Is it just me or does it feel that 2024 has not been a very good year in aviation safety? It seems that almost every month there’s news about some major crash or incident and then of course there was the whole fiasco with Boeing
The Boeing executives cut all safety standards and decided killing whistleblowers is cheaper. After years of Boeing lowering their safety standards the effects are now getting visible.
According to another poster its a 15 year old plane.
This ain’t a manufacturer issue.
At 15 years old a decently maintained plane is going to have like another decade in it. Maybe more. That’s not that high a number.
I know - but it has another decade with proper maintenance.
Blaming the manufacturer 15 years ago has come and passed- that aircraft has had thousands of basic inspections, and probably hundreds more replacement parts, in depth inspections and rectified faults. Probably the only thing still original is the frame and skin.
The design is in large part responsible for detecting failures. If Boeing designed the plane without redundant sensors or failsafes these things happen.
Whose fault it is cannot be concluded yet, but Boeing could be partially to blame. In the past everything had many failsafes but Boeing removed them to cut cost.
Hey, its the US! This Boeing fellow is innocent until.
Yes, it’s been the worst year since 2018 Incredibly, only two years before 2018 were actually better than 2024. https://mastodon.social/@Datagraver/113735310494361049
Probably not a good place to have a wall.
The wall is there to prevent an overrunning aircraft from ramming into whatever’s behind the wall. It’s obviously not meant to stop a heavy jet at that speed, but for a smaller or slower aircraft, it could mean the difference between arresting the plane as softly as possible under the circumstances, and crashing the airplane anyways into trees, the localizer antennas, or public roads with cars and people on them, in a place that airport rescue and firefighters can’t easily reach.I was completely incorrect about that specific airport. The mound is part of the localizer antenna, which was not visible on the video. More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzmptA6s-1g
Agreed, but-
Why not have something softer/gentler deceleration than a hardened barrier? A gravel trap like you see for overloaded trucks at the bottom of steeps hills for instance? It’s still going to suck and likely disintegrate the aircraft a lot, but like the Azerbaijan 8243 crash shows, you can have a hard landing off runway not end with 100% catastrophe.
I was incorrect, it’s not a safety feature. This video shows that it’s actually where the localizer antenna is mounted.
There are runways with crushable concrete at the ends, but I’m not sure that does much for something skidding across without gear down.
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/engineered-material-arresting-system-emas-0
Same link addresses a lot of your questions, I think
To date, EMAS safely stopped 22 overrunning aircraft, carrying 432 crew and passengers aboard those flights.
Seems that this isn’t a new tech but can be hard to retrofit at airports with limited space. Cool to see a list of airports that do have it installed though
In some cases, it is not practicable to achieve the full standard RSA because there may be a lack of available land. There also may be obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain.
No system can be 100% safe. You either don’t have the money or space or time for every system that could possibly mitigate crashes. Especially with how rare stuff like this is, it doesn’t always make sense. Cost Vs efficiency Vs safety is an equation balanced by the individual all the way up to the government everyday. Everything is a trads-off.
As a non-capitalist the very concept of “this would save a lot of lives, but it costs too much” is extremely off-putting. I know it’s the world we live in, and obviously this argument can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, but building a solid wall is clearly not the answer. As soon as designers/engineers start putting a price on a life we’re into pretty shitty territory.
Sorry, I misclicked in the asset placer… 😭
Won’t happen again. - Respectfully, GOD.
There seem to be a lot of runways out there with walls, buildings and friggin’ ravines at the end.
I get that it can’t always be easy to find suitable land that can cater to long, flat runoff areas, but it certainly feels like a calculated risk to skip it, given how (relatively) frequent overruns are.
Quoting from: https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/east-asia/south-korea-plane-crash-jeju-air-cause-what-happened-b2671091.html
Transport Ministry officials have said their early assessment of communications records show the airport control tower issued a bird strike warning to the plane shortly before it intended to land. The flight had reportedly attempted one landing before being forced to “go around” when the landing gear failed to lower normally.
8.57am local time: Muan International Airport’s control tower issued a warning over possible bird strikes.
8.58am: The pilot sent a “Mayday” distress signal.
9am: The plane attempted to land on the runway but failed to deploy its landing gear.
9.03am: The aircraft crash-landed on its fuselage, collided with the airport fence, and erupted into flames.
8:58 they declare mayday because of no landing gear and two minutes later they’re attempting the riskiest landing of their lives? I bet „no landing gear” checklist is a bit longer than two minutes.
8:58 they declare mayday because of no landing gear and two minutes later they’re attempting the riskiest landing of their lives? I bet „no landing gear” checklist is a bit longer than two minutes.
You’re right, if the mayday were due to the landing gear not being down they wouldn’t have attempted to land so quickly. There are many things they would try first, and the final failsafe simply drops the landing gear with gravity. If the gear were up, it’s because the crew left the gear up.
The mayday wasn’t about the landing gear.
The mayday was due to a bird strike. They initiated a go-around after the bird strike, and they may have also lost the second engine during the go-around. Perhaps a second bird strike. This would explain the lack of flaps and landing gear: the crew may have been trying to minimize drag to reach the runway without power. Unfortunately they ran out of runway after floating too long due to ground effect and traveling far too quickly.
The incident would likely have been survivable at many airports. That berm with the localizer antena on it is a terrible safety hazard that shouldn’t exist at a major airport.
Yeah unless they were out of fuel, isn’t the procedure to… Orbit and use nearly all fuel?
If they had the bird strike like they announced, it might stop their engines mid go-around, what is really bad spot to be in
Got it, I assumed the mentioned bird strike related specifically to the nosecone area and the front landing gear, but engine fidelity remained. Again, an assumption based on my first read
Based on the explosion I highly doubt they were low on fuel
deleted by creator
You can go around on a single engine
Interesting, can you elaborate? As in they don’t have power for a go around?
deleted by creator
I’m not a pilot or an expert by any means but I think I would have landed in water if possible. Maybe it wasn’t possible… Idk
As a general rule - any airport is better than the best water.
Landing in the water is far worse.
This will definitely be the topic of a mentour pilot video at some point I think
I’ve flown Jeju!
Crazy this just happened! Looks like no survivors…
Remarkably two crew members were rescued in the tail section.
Insane!
You’d think they wouldn’t let Wi Tu Lo fly again after the SFO debacle
They don’t have crashworthy fuel cells? WTF?
No fuel cell is going to withstand a 70,000 kg jet crashing at high speeds.
Was it a Boeing plane?
Scientists are still trying to determine who manufactured the Boeing 737-800.
Does it matter in this instance?
Not as far as impacting walls go, but a working landing gear probably would have been beneficial in getting the plane stopped before hitting the wall.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read up on this and don’t know if the landing gear wasn’t extracted due to malfunction or some other reason.
The landing gear was up because the crew left it up. This may have been on purpose to reduce drag (the flaps were also not extended). This can be done when the plane has lost both engines and needs to glide.
Landing gear have many failsafes, the last of which is to literally let them just drop by gravity. If the landing gear were the malfunction, the plane would’ve spent more time circling.
It’s a 15 year old plane. It had nothing to do with manufacturing.
Wow you sound smart.
Well, I meant to be a little funny, but I should’ve remembered that the internet will always hurry to dish out a douchebag label rather than thinking someone had harmless intentions/giving benefits to doubt.
First news I saw said “birds were the problem” but then I read it was a Boeing
The Boeing 737-800 is a remarkably safe plane. Bird strikes can happen to any plane.
That’s true. It’s only about 1.5 accidents per year.
