Jeju Air, South Korea

Wait, hold up. Some are implying the engines were shut off and they were dead sticking it.

Those engines, per the videos and audio, were producing thrust
 
Larry in TN said:
When the switch is pulled, the generator field relay is tripped, and pneumatics, hydraulics, and fuel are shutoff prior to the engine. At that point, you haven't lost anything except the engine itself.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification.
Could the crew have pulled both switches, not realizing the implications?

Do you recall what bus are the CVR/FDR breakers on?
 
AV8R_87 said:
Thank you for the clarification.
Could the crew have pulled both switches, not realizing the implications?

Do you recall what bus are the CVR/FDR breakers on?
Click to expand...
How would a trained 737 crew not realize the implications of overriding the latch and pulling two big red fire handles? The overhead panel is even marked showing which systems are affected by the fire switches.

The busses aren't labeled on the CB panel and it isn't listed in our flight manuals. Searches have come up with some conflicting information. I believe that, on a pre-2012 build, the CVR should survive the loss of both generators but the DFDR would not. With the conflicting search results, it's possible that not all aircraft are wired the same.
 
I've seen a couple of people, that admit they don't fly this plane, say that if both engines are out, or both Fire handles are turned/activated, you loose all power and hydraulics.

Just curious if there is anyone here that does know that plane and can confirm that is a good hypothesis for why there was no gear, flaps, etc.
 
I would not be surprised by both fire handles being pulled they slid for a while on the ground. Having the captain reach down and secure the good engine with the fire handle after it was obvious they were going fast off the end and a crash was imminent is plausible
 
M20K said:
I've seen a couple of people, that admit they don't fly this plane, say that if both engines are out, or both Fire handles are turned/activated, you loose all power and hydraulics.
Click to expand...
They are wrong, as I've explained above.

Tarheelpilot said:
I would not be surprised by both fire handles being pulled they slid for a while on the ground. Having the captain reach down and secure the good engine with the fire handle after it was obvious they were going fast off the end and a crash was imminent is plausible
Click to expand...
I would be. No benefit to doing so and you're too busy trying to keep the aircraft under control. Securing the engines is on the evacuation checklist which you don't do until you've stopped and have made the decision to evacuate.
 
Larry in TN said:
They are wrong, as I've explained above.


I would be. No benefit to doing so and you're too busy trying to keep the aircraft under control. Securing the engines is on the evacuation checklist which you don't do until you've stopped and have made the decision to evacuate.
Click to expand...
I know the procedure very well.

I’m just saying it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what happened. We are after all speculating on how these guys, most likely, ****ed up not how they rigorously followed procedure.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
…We are after all speculating on how these guys, most likely, ****ed up ….
Click to expand...
From an American mindset no less. Folks were surprised a Korean carrier could let an FO have a job with the equivalent of C/MEL certificate and not 1500+hrs and an ATP.
 
Where I push back is not that Neo-Confucian culture isn't or doesn't create CRM hardships (it can, and it has), but rather the insinuation that the absence of Neo-confuscian culture somehow defintionally saves you from the former. That's where the latent racism lurks.

At any rate, North Americans are quite capable of boning up the flying bus thing, to industry changing levels. The demographic makeup of Colgan 3407 is far removed from Seoul as it gets, and look where they took everyone in a flaming handbasket, bystander non-121 pilots included.
 
TCABM said:
From an American mindset no less. Folks were surprised a Korean carrier could let an FO have a job with the equivalent of C/MEL certificate and not 1500+hrs and an ATP.
Click to expand...
I have not read every post in this thread. I’m not sure what you are talking about. Is there a particular reason you quoted me?

I haven’t said anything disparaging about pilots from Korea or low time professionals.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I have not read every post in this thread. I’m not sure what you are talking about. Is there a particular reason you quoted me?

I haven’t said anything disparaging about pilots from Korea or low time professionals.
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to imply you made a disparaging comment; it’s a simply extension of the observation that most of the speculation on this mishap is coming from an average American’s perspective of how a US airline would/should operate.

I guess I’ve just seen enough military Class A/fatal mishaps to accept that it’s highly unlikely a complex set of unrelated events happen simultaneously to result in death and destruction. More often than not, it’s the human that mucks it up for reasons we cannot understand.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Where I push back is not that Neo-Confucian culture isn't or doesn't create CRM hardships (it can, and it has), but rather the insinuation that the absence of Neo-confuscian culture somehow defintionally saves you from the former. That's where the latent racism lurks.

At any rate, North Americans are quite capable of boning up the flying bus thing, to industry changing levels.
Click to expand...

