Plane bursts into flames after veering off runway at airport in S Korea, killing 179

Shocking news. Rest in Peace to the dozens killed, hoping the survivors can all recover and the toll will not increase too much.

Early reports saying bird strikes on the landing approach nay have damaged flight systems.

South Korea seems to have a lot more accidents than most countries

From the Halloween crush, to the ferry sinking to today's accident

It seems safety measures need improving

A similar pattern happened in Japan in the 70's

What an awful tragedy at this time if year! RIP to the many victims of this accident.

Once again, a faulty Boeing aircraft. It is probably time for every airlines to switch to the much more reliable Airbus.

MaccaToday 11:58 am JST

Once again, a faulty Boeing aircraft. It is probably time for every airlines to switch to the much more reliable Airbus.

He says with no idea as to what happened.

Surely it was a Boeing.

Why is there a brick wall around an airport?

Reports now indicate 179 people presumed dead, only two survivors.

It definitely was a Boeing involved in this mass-casualty event.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1873174325970518084

A Boeing 737-800. ヤッパリ。

Japanese news says only 2 people survived

Why is there a brick wall around an airport?

I was wondering the same thing. I imagine that real estate prices around the airport are too good to expand the runway run away area. Just a wall and dirt mountain to save the residents, forget about the passengers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2024/01/03/ranked-the-25-safest-airlines-in-the-world-according-to-airlineratingscom/

Korean Air ranks 12 in airline world ranking which is very good.

Surely it was a Boeing.

Here we go again.

Korean Air ranks 12 in airline world ranking which is very good.

Jeju Air.

What is it about this time of the year that such things happen in Korea and Japan?

I think carpslidy and macca may be jumping the gun. Probably not a good idea when news of this somberness is concerned

South Korea facing its worst domestic civil aviation disaster after Boeing 737-800 with 175 passengers and six crews skidded off the runway and hit the wall at Muan airport.

179 passengers and crew were presumed dead, with two rescued.

Bird sucked into engine on final approach from the looks of it.

Once again, a faulty Boeing aircraft. It is probably time for every airlines to switch to the much more reliable Airbus.

Nobody knows if the problem was due to faulty maintenance by the aircraft's owner or a problem inherent in that particular aircraft. Maybe wait until the mishap investigators have had a chance to see what actually failed.

Airbus is having it's own agony right now with a massive engine recall.

Surely it was a Boeing.

Considering more 737s have been built than any other airliner in history that is not surprising. The probability of a commercial aircraft mishap involving a Boeing product is statistically high simply because they are so numerous. Pretty much all the old Douglas and Lockheed airliners are long out of service, leaving Boeing and Airbus dominating the world's fleets.

Bird sucked into engine on final approach from the looks of it.

Even if true that should not affect the nose gear, unless the pilot blew the landing and broke the nose gear with a hard landing.

Watched the full video. It did not skid off the runway; it initially landed well, though rather fast, kept going straight, then just it ran out of runway, into a wall/ barrier built at the end of it. Muan has a relatively short runway. All of the landing gear failed to deploy, not just the front landing gear, and flaps appeared not to be down. Total hydraulic failure? RIP to all who did not survive.

Reuters is reporting the aircraft touched down with no landing gear extended and that a passenger texted that a bird had hit one of the wings.

That begs a couple of questions. If the plane was making a gear up landing why didn't the airport foam the runway before the plane landed? Or, did the pilot, experiencing controllability problems, blow the landing and collapse the gear?

Questions for the mishap investigation to solve.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/plane-drives-off-runway-crashes-airport-south-korea-yonhap-reports-2024-12-29/

Once again, a faulty Boeing aircraft. It is probably time for every airlines to switch to the much more reliable Airbus.

A bird strike is Boeing's fault? Just asking .........

ropeman

Why is there a brick wall around an airport?

This is a good question. I've always thought a high ramp-like carbon or rubber embankment that goes up at a 45 degree angle would be better at the end of a runway.

A brick wall will definitely stop a plane but it'll also most likely crush it and/or make it go up in flames like it did here.

Other media is reporting some victims were reportedly ejected from the Boeing aircraft during impact.

Clearly something has gone wrong and the investigation, when the findings are released, will determine that.

Important not to jump to a conclusion (like another unfortunate recent incident which is still under active investigation).

After viewing the crqsh video, one of the conclusion I may contribute to about high casualties is not to build a concrete wall at the end of a runway.

