Jeju Air Flight 2216 Crashes in South Korea

This is a Lot airlines 767 non landing gear successful landing. I dont think we can read anything into the attitude of the aircraft - until the crash report has been released.
Thanks for this - I was wondering if it was even feasible to belly land a larger aircraft succesfully - the Jeju barely seemed to slow down once on the ground and I wondered if in this situation a water landing or even on the airport "lawn" was a safer option without landing gear.
 
Why go around after a bird strike. Why not just continue landing?
Yes, good question. But, we don’t know if they went around before the strike or after.

CRM is a process that has, in many ways, made flying safer. But in some ways too, it has become a bit of a “talk-fest”, with some protagonists thinking it makes the coughpit democratic. Quite simply there are times in flying when you need decisions quickly, and those are the times the Captain just “does” and talks about it later.

Even after a bad strike, the engines are much more likely to be stable at a low power setting.
Thanks for this - I was wondering if it was even feasible to belly land a larger aircraft succesfully - the Jeju barely seemed to slow down once on the ground and I wondered if in this situation a water landing or even on the airport "lawn" was a safer option without landing gear.
There aren’t many examples of large passenger aircraft doing gear up landings. Apart from this, there’s only two that I can think of, a DHL 757 and the LOT 767. In both cases they had flap, and so were much slower. But they also used up a lot of runway. Far more than you’d expect. And this aircraft was much, much faster….

There’s what looks like farmland and water nearby, and it’s fair to say that they might have been better off going for one of those. They could hardly have been worse off. The speed is a real issue, but they may have been able to get rid of more of it (before touchdown) if landing on something that wasn’t length constrained. Personally I think the water would have been a better choice, but even then you’re looking to save some lives. I don’t know that a repeat of the Hudson was ever on the cards (in that case the aircraft went in quite slowly, at alpha max and with some flap).
 
The investigation just became very difficult.

BREAKING NEWS: Transport Ministry says both CVR and FDR stopped recording 4 minutes before the crash.


From reports on airliners.net at the time the plane was ordered standalone backup batteries for the CVR and FDR were only an option, and not mandated by any regulation.

Indeed
Regulations changed in 2010, a year after this (aircraft) was built, to require 10 minute battery for CVR.

Also possibly explains why ADS-B dropped out, and communication with the tower was reportedly difficult.
 
Last edited:
EXCLUSIVE OFFER - Offer expires: 20 Jan 2025

- Earn up to 200,000 bonus Velocity Points*
- Enjoy unlimited complimentary access to Priority Pass lounges worldwide
- Earn up to 3 Citi reward Points per dollar uncapped

*Terms And Conditions Apply

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

The plot thickens…. News of black box not recording the last 4 minutes
I am no airplane expert, but this is the first time I heard of a retrieved black box from a major incident that did not record the most important minutes of the fatal crash (this is not the same as unretrievable data due to damage which is specifically NOT what the announcement was saying)
We may never know what happened in that coughpit even if the FA contributed their recollections

Edit: looks like we all got that news about the same time.. and I didn’t realise moa999 had already posted before mine with my one finger typing and editing!
 
Last edited:
Power to vital components lost at 4 mins before landing points to something quite significant occurring that seems to go against so much of the commentary around the resilience of electrical systems in the 737.
 
Are Boeing allowed to dive into this data to verify this claim? Saving Face and Asian culture isn’t new. I’d like someone in the West to verify that claim that the recorders haven’t been tampered with.
 
There’s been a lot of discussion about the placement of airport equipment so close to the end of the runway. But is Sydney any different? Just a few hundred metres beyond the main runway there’s a huge canal with rock and concrete embankments.

Not sure the plane is going to be any better off hitting that?
 
With the loss of recorders, I've been wondering about the odds of a fire, possibly unrelated to the bird strike?
 
Power to vital components lost at 4 mins before landing points to something quite significant occurring that seems to go against so much of the commentary around the resilience of electrical systems in the 737.
It’s a very telling bit of information. Power to the recorders will be drawn from a couple of the aircraft buses (not the same one for each recorder), and it will stop any recording if that bus is unpowered. The buses themselves are powered by the engine driven generators, and the APU. The aircraft battery will be on a separate and very limited system, and powers only what is considered absolutely necessary, and recorders aren’t. I haven’t looked at it to any great extent, but apparently aircraft built after 2010 have to adhere to a new requirement for a form of battery backup to the FDR, but this aircraft was built before then, and in any event, it’s just as likely to have been grandfathered out. This isn’t a simple panacea though, as it’s all well and good having a recorder that has power…you then have to ensure power to all of the systems that it’s trying to record.

The implication though, is that at that -4 minute mark, both engine driven generators went off-line, and the most likely cause of that is for the engines to have been shut down. But, the aircraft was, at that point, quite some distance from its ultimate touch down point, and headed in the wrong direction. It simply would not have had sufficient energy to get to its final landing position, at the speed it was going, from that point.

Both engines would not have failed together. Whether they self shut down, or it was pilot action, there will be some level of data recording from the initiation of the event up to the loss of power. That should be enough to say whether both engines were involved in the strike(s).

In many ways the flying is separate from anything to do with the engines. At a guess, it would take around 2,000’ to do the turn he needed to do, clean. That basically means that you really can’t go below 2,000’ before starting the turn, even if you know that it will roll you out well after the threshold. If you don’t turn at the height, you’ll reach the ground before finishing the turn. I doubt that he had any reason to expect the overrun contained a solid obstacle and may well have figured that ending in the overrun wasn’t going to be too bad an outcome.
 
The FDR was sent to Boeing
Actually I think it went to the NTSB. And Boeing don’t make flight recorders, so if you want to get the maker involved, it would probably be someone like Honeywell.
General question. Do FDRs have any protections against tampering - such as a code to access the 'drive'.

And if it was tampered with, would that be a 'recorded event' or at least visible that something happened after the crash?
I think you can be pretty confident that there would be no tampering.
With the loss of recorders, I've been wondering about the odds of a fire, possibly unrelated to the bird strike?
Why do you need a fire? Actually engines will often run perfectly well whilst on fire, and more than likely well beyond 4 minutes. The flash of flame that’s often seen with bird strikes is simply a compressor stall. For want of a better description, it’s the jet engine version of a backfire. Jet engines, when running, are always on fire. It’s just that normally you can’t see it.
 
Why do you need a fire?
I was thinking of an unrelated fire somewhere on the aircraft which may have been propagating rapidly and required an expedited landing. The low odds of a fire at any time do not further decrease because some other event is happening.
 
I think you can be pretty confident that there would be no tampering.

It was more of a general question. With FDRs, are you able to access the data without special codes or tech? And if you did, say erase some data, would the activity or erasure be evident (other than an absence of data)?
 
I was thinking of an unrelated fire somewhere on the aircraft which may have been propagating rapidly and required an expedited landing. The low odds of a fire at any time do not further decrease because some other event is happening.
Why? You don't think a double engine shutdown/failure would hurry them up enough. You could get smoke in the cabin (from your cooked birds) but that's not a fire, and requires no more response than you'd already be doing. And you'd never get to that checklist (or even answer the phone) anyway.
It was more of a general question. With FDRs, are you able to access the data without special codes or tech? And if you did, say erase some data, would the activity or erasure be evident (other than an absence of data)?
From what I understand of it, very few COUNTRIES have the ability to read them (Oz is one), so I think that makes it pretty unlikely that people could either write on them or erase them. Aircraft are often also fitted with what are called QARs. Quick Access Recorders. That's a company thing, and they can be read by them. But, they rarely survive events, as they are not damage protected.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top