Jeju Air, South Korea

You're overlooking that SpaceX has issues similar to Boeing now.
How about a little perspective.

In 2024, SpaceX completed 134 launches. This included 132 Falcon 9 launches, 2 Falcon Heavy launches, and 4 Starship test flights. This was a significant increase from the previous year's total of 96 launches.

You think that was a bad year? Russian had 18 orbital launches, China 68, Boeing 2.
 
How about a little perspective.

In 2024, SpaceX completed 134 launches. This included 132 Falcon 9 launches, 2 Falcon Heavy launches, and 4 Starship test flights. This was a significant increase from the previous year's total of 96 launches.

You think that was a bad year? Russian had 18 orbital launches, China 68, Boeing 2.
I'm not counting the Starship problems as that is an R&D project.
The last Falcon 9 issue prior to 2024 was about 9 years ago- 2015, launching a robotic Dragon capsule.
Shortly after the launch where the Starlink satellites couldn't be put in orbit, another Falcon 9 exploded after a landing leg collapsed (August this year).

Boeing had many good years before bad things happened on their watch. SpaceX had many years without an issue until 2024 (remember that I'm not counting their R&D projects such as Starship). So what happened in 2024?
 
How did this thread get diverted to SpaceX? There isn't the slightest evidence that any defect in design or construction of 737-800s had anything to do with the Jeju disaster.

HHH

View attachment 136690
That was my point. There's one person who blames Boeing for any mishap, even if it was an Airbus incident (yes, I'm exaggerating a little).
 
The last Falcon 9 issue prior to 2024 was about 9 years ago- 2015, launching a robotic Dragon capsule.
Shortly after the launch where the Starlink satellites couldn't be put in orbit, another Falcon 9 exploded after a landing leg collapsed (August this year).
The first landing failure after 267 consecutive successful landings on a booster that had already completed more than double its projected mission lifetime. One payload didn't make its orbit. More than double the number of successful launches as their nearest competitor.

That's comparable to a system with is overdue, overbudget, stranded two astronauts in space, and has yet to fly a single successful operational mission?
 
How did this thread get diverted to SpaceX? There isn't the slightest evidence that any defect in design or construction of 737-800s had anything to do with the Jeju Air disaster.

HHH

View attachment 136690
I think it started when I made a joke about nobody blaming Boeing yet and concluded (again jokingly) that must be because @Half Fast was still asleep.
@Half Fast responded to my lame attempt at humor with humor of his own. And it blew up from there.

At least that's how I see it.
 
The first landing failure after 267 consecutive successful landings on a booster that had already completed more than double its projected mission lifetime. One payload didn't make its orbit. More than double the number of successful launches as their nearest competitor.

That's comparable to a system with is overdue, overbudget, stranded two astronauts in space, and has yet to fly a single successful operational mission?
SpaceX had 9 years with no incidents. Then, they have 4 incidents in one year in spacecraft that were "proven" products. I'd question their quality.
Likewise Boeing had many years with a good reputation, until they had quality issues.
 
Four astronauts, who had just spent 235 days in space, went in for routine medical exams after a nominal return to earth to end a successful mission. That's not hospitalization. One of them was kept overnight in the hospital after 235 days in space, for an unknown medical condition. I'm baffled how you concluded that any of this is a black mark for SpaceX.


That seems like an extreme conclusion:

"The botched mission of the world's most active rocket ended a success streak of more than 300 straight missions during which SpaceX has maintained its dominance of the launch industry. Many countries and space companies rely on privately owned SpaceX, valued at roughly $200 billion, to send their satellites and astronauts into space."
Please read my citations again- they all say the hospitalization was "unexpected". If it were simply routine medical exams, it would not have been news. Assuming they were OK leaving the space station, something happened in the Dragon capsule.

I didn't write the second part of your post. However, they had 300 missions with no issues, followed by a year with 4 incidents. If you were a QC manager, wouldn't you check to see what was going on if it appeared that quality was going down?
You are doing the same thing with SpaceX and the 4 astronauts hospitalized.
If it were anything normal, it wouldn't be news that 4 astronauts were "unexpectedly hospitalized".
 
Or decided not to.

Since it was a US built aircraft, will Boeing get to see anything off the CVR or FDR? Or will that stay South Korea proprietary info?

This accident makes zero sense to me....time to await the black boxes.
Investigators have finished extracting data from one of the black boxes from the fated Jeju Air plane that crashed on Sunday, South Korea's transport ministry has said.