It is clearly the reason for the full explosion and the impossibility to reduce speed even for the best pilot.

Also RIP.

My daughter flying over South Korea exactly when happening gave me goose bumps.

I know there is no connection but dying that hard way is horrific.

RIP and wish the survivors full recovery、if ever possible in such dramatic circumstances.

Glad your daughter is ok. Terrible tragedy.

That crash was terrible. I feel for the victims' families and wonder how the two survivors are going to cope.

It has everything to do with the aircraft that crashed, which is from a particular manufacturer that has generated some controversy.

Interestingly, today another plane - of the exact same type - suffered failures and skidded off a runway in Oslo.

Fortunately, that didn't turn into yet another one of their mass-casualty events.

All of the landing gear failed, not just the front & the ‘concrete wall’ it hit was actually a man made mound of earth, not concrete.

Tragic, Such a waste of life. RIP.

I live in Korea. And you can tell the mood here is not good. Very sad.

I am not an avation expert by any means. I would really like to know if there was any way possible to have landed in the ocean. But maybe the aircraft was just going down and that was not an option.

Tragic loss. Upsetting for sure.

My Korean co-worker said it was a bird strike causing utter failure. Again tragic. Very sad and heartbreaking.

Thoughts and condolences to all those families that have lost loved ones. RIP.

Kumagaijin

I was wondering the same thing. I imagine that real estate prices around the airport are too good to expand the runway run away area. Just a wall and dirt mountain to save the residents, forget about the passengers.

If the runway is normally long enough for a 737 to land there it should also be long enough for it to do a wheels up emergency belly landing. Something has gone wrong in the air that has made it so that plane could not slow down before landing. There is talk of a bird strike but I don't see how that could effect any hydraulics. I also note that the reverse thrusters were open in an attempt to try stop the plane showing they had some kind of engine control but no flaps or spoilers open. I am no aircraft engineer by any means so it will only be a guess that they had a complete system hydraulic failure making so they can't lower the gear or use any flaps. Regardless of the reason it is still very sad people lost lives.

@Desert Tortoise

A bird strike is Boeing's fault? Just asking .........

Err..

Maybe wait until the mishap investigators have had a chance to see what actually failed.

So a text message supposedly sent by one of the unfortunate passenger can pass as an official statement from the investigators then?

There is video on X of one engine with sudden issues on final approach.

Timeline of the crash of Jeju Air Flight 2216

According to the press briefing by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport:

8:57am- Control tower issued a bird strike warning

8:58am- Pilot declared a mayday

9:00am- An attempted landing was made

9:03am- The plane crashed while attempting to land without its landing gear deployed.

Sad News indeed, may all RIP. coming home after work only to read this so sad and heartbreaking.

Shocking news and images. RIP to those involved. We flew on Jeju Air this summer.

The plane hits the wall with a force that suggests multiple problems.

Many things don't make sense about this accident.

According to flight tracker data, Flight 7C2216c made it's northward straight in approach to land on runway 01 but somehow ended up conducting the gear-up belly landing the opposite direction on runway 19. Flight tracker data is interrupted before the approach to runway 01 is aborted.

From the video the plane had hydraulic power to activate engine 2's reverse thrust but evidently not for engine 1 which didn't have reverse thrust activated. Hydraulic power evidently wasn't available to extend flaps or speedbrakes either.

Landing gear on a B7373-800 can always be lowered manually using the gear's own weight and aerodynamic resistance even with complete failure of the three hydraulic systems so there should have been no reason why a gear-up belly landing was necessary or the best option.

Also, some of you are under the impression that the plane hit the perimeter wall of the airport. It didn't. It never made it to the cinderblock perimeter wall because it completely disintegrated when it hit the unusually thick and large reinforced concrete foundation/base of the runway localizer antennas located near the end of, but still within, the runway safety area. There's no reason why a structure that solid should have been built where it would 100% be in the way of an aircraft that overruns the runway like in this mishap. All other factors aside, if this structure wasn't there the probability is high that there would have been many more survivors.

It's also a quite a mystery why the plane was still moving so fast when it reached the end of the runway. If the pilots conducted the gear-up belly landing according to procedure they should have had plenty of room on a 2,800 meter runway to slow down much more so they wouldn't overrun the runway with so much kinetic energy.

