B737 Crashes on landing in South Korea

[Wingnutter]

My take is they had the stall on the rh engine, thrustlever then at idle, shutting down the Lh engine.
Aircraft became a glider and they made it to the runway without configuring in time.

I would say that’s the most likely explanation and would explain the expedited approach to the reciprocal runway with gear and flap up (no hydraulics or limited standby system hydraulics) and not enough time for alternate gear extension. Possibly they had partial power on the engine that suffered the bird strike.

[Paul#25]

The aircraft was probably in flight mode hence no spoilers, i.e no landing gear to switch to ground mode and engines at flight idle?

The spoilers are normally armed before landing by pulling the lever up. When the aircraft lands, as the left main gear compresses, a Teleflex cable opens the hydraulic pressure to the spoilers and electrical switches allow power to the motor to run the spoiler lever to the panel raised position.
In this instance, the landing gear was not down, so the spoiler auto function wouldn't have worked.
With regards the oral warnings for the gear not being extended, they would have been getting the Terrain, Terrain and possibly Too Low, Too Low words shouting at them.

[No Fly No More]

Pure speculation here, but is it remotely possible that they realised their predicament (no gear down and position far down the runway) and actually tried to apply power to effect another go-around? Seems like a combined result of huge pilot errors under immense pressure .......

[BallsOfFire]

So looking at these videos, how does ORT compare with the perimeter wall? I have no idea, but seen driving past there, if this is about the same?

[Snitch]

So looking at these videos, how does ORT compare with the perimeter wall? I have no idea, but seen driving past there, if this is about the same?

It hit the ILS berm, not the perimeter wall
ORT doesn't have their ILS on berms

[Patrick AL]

By the engine scrape trails left on the runway, it certainly looks like the pilots saw the imposing berm as they were speeding up to it, and desperately tried to execute a right veer to try to avoid it.

Must have been a horrific realisation to them, having initially made fairly good -if somewhat deep- contact with terra firma,..
....to then be faced with an unavoidable wall of terra firma at 150 knots or so.

It is entirely puzzling how a large international airport could be designed with such an obvious -and clearly deadly -obstruction

-in the context of the costs of building a large airport, the costs of installing a frangible frame steel support structure instead of an earth/concrete one, the costs would be absolutely and entirely minimal.

I would really have thought that any new / refurbished international airport would have undergone an inspection to allow it to operate?
-and that even a cursory inspection by a half-competent safety inspector should have picked up this 'in your face' problem.

Has no pilot using this runway ever questioned the logic of a very solid obstruction in the over-run zone of the runway?

[southside]

By the engine scrape trails left on the runway, it certainly looks like the pilots saw the imposing berm as they were speeding up to it, and desperately tried to execute a right veer to try to avoid it.

Must have been a horrific realisation to them, having initially made fairly good -if somewhat deep- contact with terra firma,..
....to then be faced with an unavoidable wall of terra firma at 150 knots or so.

It is entirely puzzling how a large international airport could be designed with such an obvious -and clearly deadly -obstruction

-in the context of the costs of building a large airport, the costs of installing a frangible frame steel support structure instead of an earth/concrete one, the costs would be absolutely and entirely minimal.

I would really have thought that any new / refurbished international airport would have undergone an inspection to allow it to operate?
-and that even a cursory inspection by a half-competent safety inspector should have picked up this 'in your face' problem.

Has no pilot using this runway ever questioned the logic of a very solid obstruction in the over-run zone of the runway?

While the concrete is what ultimately led to disaster, one needs to understand that multiple failures had to come together in order for that to be the end result. It is certainly not the root cause but rather the end result and a contributing factor.

The Swiss cheese model is real.

There was a debate about this on this forum some time back.

There is no debate, the Swiss cheese is a fact.

It is not possible to have any form of accident without the cheese.

[Patrick AL]

By the engine scrape trails left on the runway, it certainly looks like the pilots saw the imposing berm as they were speeding up to it, and desperately tried to execute a right veer to try to avoid it.

Must have been a horrific realisation to them, having initially made fairly good -if somewhat deep- contact with terra firma,..
....to then be faced with an unavoidable wall of terra firma at 150 knots or so.

It is entirely puzzling how a large international airport could be designed with such an obvious -and clearly deadly -obstruction

-in the context of the costs of building a large airport, the costs of installing a frangible frame steel support structure instead of an earth/concrete one, the costs would be absolutely and entirely minimal.

I would really have thought that any new / refurbished international airport would have undergone an inspection to allow it to operate?
-and that even a cursory inspection by a half-competent safety inspector should have picked up this 'in your face' problem.

Has no pilot using this runway ever questioned the logic of a very solid obstruction in the over-run zone of the runway?

While the concrete is what ultimately led to disaster, one needs to understand that multiple failures had to come together in order for that to be the end result. It is certainly not the root cause but rather the end result and a contributing factor.