The data from the cockpit voice recorder will now be converted into an audio file, while a second black box - a flight data recorder - will be sent to the United States for analysis.

Investigators say it is not feasible to locally decode the flight data recorder, which was damaged in the crash and is missing a crucial connector.

South Korean experts will be involved in the analysis process in the US, they said, adding that they are in discussion with the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on when to hand over the flight data recorder.
 
Space alien/compound statistical BB shots, and other associated attempts at ignoring occam bore me, so I'll explore the human factors bit some more. One of my more prolific youboober personal acquaintances was taping an episode with his podcasting buddies. One of them brought up the issue of redeye flying (WOCL) on ability to deal with contingencies. I thought that was a legit good point.

A lot of people minimize how fatigue affects the rank and file out there when operating in that window. UPS 1354 is a good case study on how lack of rest, or lack of personal discipline in circadian management, can impact operations when you need a glovesave.

WB operations on long routes typically are augmented, it's the NB unaugmented crews where this thing gets russian rouletty. Nobody wants to internalize their buzzed-drivers up front may be working on the personal body clock equivalent of a 0.05-0.08% BAC. To say nothing of the fact it's nowhere near the physiological setup they are afforded when that stone simple single engine go-around turnback is given to them once a year on a sim they knew were getting that day in the first place. And they get that IMC in the sim, the fact this happened in CAVU is just insult to injury at this point.

I'm not chucking from the cheap seats on that one. I've flown a /heavy for 15+ hours with us two indentured clowns up front fatigued as all get out. KBAD to the Yukon MOA, all to get killed by Raptors (overkill, a Mig-17 would suffice for that blind duck lol) in 2 seconds flat (morale gauge placared INOP lol), air-refuel, then fight the circadian demons all the way to home plate. WOCL, non-stop, unaugmented, not even party drugs offered. More than 24 hours awake toothbrush to toothbrush; my personal manifestation was a tendency for giddyness/amped up after landing. To date the stupidesh ish I've done in my life, second to marrying my ex. But digressing on all the reasons my username checks again.

Thankfully civilians know better and restrict/augment that nonsense by rule. Problem is employers and employees alike work under perverse economic incentives, and leakers push through the proverbial DCA line. We don't yet publicly know the 72 hour lookback for this crew, or work conditions of this airline. Not familiar with the work culture bifurcation between Korean LCCs and their flagships, so legit asking if this airline is the sweat shop/Ryan Air of their country.
 
There is doubtless significant effort going into saving face before anything is released.

Training records for the pilots are also relevant.

Very curious what if any agreements Boeing has in place regarding retention/release of those.

What's interesting to me is that the devices were recovered immediately and it's likely that some small group of people have already looked at the data and know what happened.
 
Training records for the pilots are also relevant.

Very curious what if any agreements Boeing has in place regarding retention/release of those.
Assuming “those” are training records, they’re owned by the operator, regardless of who did the training. They’re not anyone else’s to release.
 
There is doubtless significant effort going into saving face before anything is released.
What's interesting to me is that the devices were recovered immediately and it's likely that some small group of people have already looked at the data and know what happened.
I think only the voice data is readable now-

Quotes from the link:
Investigators have finished extracting data from one of the black boxes from the fated Jeju Air plane that crashed on Sunday, South Korea's transport ministry has said.

The data from the cockpit voice recorder will now be converted into an audio file, while a second black box - a flight data recorder - will be sent to the United States for analysis.

Investigators say it is not feasible to locally decode the flight data recorder, which was damaged in the crash and is missing a crucial connector.

South Korean experts will be involved in the analysis process in the US, they said, adding that they are in discussion with the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on when to hand over the flight data recorder.
 
Look fellas, all I know is that if Bill Mooney had designed that jet then we wouldn’t been in this situation with the astronauts. You see, he was 6’10” and he built a steel cage around his airplanes. Anyone that tells you different doesn’t understand quantum rocket science, nor tea production in Korea.
 
I'm glad y'all aren't jumping on the "concrete wall" bandwagon a few of the aviation pundits are (including the couple vids posted in this thread). For awareness, the localizer antenna up on a berm is not irregular. And I have serious doubts it was on a "concrete wall" like some have claimed.

The photos I've seen of it appear to be a pretty standard localizer footing install. The standard details for those are pretty insane, when you see how delicate looking the actual antenna array is. They either have footings that go down ~5', or they're on a very thick slab that can never move.

