Bird feathers, blood found in both engines of crashed jet in South Korea, source says

But the plane's engines looked to be on full power as it touched down halfway along the runway.

Did they manage to restart them, too late, or something?

Being totally ignorant of the world of Avionics I have a query re the black boxes.

I would have thought they operated on some kind of autonomous system in the event of a catastrophic event or power failure.

Sounds too simple to suggest no data was recorded because all power was cut as stated in the article.

Anyone know?

"though there have been successful cases of pilots landing the plane without fatalities"

Maybe building a concrete wall across the end of the runway had something to do with the scale of the disaster.

I would have thought they operated on some kind of autonomous system in the event of a catastrophic event or power failure.

Sounds too simple to suggest no data was recorded because all power was cut as stated in the article.

Without power to the aircraft systems there might not be anything to record. Does that make sense? I am a pilot but this is not something I have seen before.

But the plane's engines looked to be on full power as it touched down halfway along the runway.

Did they manage to restart them, too late, or something?

I'm wondering if it was a situation where either the pilots could not throttle the engines back or were afraid to fearing the damage they suffered would cause them to fail entirely. Still were it my call once I had the runway made I think I would have secured the engines in order to slow the aircraft, but we don't know if the pilots even had much control if the power was lost. Lots of questions left to answer.

Maybe building a concrete wall across the end of the runway had something to do with the scale of the disaster.

Have you looked at something like ArcGIS or Google Maps to see what was on the other side of that wall? There was an airport access road, a major public highway and across that highway an apartment or condo complex. Even without that wall it was going to be ugly.

Something doesn't smell right with this analysis. After that fireball of an impact in the runoff area during this Boeing mass casualty event, we are old that feathers and blood are found in both engines.

Several actors here have an ulterior motive in pushing this version of events. Not buying it.

Still, the big question remains: why on earth is the concrete wall at the end of the runway?

Here is an excellent discussion on Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders. Both require power from the aircraft to operate. If aircraft power is lost the recorders stop functioning.

https://www.aviacionline.com/accident-in-korea-why-did-the-black-boxes-of-jeju-airs-boeing-737-800-stop-recording

Something doesn't smell right with this analysis. After that fireball of an impact in the runoff area during this Boeing mass casualty event, we are old that feathers and blood are found in both engines.

I was a Detachment Safety Officer for one of my squadrons and took the Naval Safety Center short course on mishap investigation. It does not surprise me at all that the investigators found bird blood and feathers inside the engine. You would be amazed what evidence survives big crashes like that. They will find the circuit breaker panels from the cockpit and examine them to see what, if any, breakers were pulled or popped due to system failures. You can tell if the engine was turning and how fast from marks the compressor and turbine blades leave in the sides of their respective housings as the engine is crushed. They will find the APU ( Auxiliary Power Unit, a little jet engine usually in the tail that is used to provide electrical and hydraulic power on the ground but can be used for emergency power in flight ) and determine if it was running at the time of the impact. They will look at all the switches that survived to see what the pilots had turned on and off. Likewise they will look at fuel switches and throttle position. If you haven't worked this stuff you would not realize how much evidence survives a crash.

Still, the big question remains: why on earth is the concrete wall at the end of the runway?

Look at Google Maps for your answer. The airport owner probably needs to buy the land one either end of their runway and move some roads to create more run off room. Whether or not that is even possible, whether the land owners want to sell, is uncertain.

This document gives some interesting ( well, to me they are ) examples of the kinds of failure analysis typical of aviation mishap investigations, including determining the cause of an engine failure in a crashed F-16 that burned. Not much was left but the engine. Engines are big heavy solid things that tend to survive crashes and post crash fires more or less intact.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5568/8f96520af658df088e2da3634dc6e5d92dea.pdf

The Sikorsky S-61 mishap in the document above I found interesting because I flew the naval variant of that helicopter, the SH-3. Never thought about corrosion pitting leading to a blade failure. We sweated corrosion control on our helos.

JJE -

Something doesn't smell right with this analysis. After that fireball of an impact in the runoff area during this Boeing mass casualty event, we are old that feathers and blood are found in both engines.

Several actors here have an ulterior motive in pushing this version of events. Not buying it.

You are right. Russia has a shameful history of bringing down civilian passenger jets - including Korean ones.

No one would be shocked if Putin is behind this, too.

If they were even a convenient culprit to blame it on, they'd be jumping up and down with bells on (for example, look at Poland cooking up tall tales yesterday).

