Jeju Air Flight 2216 Crashes in South Korea

[DC3]

Nalliah Thayabharan

Welcome to AFF

 

[DC3]

… what would be the more attractive over run airports locally? …

If there’s a choice

 

[markis10]

To our Domestic Pilots on board, what would be the more attractive over run airports locally? Brisbane seems to have plenty of space on the old runway at both ends, Avalon looks like another good candidate.

That might depend on what your flying, given RAAF locales have M34B barrier nets should the need arise in many places, but only good to 20000kg

 

[RooFlyer]

Hmm, I would rather wait for a Crash investigation report

Isn’t that the repost for just about all comments here except for our pilots and ATC bods?

 

[OATEK]

Speculation can only ever be countered by facts, and there seems precious few facts so far. Even flight radar has not shown those last crucial moments, and it may be quite some time until the FDR/CVR are available. In the mean time people have to make judgements about whether to get on a Jeju aircraft.

 

[Justinf]

This might be another dumb question but given the two survivors are FAs, their account will be crucial? They know a lot more about aircraft than most passengers?

 

[Saab34]

This might be another dumb question but given the two survivors are FAs, their account will be crucial? They know a lot more about aircraft than most passengers?

Considering the time involved from the first missed approach, then the associated teardrop manoeuvre, it seems the best they might have got is brace brace brace.

Here is the quote from the crew who survived.

Lee later said that he had fastened his seatbelt as the aircraft prepared to land but was not able to recall the incident after the apparent landing, as per the new report.

I was watching some brain professor talking about this on the BBC and he was talking about the times involved from impact to when the tail was broken off and left. It was crazy short how some of the times involved, like 1/10 of a second those seated facing forward in the cabin, would have only noted the implosion for such a tiny duration, and essentially the brain couldn’t register pain before they all got crushed together and ripped apart.

It seems like it was only 3 seconds from when the first bit of aircraft hit the wall to the tail coming to a rest.

 

[jb747]

That might depend on what your flying, given RAAF locales have M34B barrier nets should the need arise in many places, but only good to 20000kg

And they have cables in some places too. A long field engagement is the sort of thing that you'd need after a high speed abort. When flying the A-4, we used to ask them to lower the barriers, as they were set up for Macchi/Mirage, and the upper cable would impact our coughpit if we tried to engage them.

This might be another dumb question but given the two survivors are FAs, their account will be crucial? They know a lot more about aircraft than most passengers?

Some cabin crew have a good understanding of aircraft, but they're quite rare. If anything, there's a bit of the blind leading the blind with regard to their aircraft knowledge.

This is interesting, especially with regards to the system failures on the 737.

 

[RSD]

This is interesting, especially with regards to the system failures on the 737.

He presents it pretty well.

I'm going to throw something out in the open - everyone is assuming from the photo showing a compressor stall in the right engine that it was the right engine that failed first. But if you look at the approach for Runway 01 - most of the approach is over water apart from the last 1000 metres or so, and if you look at the land for that last 1000 metres - it just doesn't strike me as the sort of place where someone is going to be randomly filming aircraft passing overhead. So I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps it was the left engine that failed first - and the photo of the compressor stall on the right engine happened during the go around?

 

[Captain Halliday]

In the video posted by @jb747 above there’s reference to a range of backup systems being available had the APU had been switched on.

We also know from the landing on the Hudson that switching on the APU promptly contributed to the favourable outcome.

Question for our pilots or engineers: given the clear benefits of having the APU running, why wouldn’t you run the APU all the time as form of additional redundancy?

 

[jb747]

He presents it pretty well.

I'm going to throw something out in the open - everyone is assuming from the photo showing a compressor stall in the right engine that it was the right engine that failed first. But if you look at the approach for Runway 01 - most of the approach is over water apart from the last 1000 metres or so, and if you look at the land for that last 1000 metres - it just doesn't strike me as the sort of place where someone is going to be randomly filming aircraft passing overhead. So I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps it was the left engine that failed first - and the photo of the compressor stall on the right engine happened during the go around?

Obviously we don't know what has failed or when. Video of the landing, seems to show exhaust behind the right engine, and not the left. For the aircraft to complete a go around, travel some way to the north, turn back to the runway, and arrive there with substantial energy means that there has been at least some engine input. How much, and from where, we don't know.