As for the berm wall, when the localizer has to see down the runway, and the slope of the runway safety area being between 1.5% and 5%, sometimes you have to elevate the antennas. There are 2 typical ways of doing that, either a wooden trestle structure or a earth berm. The wooden trestle are the older method; they've fallen out of favor since they need ongoing maintenance.

The US has many of these installations, of both types, so hearing the pundits say it's an irregular installation is somewhat discrediting them. I can think of several off the top of my head at ATL, MDW, SDF, etc.

The only thing I've seen that says the loc antenna was "wrong", is that they have a very short RESA (ICAO throws the word "end" to runway end safety area). Current FAA & ICAO Standard for C/D/E approach speeds is 1,000' / 300m. I heard somewhere this one was only around 270m. While normally I'd say that's pretty short, at the speed the plane was sliding, it could have been twice as far away, and the result would have been the same. The airport environment just isn't made to protect against a sliding plane leaving the runway at 150+ mph.

It's a huge tragedy, and I'm curious to know what all really happened in the ~5 minutes prior to it touching down, as that's the real cause of the tragedy. If the wall hadn't been there, eventually it would have hit the concrete block security wall, a road or houses, or would have rolled. Either way, it had no chance at that speed.
 
Look fellas, all I know is that if Bill Mooney had designed that jet then we wouldn’t been in this situation with the astronauts. You see, he was 6’10” and he built a steel cage around his airplanes. Anyone that tells you different doesn’t understand quantum rocket science, nor tea production in Korea.
Ummm... Bill? Mooney? :rofl:

Or are you referring to the Comanche 737? ;)
I'm glad y'all aren't jumping on the "concrete wall" bandwagon a few of the aviation pundits are (including the couple vids posted in this thread). For awareness, the localizer antenna up on a berm is not irregular. And I have serious doubts it was on a "concrete wall" like some have claimed.

The photos I've seen of it appear to be a pretty standard localizer footing install. The standard details for those are pretty insane, when you see how delicate looking the actual antenna array is. They either have footings that go down ~5', or they're on a very thick slab that can never move.

As for the berm wall, when the localizer has to see down the runway, and the slope of the runway safety area being between 1.5% and 5%, sometimes you have to elevate the antennas. There are 2 typical ways of doing that, either a wooden trestle structure or a earth berm. The wooden trestle are the older method; they've fallen out of favor since they need ongoing maintenance.

The US has many of these installations, of both types, so hearing the pundits say it's an irregular installation is somewhat discrediting them. I can think of several off the top of my head at ATL, MDW, SDF, etc.
Really? Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I can't say I've ever seen one like this. They're frequently elevated, but I've always just seen it as relatively movable/bendable metal structures. Looking at Google Maps, the MDW satellite photos were taken with the sun at a fairly low angle and shadows seem to indicate flat terrain and not a rise under any of the three localizer arrays (both ends of 13/31C and approach end of 22L).
It's a huge tragedy, and I'm curious to know what all really happened in the ~5 minutes prior to it touching down, as that's the real cause of the tragedy. If the wall hadn't been there, eventually it would have hit the concrete block security wall, a road or houses, or would have rolled. Either way, it had no chance at that speed.
The more distance it had, the less energy it would have hit with. It was definitely going to be a mess, but maybe more than two people would have survived.
 
Really? Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I can't say I've ever seen one like this. They're frequently elevated, but I've always just seen it as relatively movable/bendable metal structures. Looking at Google Maps, the MDW satellite photos were taken with the sun at a fairly low angle and shadows seem to indicate flat terrain and not a rise under any of the three localizer arrays (both ends of 13/31C and approach end of 22L).

The more distance it had, the less energy it would have hit with. It was definitely going to be a mess, but maybe more than two people would have survived.

I was wrong on Midway. For some reason I remember landing and slamming brakes before a wall, but it is a the ILS.

KSDF definitely has one.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2025-01-02-09-41-08-86_3d9111e2d3171bf4882369f490c087b4.jpg
    Screenshot_2025-01-02-09-41-08-86_3d9111e2d3171bf4882369f490c087b4.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 26
Weird. From what I can see, it was a stabilized appr, sans the gear being down. Right engine looks like it has the reverser engaged, and left I can't see but I don't think the reverser was engaged there. Way, way down the runway on touchdown. I don't think I see flaps or slats out either. This one is going to be complicated I suspect. the short vid in flight seems like the right engine ingested something as well. RIP to all those who passed. It's amazing they said someone survived.
It’s not remotely stabilized. They touched down almost ⅔ of the way down the runway with neither gear, slats, flaps and probably 50knots above stall speed.
 
