And yet it goes in a perfectly straight line down the runway not veering off to either side.
South Korea Jeju air plane crash
- Thread starter bingham67
- Start date
And yet it goes in a perfectly straight line down the runway not veering off to either side.
Well it was clearly a controlled landing. There was control, yes once its on the ground the control is lessened and it will tend to follow its landing trajectory until it hits something or stops and in this case that trajectory was straight ahead.
Precisely, aligned it perfectly with the runway and kept it following that trajectory. If you watch the video you can see at one point the far engine lifts off the deck and yet the plane still goes straight.
No, plane was intact when it hit the wall.
RIP to all those who have died.
The pilots aren't attempting thrust reverse, the plane wouldn't do it. The thrust reverse and ground spoilers won't activate until the wheels touch the ground and activate the weight on wheels switch.
It's likely the travelling across the ground has caused the engine cowlings to move back.
(To stop them activating in the air, as it would have dire consequences. The activated WoW switches also stop things like the radar and HF radio from activating on the ground and potentially causing harmful RF damage to people)
The gear isn't down, so the switches won't activate.
My guess is on they had a bird strike, the pilots rushed/panicked their check list and didn't lower the gear.
As part of this panic they overshot the landing.
On impacting the ground the pilots realised this and throttled up and with 1 engine pretty much dead, the aircraft grinding along the ground and the healthy engine not able to generate enough forward momentum due to not being on wheels. The jet just ran off the runway and piled into the wall.
I bet the pilots tried, but the situation they ended up in meant it was a lost cause.
I imagine there is a whole host of human factors involved, crew hours, rest times, over worked perhaps? Or maybe an inexperienced crew?
All will come out in the investigation and the Black Boxes will tell all.
The pilots aren't attempting thrust reverse, the plane wouldn't do it. The thrust reverse and ground spoilers won't activate until the wheels touch the ground and activate the weight on wheels switch.
It's likely the travelling across the ground has caused the engine cowlings to move back.
(To stop them activating in the air, as it would have dire consequences. The activated WoW switches also stop things like the radar and HF radio from activating on the ground and potentially causing harmful RF damage to people)
The gear isn't down, so the switches won't activate.
My guess is on they had a bird strike, the pilots rushed/panicked their check list and didn't lower the gear.
As part of this panic they overshot the landing.
On impacting the ground the pilots realised this and throttled up and with 1 engine pretty much dead, the aircraft grinding along the ground and the healthy engine not able to generate enough forward momentum due to not being on wheels. The jet just ran off the runway and piled into the wall.
I bet the pilots tried, but the situation they ended up in meant it was a lost cause.
I imagine there is a whole host of human factors involved, crew hours, rest times, over worked perhaps? Or maybe an inexperienced crew?
All will come out in the investigation and the Black Boxes will tell all.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,535
- Location
- Bucks
Welcome to Newton's laws of motion.
What a way to show you have absolutely no grasp of them. It's acted upon by a multitude of external forces.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,535
- Location
- Bucks
No really? Wow I never knew that...how clever you are. My point stands.
Last edited:
I initially laughed at that, then realised an A320 would have automatically dropped it's RAT when the engines failed and restored power to the hydraulics (737s don't have one to cut costs).
Woke up at 5 to the news this morning, and found the video on X showing it crashing into the wall, and can't get that image out of my head. Very good initial landing 
if it had landed in the sea, there might have been more survivors?
if it had landed in the sea, there might have been more survivors?
Woke up at 5 to the news this morning, and found the video on X showing it crashing into the wall, and can't get that image out of my head. Very good initial landing
Yes or grass... see the Norwegian landing issue below where there wasn't a wall in the way to crash into and blow up - I think usually for a belly landing though they'd want foam on the runway etc..
Last edited:
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
What? Other than Sully I don't think a sea landing has ever been successfulWoke up at 5 to the news this morning, and found the video on X showing it crashing into the wall, and can't get that image out of my head. Very good initial landing
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,797
- Location
- Cheltenham
It’s not costs - just a different design philosophy. 737 has a manual reversion for the ailerons and elevator so you don’t need hydraulics if you’ve lost both engines, the APU and the electric pumps. Batteries will power the emergency instruments.
Airbus operates purely on fly by wire so uses the RAT as a final backup to provide hydraulic and electrical power to the flying controls.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
That landed on its wheels no??? What at all is comparable? May as well quote Con Air
Ethiopian Airlines 961 is probably the most famous and that had 50 survivors. Weirdly when it hit the sea it obeyed the laws of physics and didn't just go in a straight line.
Estimates are up to 80 of the dead survived the crash and simply couldn't get out of their seats in time.
Last edited:
Chances of a successful ditching at a sea are very low anyway, its never going to be the first choice, generally a pilot would only consider it when it's the only choice.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Ok 50 survivors is acceptable then
Y'all guys had too many Shandy's.
Better than none by a long stretch.