I think before any one jumps to conclusions, let's wait for the black box to be examined, then we will know for sure.

early reporting is always a problem when reporters have no aviation knowledge. the bird ingestion in the #2 engine is clearly visible in video. one engine operation is not a problem with the aircraft.

it’s reported the aircraft did one go around before the landing attempt.

i think the questions will center around what seemed to be a hurried gear up, downwind landing without foaming the runway and was there other critical damage necessitating it.

"The incident came as South Korea is embroiled into a huge political crisis triggered by President Yoon Suk Yeol’s stunning imposition of martial law and ensuing impeachment. Last Friday, South Korean lawmakers impeached acting President Han Duck-soo and suspended his duties, leading Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok to take over."

Yeah, but the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, so not sure why it's relevant to mention. One thing that WAS kind of funny was watching the 80-year-old Japanese "professional" doing a Zoom interview and saying "it's possible it was a bird strike" in what looked like a direct copy of him saying the exact same thing in a Zoom call after Russia downed that aircraft the other day. I think maybe it's stock video footage.

Anyway, it's amazing that even two people survived that horrific crash, and my heart goes out to the bereaved.

It’s not the bird. It’s the plane.

Well, I have again a problem to find the logic behind a not deployed landing gear after birds stroke the turbine. There's video footage of both, yes, and each of it already alone can potentially lead to catastrophe, but how can this ever be technologically connected and happen in a sequence like in this tragical case?

The sheer volume of recent aviation accidents is very curious.

A bird strike can potentially cause significant damage to an aircraft, leading to hydraulic failures and flight control issues, although the exact sequence of events would depend on where the strike occurred and the extent of the damage. From my 40 plus years in aerospace and aviation and being part of aircraft investigations here’s my take on how a bird strike could theoretically cause such a scenario with a bird strike. Of course I don’t have all the facts and I am not part of the investigating team but based on what I have read here’s my comments for understanding if it helps readers here.

1. Hydraulic Failure

• Most modern aircraft rely on hydraulic systems to operate critical components, including landing gear, flaps, and primary flight controls. • If a bird strike damages hydraulic lines, pumps, or reservoirs, it can lead to a loss of hydraulic fluid, which would compromise the system’s ability to function. • A complete loss of hydraulic pressure could prevent the deployment of the landing gear and flaps, severely limiting the crew’s ability to configure the aircraft for landing.

2. Landing Gear Malfunction

• If all landing gear failed to deploy, it could indicate that the hydraulic system controlling them was completely compromised. • Aircraft typically have alternate or manual methods to deploy landing gear, but a severe hydraulic failure might render these methods ineffective.

3. Flaps Not Deployed

• Flaps are critical for slowing the aircraft and increasing lift during landing. If the hydraulic system controlling the flaps is damaged, they might not deploy. • Without flaps, the aircraft would require a higher landing speed, increasing the likelihood of overrunning the runway.

4. Flight Control Issues

• Hydraulic failure could also impair other flight control surfaces like ailerons, elevators, or rudders, making it more difficult for the crew to control the aircraft during landing. • Many modern aircraft have backup systems (e.g., electrical or mechanical controls), but their effectiveness would depend on the extent of the damage.

5. Bird Strike Risk Areas

• Bird strikes are most dangerous when they involve engines, windshields, or areas housing critical systems like hydraulic lines or electronics. • Multiple bird strikes on vulnerable areas could amplify the risk of catastrophic failure.

6. Contributing Factors to Overrun

• The lack of flaps and increased landing speed could lead to an overrun, especially if the runway length was insufficient or conditions (e.g., wet or icy surface) reduced braking effectiveness. • The inability to lower landing gear increases drag but can destabilize the landing and worsen control issues.

Summary

The most critical time during flight is take of and landing. Migratory birds love runways that why most airports do runway sweeps or use predatory bird calls to scare the birds. A bird strike could theoretically cause hydraulic failure severe enough to affect landing gear, flaps, and flight controls. Such a scenario would depend on the extent and location of the damage caused by the strike. However aircraft are designed with redundant systems to mitigate such risks, but severe and simultaneous failures of critical systems could lead to the kind of landing difficulties that most of us are posting about here.

After an investigation, I predict pilot error.

Looked like the plane was intact until it slammed into a brick wall. Assuming it had to have some control to make it into the horizontal position, that says to me the wall was ultimately the problem.