Lack of EMASS didn't help.

I don't think the existence of an EMAS, or the localizer being another 100 feet away from the runway as is standard, would have made any impact on the outcome of this accident. EMAS is designed for the gear to sink into and absorb the energy from the aircraft. With no gear, and the speed this aircraft was going, it probably would have skid right over the top of the EMAS.

This aircraft left the end of the runway at an extremely high rate of speed. This would have been a fatal accident at nearly any airport.
 
Last edited:
I was wrong on Midway. For some reason I remember landing and slamming brakes before a wall, but it is a the ILS.
Midway is definitely not short of walls! Completely surrounded by one. Probably an early attempt at safety for the neighborhoods that closely surround it.
 
Clearly the right TR was out. But was it activated or did ground contact pull it

On TR’s, if the actuators are ripped off, there’s nothing really to keep the back half of the TR from departing the airplane. For that reason, I don’t think it’s really possible for ground contact to open a TR in that manner.
 
It appears now that on the first approach, the gear was down, and presumably flaps were set for landing. I follow Flying for Money, and that was his conclusion. Apparently the bird strike happened during the approach. It appears it was the right engine, but cell phone video is often reversed when played. There is nothing conclusive establishing the engine displaying compression stall as being the right engine. Additionally, it could have been both engines damaged.

The crew executes a TOGA. Apparently the plane climbed well enough to maintain pattern altitude. It made an emergent pattern and approach, even though not configured for landing. Smoke in the cockpit, excuse me, flight deck? Was it a conscious decision not to lower the gear, or an accident? Was it panic? It looks like somewhat of a flare at the proper altitude for gear. Does that explain the extended float? Could they have deployed TR with asymmetric thrust? At that high speed, would it have been effective to stop the plane? Is there a similar embankment at the other end of the runway, i.e. would RW 01 have yielded better results? What was the emergent situation that required the teardrop return? A lot of mysteries....
 
Is there a similar embankment at the other end of the runway, i.e. would RW 01 have yielded better results?

There is or was work occurring on the north end of the airport. either to expand the runway or the runway safety area, or both. The latest image on Google Earth is 9/29/2024.

Untitled 1.jpg
 
Reading through reddit, which affords a more wide, international footprint than this forum, confirms my thoughts on the inclination people have towards hoping for space aliens vs occam (own-goal pilot error). Even folks in the US side panicked about the wisdom of booking with Korean carriers for their adult children. Just like 9/11, the entire solvency of leisure travel hinges on the fiat this conveyance is not prone to crashing.

My prior question still stands, as I continue to research the in-country history of Jeju vis a vis the Korean flagships, when it comes to their comparative hiring pool demographics.
 
So only slowed 40kts of metal grinding for 4900'? They almost had to be at takeoff thrust for that.
Nope, very low friction from al on concrete.

Another analysis is saying they would need 15,000 - 20,000 feet to stop when sliding on the belly and touching down at 190 knots.
 
It appears it was the right engine, but cell phone video is often reversed when played.

Assuming the overhead video was shot on the approach to 01, I think it might have been the right engine in that shot. The sun is lighting up the right side of the fuselage. It’s clear in the accident sequence landing on 19 that the sun is on the left side of the plane.
 
Apparently the bird strike happened during the approach. It appears it was the right engine, but cell phone video is often reversed when played.
That is a good theory. The video also made it look like they were in a slight right turn when it happened, but presuming it was before the first approach, no right turns were made.
Even folks in the US side panicked about the wisdom of booking with Korean carriers for their adult children.
Given the choice, I'd always book with a US, European, or Australian airline before I'd book with a third world airline.
 
That is a good theory. The video also made it look like they were in a slight right turn when it happened, but presuming it was before the first approach, no right turns were made.

Given the choice, I'd always book with a US, European, or Australian airline before I'd book with a third world airline.
I don’t know .. South Korea GDP per capita is higher than that of Canada or UK - not exactly a third world country…
 
That is a good theory. The video also made it look like they were in a slight right turn when it happened, but presuming it was before the first approach, no right turns were made.

Given the choice, I'd always book with a US, European, or Australian airline before I'd book with a third world airline.
That is a good theory. The video also made it look like they were in a slight right turn when it happened, but presuming it was before the first approach, no right turns were made.

Given the choice, I'd always book with a US, European, or Australian airline before I'd book with a third world airline.
The "cheap divorce" joke has been around for a while.
 
Back
Top