The Swiss cheese model is real.

There was a debate about this on this forum some time back.

There is no debate, the Swiss cheese is a fact.

It is not possible to have any form of accident without the cheese.

Sure, I see and smell the Swiss cheese principle, but there is a point, in the scales of logic and law, where we draw a line of 'reasonable', and it is not in any way reasonable to place a massive obstacle in the obvious over-run zone of a runway -especially where there are very easily attainable safer alternatives and land available.

Allowing this to pass as 'just another hole in the cheese' would simply be dereliction and dismissal of reasonable duty by authorities/ designers/operators .... and, yes, even regular pilots to the airport, if they were aware of the very easily mitigable risk that the berm presented.

-much like simply 'forgiving' Boeing -without censure/ post-incident and rigorous testing of all failures - because... well, the defective single-source angle-of-bank vane that ultimately to a 737 Max crash was only the first of a number of 'holes in the cheese' , therefore it cannot be pinpointed as a primary/major contributor, thus is irrelevant.

It will be interesting to know how the 'sign-off' for operations is handled for public international airports- and local/national ones
.... is there an IATA -affiliated global body responsible for this? -or is it left to individual nations' aviation authorities to do so?

I understand that ongoing and regularly reviewed classifications of airports are dependent on international standards for navigation /ILS equipment -it only seems logical that general airport operations/facilities/equipment/ designs and specifications are also monitored-?

I fully expect that this berm will be gone within days after the investigation is complete, and that airports worldwide are right now taking a good look at their layouts and equipment as it directly could affect emergency situations.


( it did look like the concrete footing beam /slab atop the berm certainly contributed considerably to the 'hard' impact, but that steep +- 4m high earth berm in itself probably weighs a few times what the aircraft did, so it's considerable inertia was without doubt a major factor in the catastrophic impact. )

[Brand Wessels]

By the engine scrape trails left on the runway, it certainly looks like the pilots saw the imposing berm as they were speeding up to it, and desperately tried to execute a right veer to try to avoid it.

Must have been a horrific realisation to them, having initially made fairly good -if somewhat deep- contact with terra firma,..
....to then be faced with an unavoidable wall of terra firma at 150 knots or so.

It is entirely puzzling how a large international airport could be designed with such an obvious -and clearly deadly -obstruction

-in the context of the costs of building a large airport, the costs of installing a frangible frame steel support structure instead of an earth/concrete one, the costs would be absolutely and entirely minimal.

I would really have thought that any new / refurbished international airport would have undergone an inspection to allow it to operate?
-and that even a cursory inspection by a half-competent safety inspector should have picked up this 'in your face' problem.

Has no pilot using this runway ever questioned the logic of a very solid obstruction in the over-run zone of the runway?

It would have been great if the design was more "accident friendly" - but no pilot would/should be planning to survive an end-of 9200ft runway "belly departure" in an airliner at 150m/hr. The chances of this ending in tragedy was extremely great. Even if there were no solid objects at all within/outside the airport perimeter (walls, vehicles, buildings, trees, etc), the ground is not smooth nor perfectly level - the chance of high-speed "digging in" and violent break-up is highly likely. There are a lot of more challenging airports (as far as obstacles are concerned) around the world - operating quite safely. But sometimes you have a real bad situation that ends with an airliner plowing into something - like the Concorde crashing into a hotel for instance. Just a few week ago a US aircraft took off and crashed into a building - luckily with "only" two fatalities. The 2009 Jetstream crash at Durban into a "solid" fence, was another...

I am pretty sure the investigation in the Wuan crash will focus on pilot decisions and why the aircraft was landing so rushed, 1200m from the start of the runway, way to fast, with no undercarriage, flaps, spoilers, etc. - and that the airport will likely continue to be used as is. They might change the localiser design - or not. As it is the ILS localiser on the centre-line and right next to the airport perimeter, it will be a challenge. It has been keeping 1000's of aircraft safe, while landing, for a very long time. My guess is the public fall-out from the fatalities will force them to - but that will not guarantee another accident will never happen there again, given similar circumstance. I see the Korean government has launched a national safety review of all commercial airports, so...

Sadly, I think the pilots are likely going to be posthumously "keel-hauled" - just my 2c speculation...

PS: Looking at the above picture from the opposite crash-side of the runway, the results would have been the same in the same landing configuration.

[Patrick AL]

By the engine scrape trails left on the runway, it certainly looks like the pilots saw the imposing berm as they were speeding up to it, and desperately tried to execute a right veer to try to avoid it.

Must have been a horrific realisation to them, having initially made fairly good -if somewhat deep- contact with terra firma,..
....to then be faced with an unavoidable wall of terra firma at 150 knots or so.