 

[RSD]

Obviously we don't know what has failed or when. Video of the landing, seems to show exhaust behind the right engine, and not the left. For the aircraft to complete a go around, travel some way to the north, turn back to the runway, and arrive there with substantial energy means that there has been at least some engine input. How much, and from where, we don't know.

I think it has reached the point that we

• know what we know (which isn't a real lot)
• know what we don't know (which is quite a lot)
• don't know what else we don't know (which could be quite a bit)

- and that we probably aren't going to figure out much more until the preliminary report comes out in about four weeks time.

 

[jb747]

In the video posted by @jb747 above there’s reference to a range of backup systems being available had the APU had been switched on.

We also know from the landing on the Hudson that switching on the APU promptly contributed to the favourable outcome.

Question for our pilots or engineers: given the clear benefits of having the APU running, why wouldn’t you run the APU all the time as form of additional redundancy?

There are some cases when you do. Even on the 380, it was started as part of the preparation for a Cat III approach. But, running it all of the time would incur maintenance and fuel burn costs, far beyond any likely benefit. I think that there are some aircraft on which the APU will automatically start with the loss of power to certain buses.

We used to describe it as the 767 pilot's cure to everything. No matter what went wrong, start the APU first. It gave your hand something to do in the first couple of seconds, couldn't make things worse, and was a cure for many ills. In the case of the 320 into the Hudson, I think the main effect was to keep the aircraft in normal law, which kept the stall protection active.

 

[Justinf]

I was watching some brain professor talking about this on the BBC and he was talking about the times involved from impact to when the tail was broken off and left. It was crazy short how some of the times involved, like 1/10 of a second those seated facing forward in the cabin, would have only noted the implosion for such a tiny duration, and essentially the brain couldn’t register pain before they all got crushed together and ripped apart.

This actually comforts me knowing this is likely.
Thank you.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Question for our pilots or engineers: given the clear benefits of having the APU running, why wouldn’t you run the APU all the time as form of additional redundancy?

Because running it costs money and there’s enough redundancy until you get the APU running.

We will turn it on whenever we have some sort of malfunction. Some of the checklists will direct us to turn it on at some point, so as part of my initial actions I’ll always ask to turn it on before running the checklist to save some time.

The YI* series and the MAX all have APU on demand so if there’s any problems, it will automatically turn on.

If the aircraft doesn’t have APU on demand and we are flying on an EDTO flight plan then we need to keep it running from after engine start until the EDTO exit point as a back up source.

 

[jb747]

The YI* series and the MAX all have APU on demand so if there’s any problems, it will automatically turn on.

If the aircraft doesn’t have APU on demand and we are flying on an EDTO flight plan then we need to keep it running from after engine start until the EDTO exit point as a back up source.

I think the 777 has it too, but I don't know for sure.

Keeping the APU on in the EDTO areas isn't a general thing. None of the big twins do as a matter of course. I think it has a lot to do with the ability to start the APU at altitude. Some are more reluctant than others. APU inlet doors can also impose mach speed limits, which can be ignored in an emergency, but which you have to obey normally.

 

[AviatorInsight]

I think the 777 has it too, but I don't know for sure.

Keeping the APU on in the EDTO areas isn't a general thing. None of the big twins do as a matter of course. I think it has a lot to do with the ability to start the APU at altitude. Some are more reluctant than others. APU inlet doors can also impose mach speed limits, which can be ignored in an emergency, but which you have to obey normally.

Yes the 777 did have APU on demand as well. It also had a RAT. It was just so much better.

You’re right though. The 737 APU isn’t as good as their bigger brother’s (naturally) and can only be used as an electrical source at all altitudes up to 41,000ft. If you want to use it as a bleed source only, that drops the usage to 17,000ft. And if using the APU for bleed air and electricity then the maximum altitude is just 10,000ft.

 

[jb747]

Another point that is possibly relevant, if you're trying to restart engine(s), then there's a minimum speed, which will be something in the order of 240kias. If you're slower than that, then you need the APU for bleed air. So, you need to start the APU, and make the correct bleed selection.