But alas, no: the cause of this incredibly shocking Boeing mass casualty event is something closer to home. And the data recorders being 'blank' only adds to the intrigue.

Desert Tortoise - Thanks for your informative explanations.

So it looks like a power cut will cut everything including data recorders - although as you said - maybe there's nothing left to record. That all sounds interesting as I guess many of us in the unknown sphere, just assumed black boxes are "All Mighty" and could still access/record some basic functions.

And waiting for the crash investigation analysis of all remaining components may well shed light as you suggested.

And another comment re the block wall. As mentioned in the article, in the pilots haste, the plane approached the runway from the wrong direction leaving not enough run space to complete the belly slide. I heard this report somewhere(?) and it said if the landing was in the right direction there was enough space for an extended landing.

Not sure on that.

Maybe you know something Desert Tortoise?

And this is how you close the case, Blame it on the birds and no one else not even the control tower that is suppose to war aircrafts of the presence of dangerous birds.

Case Closed, "" Source Says ""

JJE

Do you get paid more than usual for each instance you use the phrase "Boeing mass casualty event"? You should really switch to repeating "irresponsible and deadly Korean airport design" since a bird strike is the cause of this incident and the biggest contributing factor to the 179 deaths is the placement of the runway localizer on a steel-reinforced concrete foundation instead of flush or on a frangible base. If you need a second contributing factor it would be the pilots' fatal decision to go around instead of continue their approach and land. Who made the aircraft had minimal impact on the outcome in this incident.

Was not aware the data recorders could go down at the strike of a bird.

I sincerely hope this is not the case (the last few minutes). Was hoping Boeing recorders could shed some light on this mass casualty event... but no. They malfunctioned too you see.

JJE

Flight data recorders (FDR) and Cockpit voice recorders (CVR) on older planes are powered by the engines and APU with no backup power source. In a scenario where they lose both engines and there isn't time to start the APU in flight the FDR and CVR would stop recording as soon as their normal power supplies are interrupted.

Recorder Independent Power Supply (RIPS) for FDRs and CVRs were only optional until they were mandated for newly manufactured aircraft by the FAA in 2010 and by the EU in 2019. This aircraft was manufactured in 2009 and both Ryanair and Jeju Air chose to operate it without a RIPS for 15 years. Once again, not a Boeing problem.

So, no black box. Both of the recorders, record nothing.

Sounds like a faulty Boeing design.

yes, usninjapan. this model 737 did not have a backup battery. losing a and b electrical buss from both engines would require apu start. not enough time for that.

a horrible situation in the cockpit.

JJE

So, no black box. Both of the recorders, record nothing.

Yes. Because it was an American plane built prior to 2010. If it was a plane built in the EU this could have been the case right up to 2019.

Sounds like a faulty Boeing design.

No, the only thing faulty is your reading comprehension.

USNin - thanks for further clarification.

And from your comments it seems the story I heard about wrong approach was correct.

If the landing was attempted in the right direction then no major explosion would have been likely.

Is that the case?

browny1

In general the "right" runway, i.e. the runway in use, is the one that has the headwind vice a tailwind. In this instance the winds were negligible at only around 3 knots so as far as winds were concerned either runway 01 or 19 was safe to land on and the pilots could've tried for either direction based on their grasp of their situation. The only significant difference between the two runways was that 19 had a solid obstruction past the end of it while 01 didn't. Unfortunately the Jeju pilots unknowingly chose, as far as they were concerned out of necessity, the one with the obstruction. Had they been able to conduct a full go-around and land on 01 and still overrun the end of the runway they would have had open fields with no obstructions that would have damaged or destroyed the plane to the same extent. Even with the overrun on 01 it's almost a certainty that far fewer people would have died had that steel-reinforced berm not been there. Bottom-line, the birdstike(s) was unfortunate but unavoidable, the pilots should have continued their approach and landed but can't be blamed for choosing to go around per established procedures/training, the pilots may have made other errors, like killing the wrong engine, but did a remarkable job flying the striken airplane down to the runway in one piece, and the fateful decision made decades ago to place a non-frangible obstruction at the end of a runaway resulted in 179 people losing their lives instead of walking away from a scary but non-fatal gear-up landing and runway excursion.

USNin.... - Thanks.

That clears it all up.

The pilots decision to choose one way over another was critical, but the single greatest impact in the tragedy was the wall.

No wall - high probability of significantly less deaths.