Aviation Consultant Says Official Explanation of South Korean Plane Crash Doesn’t Add Up – IOTW Report

Aviation Consultant Says Official Explanation of South Korean Plane Crash Doesn’t Add Up

W J

An aviation expert said that a bird strike alone would not sufficiently explain why a South Korean airline jet skidded off a runway and crashed, killing nearly every passenger on board.

On Sunday, Jeju Air Flight 2216 was landing at Muan International Airport about 180 miles south of Seoul when the incident occurred, according to the Wall Street Journal. The crash killed 179 of the 181 passengers and crew members onboard.

“There are a million backups on this airplane. It’s extremely safe, and that’s what a lot of people are saying. They can’t understand why this airplane was landed on that runway at that speed with no flaps, with no gear. There might have been something else involved,” aviation consultant Mike Boyd told Fox News on Sunday. more

16 Comments on Aviation Consultant Says Official Explanation of South Korean Plane Crash Doesn’t Add Up

  1. It appears to me, and many others, the pilot never reversed thrusters. It’s pretty damn clear on the video. No air brakes. Also there are reports of another South Korean airliner with landing gear issues today. Wondering if North Korea picked up the contract for maintenance on these planes?

    6
  2. The technical analyses and explanations I pretty much understand but my knowledge is far short of anything remotely approaching expertise. However, my bullshit detector has been screaming right from the beginning. None of the official announcements have done anything other than stunk.

    11
  3. Brad — I don’t know. At one point on first approach they had a compressor stall in the right engine. I’ve not seen/heard anyone say if they successfully restarted that engine, just a lot of talk about whether it happened as the result of a bird strike (and there were birds in the area). If it WAS a bird strike, that engine was likely not running when the plane crashed.

    And gear up was for sure a major failure, but so was the non-deployment of flaps and slats which appeared to be deployed on the first landing approach.

    None of it makes any sense.

    8
  4. Uncle Al

    I’m basing my comments purely on what I witnessed on the video. Both engines seemed be blowing hard backwards. I dunno. I can tell you I’m not flying even a hover board for a while.

    3
  5. The reverse thruster on the starboard side is open. One can reasonably assume the port side reverser is also open.

    This is the classic swiss-cheese model of many things going wrong at one time. No gear, no flaps, “landing too late” on the runway, and with the reversers open they could not do a go-around.

    1
  6. “The reverse thruster on the starboard side is open. One can reasonably assume the port side reverser is also open.”

    Just wondering what video you were watching? Please tell me, explain to me, where you saw reverse thrusters deployed. I’m not a pilot. Maybe I missed something.

    1
  7. “Reversers open as lobes annular, or as a complete circular opening of the pod.

    That starboard pod is open. Thus reversed.”

    So if only one is blowing backwards why is this plane not spinning doughnuts? I think that’s a fair question. I think you’re full of shit. Please prove me wrong. I mean that’s pretty logical.

    1
  8. Once you land with the gear up, the engines are ingesting whatever the leading edge of the nacelle is digging into, even the shredded bits of the nacelle itself… Even if they did try reverse thrust, the engines likely didn’t produce it for long.

    It seems to me the failure to drop the gear is a key item. As Uncle Al’s previous video shows, the manual backup is to pull three cords under a door on the floor between the seats. Having the gear down would have possibly given them brakes, and lifted the plane 6 feet, which might have given them a chance with the ILS berm.

    KR

    2

Comments are closed.