs)

    (4) At Rolls-Royce (trying to cut the costs associated with building engines)

    ...and those are the bits I know about.....

    1. FirstTangoInParis Silver badge

      Re: Accountants At Work??

      So for airlines it’s all about revenue per seat that has a bum on it and availability. Everything feeds in to that. Fuel economy, maintenance intervals, weight, turnaround time at the gate, a million other factors too. EasyJet has just opened a new ops centre that can dispatch a replacement aircraft during the day if an aircraft is getting behind (as short haul inevitably does). Mr Ryanair is ranting about late delivery of new 737 Max when he’d recruited pilots and cabin staff to operate them.

      For long haul, customers (especially in premium economy and business) are demanding their 3 to 6 grands worth so somehow the airline has still got to make its margins.

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Accountants At Work??

      These Boeing incidents involving 737 variants are generally CFM 56 engines, and then they are generally not engine faults that are the cause.

      RR and the other engine makers are not only under pressure to compete on cost and ongoing cost of use. But also they are expected to produce engines that are lighter, lower emission, quieter and with all that they are required to be more efficient and in operation and longer between maintenance. These miracles of engineering are getting a bit closer to the bleeding edge. RR, CFM (inc GE) and PW engines are all now having to reduce their promised component life due to more than expected hoped for wear, it's not surprising this happens.

  10. ComicalEngineer Bronze badge

    For information, the cost of operating a Boeing or Airbus flight simulator is in the region of £500 per hour. This will usually include 2 sim operators who will set up various scenarios depending on the training. These will typically include engine failures on takeoff, landing and mid flight, various electrical failures, crosswind landings, instrument landings etc.

    On top of thet you will have 2 pilots in the sim. Pilot preparation time is typically 2-3 hours and at least a 1 hour debrief afterwards.

    I was fortunate to sit in with the sim ops as an observer in the early 90s.

    My personal bet is on bird strike and / or engine failure combined with failure to follow correct engine-out procedures.

    Normal procedure would be to continue take-off, stabilise the aircraft, review fuel / landing weight and either burn off some fuel or else fly a downwind leg and a stabilised single engine approach. The sort of thing that all commercial pilot are (or should be) trained for and prepared for.

  11. Fursty Ferret

    Aviation experts at FlightRadar24 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.

    This is how you know they're not aviation experts. No one would overfly an airport in a commercial aircraft (even one as antiquated at the 737) in order to determine the state of it.

    A few facts: almost every airport in the world has bird warnings from time to time. You might delay take-off for a flock of birds at the end of the runway, but unless there was an extremely compelling reason you'd continue an approach. If the birds appeared on short final, you fly through them and land. The risk to engines from bird ingestion is exponentially greater at high thrust than at approach thrust (at low thrust the birds tend to be diverted down the bypass ducts). Even if you lose one engine, you're almost at the runway and in the landing configuration, so WTF would you go around? Stopping distance on a limiting wet runway is less than 15% greater than with both engines running.

    I don't know what happened here, but the birds are likely to be the least exciting finding in the investigation.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      From the information we have, every suggestion for a cause has a reason to contradict it.

      The reason that the pilots elected to do the impossible turn after the go around, to get back on the ground in such a hurry instead of going through normal procedures and checklists is the key.

    2. 8bitHero

      My experience says otherwise

      Procedures may have changed over time but I was onboard an aircraft in the late 80's/early 90's that did exactly that. After takeoff out of Denver the landing gear failed to fully retract. The pilots turned the plane around and after manually extending the landing gear apparently couldn't get a signal in the cockpit that the gear was locked for landing. We did a flyby of the tower, who apparently confirmed the gear looked like it was down. We assumed crash positions for the landing, but the plane landed without incident. If the hydraulics or electrics failed making a pass like this to get some idea from an external view doesn't seam unreasonable to me.

  12. fg_swe Silver badge

    Emergency Brake Parachutes ?

    If this aircraft did have brake parachutes, they could have slowed down very significantly before hitting the obstacle.

    Given that bird strikes are very likely and could coincide with landing gear issues, this would be an intelligent change ?

    It works for fighter jets, will also work for airliners.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Emergency Brake Parachutes ?

      Installing parachutes would be an incredibly stupid idea. Because that replaces the risk of a catastrophic "overrun the runway" crash like this one with the risk of a "parachute deploys in mid-flight" catastrophic crash.

      Much, much safer is for the relatively few airports with equipment mounted on solid concrete structures to replace them with collapsible, light-weight supports, as used by most airports already.