Or highly regarded Europeans.

en.wikipedia.org

Tenerife airport disaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I’m just saying it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what happened. We are after all speculating on how these guys, most likely, ****ed up not how they rigorously followed procedure.
Click to expand...
I think there's a difference between extrapolating probabilities from known events and unsupported speculation.
 
TCABM said:
I guess I’ve just seen enough military Class A/fatal mishaps to accept that it’s highly unlikely a complex set of unrelated events happen simultaneously to result in death and destruction. More often than not, it’s the human that mucks it up for reasons we cannot understand.
Click to expand...
You just spelled Occam in cursive.

As to reasons we "can't understand", nah. We understand human error exceedingly well, forensically. What some people are pearl-clutching about on here is lack of recording as some sort of debate club gotcha, and then telling the internet to be quiet. yeah good luck with that lulz. The science of fatigue, WOCL, skills atrophy by lack of exercise, or worse, straight up lack of relevant training or aptitude, is very easy to understand; just not politically or economically convenient or palatable.
 
Larry in TN said:
I think there's a difference between extrapolating probabilities from known events and unsupported speculation.
Click to expand...
All I see here besides the facts is speculation. Some of that speculation is coming from people that know absolutely nothing about crew operations in transport category jets, some from subject matter experts and some looking for any excuse to **** on people.

While you may like to split hairs and call your speculation by another name. It’s still just speculation. Just like everyone else.

My personal speculation is rather simple. Either this crew ****ed spectacularly or there was significant unreported damage to that aircraft. My quoted comment was tip of the hat so to speak that if these guys really screwed up a single engine approach this badly then I would not be surprised they didn’t follow procedures and secured the operating engine on the ground prior to hitting the concrete wall.

That’s the opinion of this subject matter expert that recognizes he’s just speculating.

To each their own.
 
TCABM said:
I’m not trying to imply you made a disparaging comment; it’s a simply extension of the observation that most of the speculation on this mishap is coming from an average American’s perspective of how a US airline would/should operate.

I guess I’ve just seen enough military Class A/fatal mishaps to accept that it’s highly unlikely a complex set of unrelated events happen simultaneously to result in death and destruction. More often than not, it’s the human that mucks it up for reasons we cannot understand.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I’m highly suspicious of any explanation other than pilot error as well.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
While you may like to split hairs and call your speculation by another name. It’s still just speculation. Just like everyone else.
Click to expand...
What speculation? I've talked about how the systems work on the airplane and what the procedures and practices are. As a 737 pilot, I can't think of any reasons why the flight might have progressed as it did.
 
Larry in TN said:
What speculation? I've talked about how the systems work on the airplane and what the procedures and practices are. As a 737 pilot, I can't think of any reasons why the flight might have progressed as it did.
Click to expand...
That’s because you’re competent and unimaginative. Lol

That whole 737 pilot thing is exactly why I’m sitting here thinking “man those boys screwed up.”

Edited for spelling.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
What speculation? I've talked about how the systems work on the airplane and what the procedures and practices are. As a 737 pilot, I can't think of any reasons why the flight might have progressed as it did.
Click to expand...
That's exactly it. I've tried to learn more about it all but the more I learn, the harder it is to understand how it ended this way.

I'm really curious about that first approach. If the plane was no longer airworthy, why not put it down? And if the plane was no longer airworthy, why would you go around? Was the first approach botched that badly?

I did have the thought that if the FO was the PF and thought stabilized approach criteria were more important than getting a crippled jet safely on the ground, maybe he did an inadvisable go-around and the plane wasn't really capable of flying any more. To only make it halfway to pattern altitude and then yank it back around instead of taking time to get up in the air, brief the new approach, and be ready to get it down safely once the adrenaline wore off a bit is just inexplicable unless the plane wasn't able to fly any more. But again, if that were the case, why the go-around? And round and round I go.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That's exactly it. I've tried to learn more about it all but the more I learn, the harder it is to understand how it ended this way.
Click to expand...
We need more information before we'll be able to understand what happened.

I'm really curious about that first approach. If the plane was no longer airworthy, why not put it down? And if the plane was no longer airworthy, why would you go around?
Click to expand...
I posted, many pages ago, of my own experience with bird strikes on final and that we had made the decision that we would not go-around. When an engine ingests birds you'll often smell the "burnt chicken" within a few seconds. At that point, you don't know how much damage, if any, the engines has received.

In this case, I think it's been revealed that they had already started the go-around before they had the bird strike(s). At that point, they were not in a position to continue the landing.
 
Larry in TN said:
We need more information before we'll be able to understand what happened.