737 has a manual gear extension handle in the cockpit if hydraulics on system a is lost.

using max down trim, yoke input and a highly reduced flare gets the nose on the ground as fast as possible to add more friction. even though it’s landing on the engines, they probably should have nose to the ground immediately at touchdown.

it’s common knowledge that gear up landings skid farther than pilots anticipate. other than reverse thrust, you have no wheel braking to reduce speed.

what a tragedy.

Considering that every major fatal accident in Korea is man-made, this one is full of suspicions.

Sampung Department Store collapses → illegal construction

Sewol → overloading

Crowd accident in Itaewon, Seoul → insufficient security

[This time]

Bird strike → landing gear failure → belly landing → unable to slow down and collided with outer wall at 200km → 2 survivors

I wonder why the hydraulic system would fail in a bird strike.

When making a belly landing, fuel is reduced to the minimum, so the plane should circle above the airport, but there was no sign of this.

Why couldn't it slow down after the belly landing?

Will they find out the cause?

I wonder if they'll pin the blame on Boeing.

the aircraft did not collide with the wall.

it collided with the localizer antenna structure before the wall. the issue here is that the structure should break away. that would have reduced the kinetic energy substantially. it was on a very thick reinforced concrete structure. very bad design.

if the localizer structure had been less rigid, there would have been less kinetic energy when hitting the wall, which was cinderblock and would likely have 'disassembled' itself on impact. much less rigidity than the localizer structure.

also, flaps were not extended, they should be 40 degrees (full) for a belly landing.

and spoilers also were not extended.

three red handles in the cockpit manually open (by cable) the partial main door and release the gear for aerodynamic and gravity extension.

you have pull the handles about 8" or more to release the gear. it takes some time for the gear to extend, it's not a quick extension.

the nose gear door isn't even open. all this can be done manually.

they would have had at least 30 minutes fuel remaining for an airport diversion or to use analyzing this approach more.

based on all this now, the aircraft was not configured for a belly landing. the actions of the crew are in serious question. the checklist is very clear.

What a way to end the year.

Beginning AND End

R I P

I wonder whether these pilots were required to do regular training in the simulator on total loss of thrust and gear up landings or whether this was a case of "we sent them the video".

wanderlustDec. 29  03:23 pm JST

Watched the full video. It did not skid off the runway; it initially landed well, though rather fast, kept going straight, then just it ran out of runway, into a wall/ barrier built at the end of it. Muan has a relatively short runway. All of the landing gear failed to deploy, not just the front landing gear, and flaps appeared not to be down. Total hydraulic failure? RIP to all who did not survive.

The runway is longer than in many places, 2800m. This crash has nothing to do with the landing gear despite the title. It landed without flaps or any other signs of actually landing, it landed on different runway than instructed, it hit the ground in the middle of the runway, not at the landing spot, etc.

Bird strike taking out an engine is ok, it can land with one engine. Landing gear can be extended manually if you are really landing.

Bird strike warning from tower followed by bird strike on right engine. Passenger texted that there was a bird stuck on the wing. Probably followed by right engine out, loss of hydraulics for landing gear and flaps. Pilot probably elected to land without gear down and flaps due to loss of right engine. This resulted in too much landing speed and maybe on non-active runway which might’ve been shorter than normal runway. Additional issue of impacted ground structure being too substantial and not forgiving for aircraft impact. Pure speculation at this point.

Pacificpilot

This resulted in too much landing speed and maybe on non-active runway which might’ve been shorter than normal runway.

Muan International Airport (MWX / RKJB) has only one runway, 01/19, and they almost exclusively use runway 01 because winds are almost always northerly there.

The plane was intact until it hit that big radar installation after the end of the runway, basically death trap for any plane that overshoots it. Maybe whover designed that airport should have considered that any construction after the end of the runway should be made soft it does not destroy a sliding plane if that happens.

Since this is a short run way, may be in the future they can install some sort of over run device like they have on air craft carriers, a bit like a tennis court net, and several rows of them. And possibly a review of the airport furniture positioning, there has been lots of comments about the concrete blocks may be this need to reviewed

The wall was not supposed to be there. What idiots put a wall in such close proximity to the runaway? I hope airports hire smart people to design and build runaways.

Viktor Cernatinskij

The wall was not supposed to be there. What idiots put a wall in such close proximity to the runaway? 

It is not the wall that destroyed the plane, it is that concrete-encased navigation installation.