      1. fg_swe Silver badge

        Such a Mistake, the B52 Parachute

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LF8NEkysBY

        Seriously, put it behind some hard-to-accidently release system of levers.

        https://www.ktbs.com/news/arklatex-indepth/the-parachute-that-brings-the-b-52-to-a-stop/article_3bd4583c-f9ae-11e8-9303-239e77afa2c0.html

        If the air force can do it, it can be taught to commercial pilots. Just exhort them a bit, for good measure.

        Can someone point to a picture of the B52 parachute levers/buttons ? Is it somehow connected with landing gear pressed or the like ?

        More URLs

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3gvvsGjUi8

        1. fg_swe Silver badge

          ChatGPT

          According to ChatGPT, the "Parachute Deploy Lever" of the B52 is simply protected by a safety pin. Which makes a lot of sense.

          1. fg_swe Silver badge

            Users of Brake Parachutes

            According to ChatGPT

            Several military and civilian aircraft use parachutes for braking, particularly during landings when extra deceleration is needed, such as on shorter runways or during high-speed landings. Below is a list of notable aircraft that use parachutes for braking, particularly in military and commercial aviation:

            1. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

            The B-52 is equipped with a brake parachute to assist with slowing down after landing, especially on shorter or more congested runways.

            2. Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon

            The F-16 has an optional brake parachute used for improving deceleration during landings, particularly on short runways or when additional stopping power is required.

            3. Lockheed C-130 Hercules

            The C-130, a tactical transport aircraft, uses a brake parachute to assist in landing on short or austere airstrips, aiding in rapid deceleration.

            4. Concorde (Supersonic Passenger Jet)

            The Concorde, a retired supersonic airliner, employed a brake parachute to help with deceleration after landing, especially given its high landing speeds.

            5. McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

            The F-15, a highly maneuverable fighter, is equipped with a brake parachute to help stop the aircraft after landing at high speeds or on shorter runways.

            6. McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet

            Like the F-15, the F/A-18 uses a brake parachute to assist with deceleration, particularly during carrier landings or on short airstrips.

            7. Aero Vodochody L-39 Albatros

            The L-39 is a jet trainer aircraft that uses a brake parachute to help decelerate after landing, particularly on short or crowded runways.

            8. Tupolev Tu-22M (Backfire)

            The Tu-22M, a Russian strategic bomber, uses a brake parachute to assist in rapid deceleration after landing, typically on short or unprepared runways.

            9. Antonov An-124 Ruslan

            The Antonov An-124, one of the largest cargo aircraft in the world, uses a parachute braking system to assist with deceleration, especially when operating from shorter or less-developed airstrips.

            10. Boeing 727 (Older Models)

            The Boeing 727, particularly the earlier models, could be equipped with a brake parachute as an option to help stop the aircraft on shorter runways.

            11. Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

            The A-10, a close air support aircraft, uses a parachute to aid in deceleration after landing, especially in rough terrain or on short airstrips.

            12. Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer

            The Su-24, a Russian attack aircraft, uses a brake parachute to help slow down the aircraft during landings, especially on short or improvised runways.

            13. Boeing 747 (Rare Use)

            While not common, some 747 aircraft in specialized operations may use a parachute braking system in emergency or high-speed landings.

            14. Eurofighter Typhoon

            Some models of the Eurofighter Typhoon use a brake parachute to assist with landing, especially in cases where a rapid deceleration is needed, such as on short runways or in emergency situations.

            15. McDonnell Douglas AV-8 Harrier

            The Harrier, capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), can use a brake parachute to assist with deceleration during landing, particularly when landing on shorter or less developed airstrips.

            16. Panavia Tornado

            The Tornado aircraft, used by several European air forces, employs a parachute for braking, especially in situations where a high-speed landing on short or austere runways is required.

            17. Pilatus PC-6 Porter

            The PC-6, a Swiss-made utility aircraft, uses a brake parachute to aid in stopping the aircraft on short airstrips, often in mountainous or challenging environments.

            18. Cessna Citation X (Optional)

            Some models of the Cessna Citation X use a parachute braking system (similar to a ballistic recovery parachute) for emergency deceleration or stopping after landing.

            19. Antonov An-26

            The An-26, a twin-engine cargo aircraft, can also be equipped with a braking parachute for deceleration on shorter, unprepared airstrips.

            20. Aermacchi MB-339

            The MB-339, an Italian jet trainer, is equipped with a brake parachute to help slow down after landing, especially on shorter runways.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like