It is entirely puzzling how a large international airport could be designed with such an obvious -and clearly deadly -obstruction

-in the context of the costs of building a large airport, the costs of installing a frangible frame steel support structure instead of an earth/concrete one, the costs would be absolutely and entirely minimal.

I would really have thought that any new / refurbished international airport would have undergone an inspection to allow it to operate?
-and that even a cursory inspection by a half-competent safety inspector should have picked up this 'in your face' problem.

Has no pilot using this runway ever questioned the logic of a very solid obstruction in the over-run zone of the runway?

It would have been great if the design was more "accident friendly" - but no pilot would/should be planning to survive an end-of 9200ft runway "belly departure" in an airliner at 150m/hr. The chances of this ending in tragedy was extremely great. Even if there were no solid objects at all within/outside the airport perimeter (walls, vehicles, buildings, trees, etc), the ground is not smooth nor perfectly level - the chance of high-speed "digging in" and violent break-up is highly likely. There are a lot of more challenging airports (as far as obstacles are concerned) around the world - operating quite safely. But sometimes you have a real bad situation that ends with an airliner plowing into something - like the Concorde crashing into a hotel for instance. Just a few week ago a US aircraft took off and crashed into a building - luckily with "only" two fatalities. The 2009 Jetstream crash at Durban into a "solid" fence, was another...

I am pretty sure the investigation in the Wuan crash will focus on pilot decisions and why the aircraft was landing so rushed, 1200m from the start of the runway, way to fast, with no undercarriage, flaps, spoilers, etc. - and that the airport will likely continue to be used as is. They might change the localiser design - or not. As it is the ILS localiser on the centre-line and right next to the airport perimeter, it will be a challenge. It has been keeping 1000's of aircraft safe, while landing, for a very long time. My guess is the public fall-out from the fatalities will force them to - but that will not guarantee another accident will never happen there again, given similar circumstance. I see the Korean government has launched a national safety review of all commercial airports, so...

Sadly, I think the pilots are likely going to be posthumously "keel-hauled" - just my 2c speculation...

PS: Looking at the above picture from the opposite crash-side of the runway, the results would have been the same in the same landing configuration.

Yes, looks like a major construction site at the N end of the runway ( Is that maybe why they chose to emergency land RWY 19?) -but this would surely be temporary, and not airside.

I understand that the range of possible obstructions to airports worldwide is vast, and some may not be reasonably mitigated -particularly those outside the confines of the airport ( except by by-laws and regulation eg. limiting construction/ mast/streetlight heights in close proximity, etc.)

I think it can be said - with 99% certainty -that the chances of catastrophic outcome would have been far far reduced without the berm.

[Thomaz]

So looking at these videos, how does ORT compare with the perimeter wall? I have no idea, but seen driving past there, if this is about the same?

Been asking myself the same question. Think there is a longer overrun, but still. And why not gravel pits?

[Thomaz]

So looking at these videos, how does ORT compare with the perimeter wall? I have no idea, but seen driving past there, if this is about the same?

It hit the ILS berm, not the perimeter wall
ORT doesn't have their ILS on berms

A wall is a wall?

[Patrick AL]

So looking at these videos, how does ORT compare with the perimeter wall? I have no idea, but seen driving past there, if this is about the same?

Been asking myself the same question. Think there is a longer overrun, but still. And why not gravel pits?

They do have a type of aerated crushable concrete surfacing nowadays that becomes an arrester bed for overrun areas -but probably an expensive upgrade -but certainly would have helped somewhat in this case --if the engines had dug in deeply enough at that speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineere ... tor_system





Any non/mildly reinforced concrete/block wall and/or steel/wire security fence will provide far less anchored mass than an earth berm topped with concrete -and thus way less mass inertia to overcome

-even a robust conventional security wall ( eg. designed to stop a truck) would mostly fracture and break up upon initial impact -at least allowing some 'give' to the craft.

I would think any designers of fences/walls to airport perimeters at over-run zones would need to be experts in engineering destructible/absorptive walls and catch-fences

[Snitch]

So looking at these videos, how does ORT compare with the perimeter wall? I have no idea, but seen driving past there, if this is about the same?

It hit the ILS berm, not the perimeter wall
ORT doesn't have their ILS on berms

A wall is a wall?

A harder wall will do more damage.
That cinder block perimeter fence would likely have given way much easier , possibly causing less catastrophic damage
The ILS earth mount was very thick and is believed to have had solid concrete inside it to mount the antennas

Its like driving a bakkie through a garden wall, which gives in easily and hardly damages the bakkie or into a concrete building wall which pancakes the bakkie

[Thermalator]

it's not the speed it's the sudden stop that kills you. that cinder block perimeter wall would barely reduce the speed.

that 4m high berm as above, weighed several times the AC... AND was topped with a steel reinforced slab which acted like a lateral beam distributing the load to the entire weight/width of the berm - the video is clear the entire AC stopped within 1 meter, just the tail snapped off going over the top