iscover
Investigators are yet to establish the primary cause of the South Korean 737 crash that killed all but two people onboard, despite footage emerging showing an apparent bird strike.
This content is available exclusively to Australian Aviation members.
A monthly membership is only $5.99 or save with our annual plans.
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
On Sunday, several aviation experts questioned why damage to the engine would have prevented the landing gear from lowering or why the ‘wall’ containing the instrument landing system was placed so close to the start of the runway.
The Jeju 737-800 burst into flames in Muan, South Korea, after skidding off the runway, wheels up, and crashing into the structure. In total, 175 passengers were on board, including 173 South Koreans and two Thai nationals, alongside six crew.
BREAKING: New video shows moment Boeing 737-800 plane carrying 181 people onboard crashes at Muan International Airport in South Korea.
pic.twitter.com/konxWBpnWy— AZ Intel (@AZ_Intel_) December 29, 2024
It has now emerged that air traffic control warned the crew of a flock of birds on approach. One minute later, a mayday call was issued.
The aircraft approached to land but abandoned its first attempt before attempting a second approach from the opposite direction without lowering the landing gear or flaps, which would have slowed it down.
Video later emerged showing the plane making a smooth “belly flop” landing halfway down the runway, but continuing to travel at speed before careering into a wall-like structure and bursting into flames.
The local fire brigade said the blaze took nearly 45 minutes to extinguish, but by the end, only the tail fin was recognisable.
Kim E-bae, Jeju’s president, said his team has so far identified no mechanical problems with the 15-year-old 737-800.
However, Christian Beckert, a flight safety expert and Lufthansa pilot, told Reuters that a bird strike could not have damaged the landing gear if it had been up.
“It’s really, really very rare and very unusual not to lower the gear because there are independent systems where we can lower the gear with an alternate system,” he said.
Geoffrey Dell, a local airline safety expert, added that he’d never seen a bird strike prevent the landing gear from being extended.
Meanwhile, David Learmount, a former RAF instructor, called the placement of the building housing instrument landing system “verging on criminal”.
“Very little damage is being done to the aeroplane as it skids down the runway, goes off the end, then it comes to this object here [the wall],” he told the UK’s Sky News.
“He carried off as good a landing as he possibly could, and when he got to the end of the landing run, the aircraft was substantially undamaged, and there was no fire.
“And then the aircraft hit something really hard, burst into flames, and that’s what killed the people on board.”
The aircraft, though, was travelling the wrong way down the runway, and Deputy Transport Minister Joo Jong-wan insisted it was built to industry standards.
The two survivors have also been identified as members of the crew who have severe but not immediately life-threatening injuries. The victims included three generations of the same family, while the youngest was a three-year-old boy.
Minister Joo confirmed an investigation would take place, and both of the aircraft’s black boxes, flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder had been retrieved.
The airline said in a statement on its website that it “bows in apology to all those affected”.
“Our first priority is to do everything possible to manage this incident. We sincerely apologise for causing concern.”
South Korea’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport added it was “dedicating all efforts to managing the Jeju Air flight 2216 incident”.
“At approximately 09:03 on Sunday, 29 December, Jeju Air Flight 2216 (Bangkok-Muan) was involved in an accident during landing at Muan International Airport,” it said.
“The Ministry has activated its Central Accident Management Headquarters (09:30) and is concentrating all efforts on managing the aircraft accident at Muan Airport.
“The aircraft was carrying 175 passengers (including 2 Thai nationals) and 6 crew members. The exact number of casualties is currently being determined.
“Investigators from the Aviation Accident Investigation Committee arrived (10:10) and are currently investigating the cause. Safety operation directives have been issued to all airlines and airports.
“The Ministry’s Central Accident Management Headquarters remains operational and plans to respond with full organisational capacity to minimise loss of life.
“Transport Minister Park Sang-woo has urged all parties to do their utmost in rescue operations and accident management.”
The aircraft, believed to be registered HL8088, is 15 years old and flew from Bangkok, Thailand to Muan as flight 7C2216.
Fergus Moffat
says:What a rambling mixture of semi-intelligent commentary this article was. Hardly deserving of a respected aviation industry journal. Consider some of the comments…
1. “why the ‘wall’ containing the instrument landing system was placed so close to the start of the runway”. The ‘wall’ (actually an earth-and-concrete structure – a berm probably – didn’t CONTAIN the ILS, it was the foundation for one element of the ILS. And it was hardly at the START of the runway used by this aircraft. But yes, its overly-robust physical presence undoubtedly caused a great loss of life.
2. What a juvenile term is ‘belly-flop’ landing. No sensible comment about the ground effect in an instance such as this, that will and did promote a lengthy ‘float’ down the runway?
3. And then someone refers to the wall as a ‘building housing the ILS’ Puhleeeese….!
4. And then we’re told the a/c was ‘travelling the wrong way down the runway’. I’m breathless.
The remainder of the article was a rather tedious collection of fatuous and template comments that contributed nothing useful for the industry reader.
A birdstrike may indeed have been what caused the engine compressor stall on the first approach, but the birdstrike can hardly be spoken of as the ’cause’ of this tragedy.