Plane in South Korea crashes with 181 on board

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
62 confirmed dead now, Korean sites are reporting hydraulics caused the landing gear to not deploy hence it going into the wall, others are saying a bird hit something underneath and caused it
 
They're saying 2 people have survived and they don't expect to find anyone else. Utterly tragic.

In Europe they have strict airline safety rules. I would assume as a highly advanced nation that south Korea has similar? But I don't know
 
Looks like it would have been fine had there not been a wall there. Why have a wall there at all, seems stupid
 
Looks like it would have been fine had there not been a wall there. Why have a wall there at all, seems stupid
The runways are designed to be long enough for a belly landing with no reverse thrust - that the plane was still going at that speed by the end of the runway suggests there were bigger problems than just the landing gear not extending. The engines had no reverse thrust (from the video) and may even have still been operating.

The reason for the wall or mound is because at that point it would be heading into civilian infrastructure with potentially even more casualties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
They didn’t have flaps extended or speed brake deployed, which help to slow down the aircraft, also no landing gear extended, whatever happened before landing may have caused a catastrophic hydraulic loss, but that doesn’t explain why the landing gear wasn’t down as pilots can deploy that manually and gravity lets it fall. It’s a weird one, my partner flies this type of aircraft and he can’t explain what’s gone on
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
They didn’t have flaps extended or speed brake deployed, which help to slow down the aircraft, also no landing gear extended, whatever happened before landing may have caused a catastrophic hydraulic loss, but that doesn’t explain why the landing gear wasn’t down as pilots can deploy that manually and gravity lets it fall. It’s a weird one, my partner flies this type of aircraft and he can’t explain what’s gone on
It's bizarre, isn't it? They weren't high enough for hypoxia and there was reportedly a mayday call - so the pilots were aware of an issue. Why the landing gear wasn't manually extended is a huge mystery.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1
Apparently it used to be a Ryanair plane x
Yeah that doesn’t mean anything though, there’s thousands of 737-800s out flying every day. In aviation we have what we call the “Swiss cheese effect”, where not one specific issue causes an accident, it usually when multiple issues (holes) line up that an accident occurs. Flying is still the safest form of travel, it’s just very sad that when it does go wrong it’s so devastating
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9
They didn’t have flaps extended or speed brake deployed, which help to slow down the aircraft, also no landing gear extended, whatever happened before landing may have caused a catastrophic hydraulic loss, but that doesn’t explain why the landing gear wasn’t down as pilots can deploy that manually and gravity lets it fall. It’s a weird one, my partner flies this type of aircraft and he can’t explain what’s gone on
Is it possible that in a panic the pilots forgot to deploy the landing gear?
Also it looks like the nose is high whilst it's sliding along the runway, could they have been trying to get it back up in the air?

Whatever happened it's an extremely sad situation 😞
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1
I flew with Jeju Air twice a couple of months ago, it's a budget type airline, but safety standards in East Asia are extremely strict (I certainly trust them more than UK/US airlines) so I am thinking this was just a tragic accident with several things going wrong at once. I've literally had nightmares like that video of the plane crashing. RIP to all those who lost their lives, South Korea is a wonderful place and will feel this accident very deeply.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Wow
Reactions: 7
The same plane (HL8088) squawked 7700 2 days ago.


1000044472.jpg



1000044474.jpg


 
  • Wow
Reactions: 2
Had it not been for the awful design of the airport many more would have lived. There was no need for such a hard wall at the end of the runway and without it possibly everyone could have survived as it slowed down in the surrounding fields.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Had it not been for the awful design of the airport many more would have lived. There was no need for such a hard wall at the end of the runway and without it possibly everyone could have survived as it slowed down in the surrounding fields.

It's an incredibly sad case of 'it was fine until it wasn't'. I think someone up earlier on this thread said that the history of aviation is written in blood and this is 100% going to be the case here. The runway was long enough for a belly landing with no reverse thrust, which up until now is considered to be the standard. But if a bird strike somehow meant the pilots lost control of the engine but couldn't turn it off, then more runway indeed might have saved some lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
There’s so many points in this accident that are a complete mystery, and it'll be interesting to see what was said in the cockpit voice recorder.
Why did they try to land halfway down the runway?
why weren’t the flaps, speed brake or landing gear deployed when that can be done manually even without hydraulic power?
The aircraft clearly had hydraulic power as you can see the reversers on the right engine come out on landing.
Why was there that big duck off wall at the end of the runway?
Why did a bird strike start a chain of events that caused the deaths of 179 people when 99.9% of the time they’re non-events?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
The same plane (HL8088) squawked 7700 2 days ago.


View attachment 3339254

View attachment 3339261

The diversion a couple of days earlier has widely been quoted as due to a passenger on board, nothing to do with the plane itself so entirely unrelated.

Based on how low the plane was when it reported the bird strike and go around the landing gear should already have been lowered and they should have largely been configured for landing so unless they’re claiming a bird tore the landing gear clean off the plane that bit makes no sense at all. I think it’s going to turn out to be a series of errors culminating in absolute panic when the bird strike happened leading to the tragic consequences - and likely the discovery that the wall was far too close to the runway and not safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
The diversion a couple of days earlier has widely been quoted as due to a passenger on board, nothing to do with the plane itself so entirely unrelated.

Based on how low the plane was when it reported the bird strike and go around the landing gear should already have been lowered and they should have largely been configured for landing so unless they’re claiming a bird tore the landing gear clean off the plane that bit makes no sense at all. I think it’s going to turn out to be a series of errors culminating in absolute panic when the bird strike happened leading to the tragic consequences - and likely the discovery that the wall was far too close to the runway and not safe.
Thanks for the info (y)

Ah right, thanks again.
I thought when they perform a go around it's as if taking off again and they retract the landing gear. That's why I was wondering if maybe they had forgotten to re-lower it. I didn't realise it would be left down. I don't have much knowledge on planes/aviation but (I think as a result of my nervousness of flying) I am fascinated by it all.

I agree with you, re. series of errors after the bird strike and the wall at the end of the runway ensuring the tragic end result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1