I posted, many pages ago, of my own experience with bird strikes on final and that we had made the decision that we would not go-around. When an engine ingests birds you'll often smell the "burnt chicken" within a few seconds. At that point, you don't know how much damage, if any, the engines has received.

In this case, I think it's been revealed that they had already started the go-around before they had the bird strike(s). At that point, they were not in a position to continue the landing.
Click to expand...
Tis many parts to this story.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Fair enough. I’m highly suspicious of any explanation other than pilot error as well.
Click to expand...
How does pilot error explain the asymmetric reverse thrust deployment?

How does pilot error explain the flight data stopping four minutes before hitting the wall?
 
172andyou said:
How does pilot error explain the asymmetric reverse thrust deployment?
Click to expand...
That would be normal if one engine had failed.

How does pilot error explain the flight data stopping four minutes before hitting the wall?
Click to expand...
One possibility is the loss of both generators. That hasn't been confirmed. Pilot error could have contributed to that but there's nothing yet to suggest it.

Here's the best information I've found so far addressing the loss of the flight recorders.

 
Larry in TN said:
In this case, I think it's been revealed that they had already started the go-around before they had the bird strike(s).
Click to expand...
Oh, I hadn't heard that. Odd, because the video I saw made it look like they were just turning final when the bird strike happened.
 
They may have started the Go Around to avoid the birds, and did not have the engine power up before the flock of birds were entered.

Birds go from dots to splat in seconds, I have just missed vultures several times, and a red tailed hawk at 8,000 feet, passed close enough to identify with certainty.
 
Ed Haywood said:
. . . . Everyone assumes engine failure will occur enroute with plenty of altitude, but it is at least equally likely to happen at or below pattern altitude.
Click to expand...
Odd. I would assume any failure would occur at the most stressful/ least opportune time.
 
hindsight2020 said:
absent FDR for the turnback accident sequence, I think this investigation is cooked, no pun intended. That thing turned into a bunker busting meat-servo guided missile, the truth vaporized with it.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. They'll look at every dang piece of that plane, and they'll know the exact location of the cameras that caught it, and there's a lot that can be learned still. It'll be difficult to figure out the thought process of the flight crew, but knowing the details that are still available will definitely give us a better picture than we have now.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not necessarily. They'll look at every dang piece of that plane, and they'll know the exact location of the cameras that caught it, and there's a lot that can be learned still. It'll be difficult to figure out the thought process of the flight crew, but knowing the details that are still available will definitely give us a better picture than we have now.
Click to expand...
I hope so but sadly I think they'd have just a good of chance finding a definitive cause by putting up a dart board with probable causes and throwing a dart at it and say case closed.
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Good article

www.flightradar24.com

Jeju Air 737 crashes after attempted gear up landing in Muan | Flightradar24 Blog

Take a closer look at Jeju Air 737 crashes after attempted gear up landing in Muan, learn more about flight tracking and get the latest aviation news with Flightradar24.
www.flightradar24.com www.flightradar24.com
Click to expand...
They hit Baikal Teals. It's like a duck. At first I was thinking, there's no way a small duck is causing that much damage. Then I researched these birds. They flock in the tens to hundreds of thousands. And when they launch, they all tend to launch together. Hitting a flock of these things would be catastrophic.

I think @geezer might be onto something. These things takeoff as a flock in front of the mishap aircraft, they go around seeing hundreds of thousands of birds in front of them. They can't avoid the flock ingesting who-knows-how-many of these ducks into their engines. Maybe partial power/failing power during the go-around and the motors finally gave out forcing them to try and teardrop around for an opposite direction landing.

Here's what a flock of these birds look like.


 
Sluggo63 said:
They hit Baikal Teals. It's like a duck. At first I was thinking, there's no way a small duck is causing that much damage. Then I researched these birds. They flock in the tens to hundreds of thousands. And when they launch, they all tend to launch together. Hitting a flock of these things would be catastrophic.

I think @geezer might be onto something. These things takeoff as a flock in front of the mishap aircraft, they go around seeing hundreds of thousands of birds in front of them. They can't avoid the flock ingesting who-knows-how-many of these ducks into their engines. Maybe partial power/failing power during the go-around and the motors finally gave out forcing them to try and teardrop around for an opposite direction landing.

Here's what a flock of these birds look like.


Click to expand...
The video of the bird strike that has been posted looks more like one good-sized bird, though. I'll be curious to see if they find that both engines were inop and full of bird guts, or just one...
 
A possibility I throw out again, could a bird or birds have penetrated the nose of the aircraft triggering damage that shut down the CVR/FDR and other systems? I have seen a single mallard puncture the skin under the captains windshield and cause cockpit damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top