South Korea Jeju air plane crash

Redrum said:
Instead of trying to stop bird strikes, they do try to make it so the engines can withstand one or at least fail gracefully without taking the plane down. They fire dead birds at running engines to test this.

There are tens of thousands of bird strikes on planes every year, so it's rare for a bird strike to cause a plane to crash, but it certainly seems like it was at least a contributory factor in this case. I think when you go through a whole flock of birds (which reportedly is what happened here) is when it's a lot more dangerous.
Click to expand...
Yup
The engines can take a certain level but if you hit a flock you're potentially taking in multiple birds at once through multiple engines.
Basically they can't make a viable engine that can deal with multiple large birds at the same time, at least not with current materials (and they've improved a lot).

It's the same with rain, they design the engines to take a massive amount of water in, but they've still had a few crashes where they couldn't work out why the engines failed initially until they realised some rain storms had far more water in them than they'd ever thought, and from memory that led to some design changes to the engines and updated training and operations manuals to avoid the sort of weather that had that level of water content.
 
Werewolf said:
However it's not unknown at all for the backups in some aircraft to be knocked out at the same time as the primaries. IIRC the lines often have to be near each other at certain points due to where they are going, and there are still "single point of failure" in the designs because you can't always remove them (if you want the backups to operate say the wheels you need to have both the primary and secondary going to the wheels).
From memory there have been several incidents where systems that were designed with multiple backups have failed due to things like a bit of turbine blade slicing through two or three independent lines where they had to meet to get to where they were in use.

I'm not sure if that aircraft had a manual backup for the landing gear, but from memory the manual system takes a lot of time to deploy and takes at least one member of the cockpit crew off flying*, whilst the gravity drop backup for the landing gear takes time to deploy and it can be better to not do it because it you get one or two sets of gear down but not say the left side you can be in a worse situation than if you'd not got any down as the aircraft will immediately start to go off to the side or might catch a wing on the ground and flip.


*Which was bad enough in the older aircraft where you might have had 3 or 4 people in the cockpit, modern ones only tend to have the two pilots (no engineer or navigator).
Click to expand...

wesley said:
Not if both engines are out. Primary and secondary hydraulic systems will not work.

Some planes has electric one as a redundant backup. Not sure about the 737 although.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I wasn't aware of those issues.
 
200sols said:
I reckon at that speed they'd have hit something at many major airports around the world and perhaps caused a lot more loss of life in the process.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at most airports there’s something at the end of the runway. Whether it’s a ditch, the sea, even a ploughed field you are probably going to have a bad time.
 
Also the miracle of the Hudson was a bird strike which from bird strike to landing on water was 4 minutes total.

I don't think we should be saying about pilot blame just yet maybe a horrible scenario to be in.
 
dlockers said:
I doubt this occurs anywhere near enough to warrant
Click to expand...
Doesn't need to be there in the first place to be honest - the antenna, if it needs to be positioned higher can just be put on higher poles. No need for an above ground conrete barrier.

Interesting that the reverser was only open on the failed engine as well from that video analysis, possibly only deployed due to the impact, or the other one failed to deploy due to the impact.
 
Werewolf said:
Yup
The engines can take a certain level but if you hit a flock you're potentially taking in multiple birds at once through multiple engines.
Basically they can't make a viable engine that can deal with multiple large birds at the same time, at least not with current materials (and they've improved a lot).

It's the same with rain, they design the engines to take a massive amount of water in, but they've still had a few crashes where they couldn't work out why the engines failed initially until they realised some rain storms had far more water in them than they'd ever thought, and from memory that led to some design changes to the engines and updated training and operations manuals to avoid the sort of weather that had that level of water content.
Click to expand...

At my place of work they are often sent DNA samples by an aircraft engine manufacturer who collect them after major strikes, my work place will then analyse the DNA and tell the client what it is, and how big it was likely to be. The client then combines this with all the data they already have and use this to develop more resilient products.

I can't say who the manufacturer is, but they constantly drop off samples and never collect any of the old ones so we have freezers full of splatted birds :p


This crash is tragic, as morbid as it is, I'm really looking forward to seeing the results of the investigation.
 
Last edited:
The video I linked above, the pilot asks a few times as to why they were built so OTT and from a H&S perspective that surely had to have been picked up on an assessment, or at least recommendations made, considering it is a possible factor into why so many died.
 
aVdub said:
The video I linked above, the pilot asks a few times as to why they were built so OTT and from a H&S perspective that surely had to have been picked up on an assessment, or at least recommendations made, considering it is a possible factor into why so many died.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't know if they do something like LOPA analysis on this sort of thing, but thinking about it, it's daft that's there in the form it was.

I suspect there'll be instructions going out after this to say the guidance antenna foundations can't be above ground in any form and those structures will be getting removed where they've already been installed.
 
bingham67 said:
Also the miracle of the Hudson was a bird strike which from bird strike to landing on water was 4 minutes total.

I don't think we should be saying about pilot blame just yet maybe a horrible scenario to be in.
Click to expand...
Bird strike on landing though. In this case if they just followed on the initial approach they could have landed safely even with dual engine failure. Something happened during the go around and it will be very interesting to find out what.
 
Jokester said:
Yeah, I don't know if they do something like LOPA analysis on this sort of thing, but thinking about it, it's daft that's there in the form it was.

I suspect there'll be instructions going out after this to say the guidance antenna foundations can't be above ground in any form and those structures will be getting removed where they've already been installed.
Click to expand...

I'd probably even go as far as having charges along the base of those at floor level in case of events like this.
 
Werewolf said:
Yup
The engines can take a certain level but if you hit a flock you're potentially taking in multiple birds at once through multiple engines.
Basically they can't make a viable engine that can deal with multiple large birds at the same time, at least not with current materials (and they've improved a lot).

It's the same with rain, they design the engines to take a massive amount of water in, but they've still had a few crashes where they couldn't work out why the engines failed initially until they realised some rain storms had far more water in them than they'd ever thought, and from memory that led to some design changes to the engines and updated training and operations manuals to avoid the sort of weather that had that level of water content.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this one, took them a while to workout what went wrong with the engines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110
 
bingham67 said:
Although I still say that antenna area is deadly and if this is the case in other airports the area should be redesigned for safety reasons.
Click to expand...
There's electronics and all sorts of arrays at the end of every runway..its called a runway, not a runway plus a bit more.
They are designed to spec already with safety considerations of overspeed/mishap. That's why there was only a few airports that could handle the concorde.

If you wanted your change every single major runway in the world would be shut down for months or just permanently since airport space is already at a premium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom