The only thing “Boeing” about this is the aircraft. Go sit back down.
The weather appeared good. Good enough for the tower, and other aircraft in the area if any, to-see what was happening well before touchdown….all have mikes…….just say’n….
It doesn’t seem to decelerate in the video. Guessing the crew went to milpower to get it back in the air after their feet started getting warm.
In aviation there are two cliches that I hate: “he/she died doing what he/she loved” and “there are those who have, and those who will”……Both are unnecessary as all accidents are preventable.
The only thing this screams so far is “WTF???”
1 Like
The concrete wall was on the approach end of the active runway, runway 01.
It was no factor when landing on the active runway.
Edit just for Keith Sketchley:
The accident plane decided to land on RWY 190 and thus, the wall became a factor for just his aircraft.
Juan Browne mentions the berm supporting the localizer antennae on a recent blancolirio YouTube video, and I believe it’s a fair point. I’m reading up on the regulations in airport construction/management when it comes to safety features such as frangible/breakaway lights and Runway Safety Areas/Runway Protection Zones in the US, and am curious about whether the same exists in South Korea.
I also wonder if an EMAS could have been helpful here.
Thankyou John Kliewer for trying to put some sense into people’s heads - the speculator can’t integrate and think through: possible effect of bird strike is a question.
What did controller and flight crew do about the birds?
Ron, this reminds me a lot of the Grumman Traveler “emergency” crash of a few weeks ago in Pearlnd TX. This is how a pilot turns a small problem into a major event. Yea, WTF.
Not comprehensible - add info/context.
Thankyou Dan for curbing the blame-Boeing game.
Even the Seattle Times is doing some of that. (Dominic Gates is retiring from that newspaper, he was good.)
1 Like
Wow. This was a high time and experienced pilot. To sit here and say what you would have done…I’m sure he would have wished he could have done something different…but apparently something caused him not to be able to. He can no longer tell you why he did what was the best choice as he saw it for him at the time. But hope the recorders do shed some light on what did cause it.
1 Like
Long ago a Canadian Pacific Airlines DC-8 was low on approach and hit a wall.
Yes, the ocean was the clearway, wall was not an obstacle to over-run IIRC.
Canadian Pacific Air Lines Flight 402 - Wikipedia
There are poor geometries - the ends of the original main runway at SEA for example. (You can drive under the approach lights at the north end, you can see the south end dropoff from a side street off of H99 (IIRC a cafe and an office building down the side street).
You might be surprised by how far an aircraft will slide in a gear-up landing. When I was taking recurrency training for my P-Baron at Flight Safety, the instructor had me land the simulator gear up with full flaps and normal approach speed. I was astounded that the damn thing seemed to slide on forever, much longer than a normal landing. He assured me the simulation was accurate, and that the friction of aluminum sliding on concrete was considerably less than that generated by rubber tires with brakes applied.
2 Likes
I asked what controller and flight crew did about the birds.
CVR should help understand.
Airport is next to bird feeding and nesting areas.
Final moments before the Jeju Air crash at South Korea’s Muan airport
(I often mention a heavy Pacific Western B707 hitting a flock of birds just after liftoff at YVR, which is between nesting and feeding areas. (I don’t know how airport reduces risk, perhaps in part by getting the garbage dump to minimize open areas. The airport does work at discouraging birds from hanging around the grassy areas beside runways.
Damn, I’m sure they just never thought of that!
In the words of the immortal Don Meredith, “If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a Merry Christmas”.
The aircraft did not hit a perimeter wall. It hit an earth berm with the ILS antenna mounted on top. It was well within the perimeter of the airport. There may ha been concrete buried in the dirt to support the antenna. There is a long detail discussion on this on PPrune.
CVR should quickly tell the story. Until then, it looks like a bird(s) strike may have startled the crew causing panic and breakdown of crew discipline leading to a rushed misconfigured landing attempt.
There’s just been another 737 with total hydraulic failure in Norway.
You folks seem to know everything… ,
Is it possible to use a commercially produced drone to take out the hydraulic tanks on an airliner?
Like the drones that where ignoring the Geo-Fencing in New Jersey?
Thanks for making sense of your runway comment.
CVR should help understand choice made by crew.
Elsewhere I’ve posted diagram showing bird nesting and feeding areas. Reuters’ diagram labels areas as both uses, which leads to question of why birds were over approach or runway.
Keith, yea, sorry about that. It really did not make sense that he was set up for a landing and then pulled up and then came the opposite way on 19. Panic? Confusion? Yea, the CVR will help out but never explain the initial rejected landing.