B737 Crashes on landing in South Korea

[Wingnutter]

Another crash that could have been avoided if it hadn’t been for the berm in the overrun area was MK1602 at Halifax, on that occasion on take off.

“The aircraft became airborne approximately 670 feet (200 m) beyond the paved surface and flew a distance of 325 feet (99 m). The lower aft fuselage then struck an earthen berm supporting an instrument landing system (ILS) localizer antenna 300 metres (980 ft) beyond the end of the runway, separating from the plane. The plane then headed forwards in a straight line for another 1,200 feet (370 m), breaking into pieces and bursting into flames when it struck the ground.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_Airlines_Flight_1602

[CharlesDavis]

Just had a look at the departure end of 24 at King Shaka ... the access road (4-lanes with a wide median ) is well below the runway level and only 380 meters from the runway end. Not a berm under the antennas, but running into this freeway-ditch at speed will be as catastrophic ....

[Wingnutter]

Interesting analysis here - dual engine failure looks very likely:

[kudu177]

Just had a look at the departure end of 24 at King Shaka ... the access road (4-lanes with a wide median ) is well below the runway level and only 380 meters from the runway end. Not a berm under the antennas, but running into this freeway-ditch at speed will be as catastrophic ....

I keep saying the same to people here in PMB. At 1500m, things are already tight. Meanwhile, an overshoot on 34 would take you off the (high) end of the runway and down onto a suburban street, a wooded area and a lot of houses. Still not as steep and deep as at King Shaka, but lethal nonetheless.

[kudu177]

Another crash that could have been avoided if it hadn’t been for the berm in the overrun area was MK1602 at Halifax, on that occasion on take off.

Things might have turned out better in the crash of Lufthansa Flight 540 in Nairobi in 1974. The aircraft stalled on takeoff (leading edge slats had not been deployed) and sank into a grassy area. The B747 then hit an elevated access road and broke up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_540

[andrem]

Good nutshell summary of what we know so far.

[CarlGrobler58]

I'm wondering why initiate a go around when in landing configuration on final. Why not simply continue the approach and land. In the photo of the flames out the right engine one can see some flaps deployed. A witness said the UC was down as well.

[No Fly No More]

I'm wondering why initiate a go around when in landing configuration on final. Why not simply continue the approach and land. In the photo of the flames out the right engine one can see some flaps deployed. A witness said the UC was down as well.

THAT is the biggest mystery IMHO. Why did they not just land on the first approach??? All of the rest stems directly from that first bad decision. Swiss cheese as previously mentioned. So that'll be the crucial evidence that comes out of the black box.

[SandPiper]

I'm wondering why initiate a go around when in landing configuration on final. Why not simply continue the approach and land. In the photo of the flames out the right engine one can see some flaps deployed. A witness said the UC was down as well.

That is a valid argument, but if you wanna pick the pepper from the flypoo:

It depends where on final the engine fails and on the runway length.

Things to consider: with one engine out: you are missing one hydraulic system, one trust reverser, some spoilers, landing with a higher approach speed if you bothered to reconfigure....

With a limited runway it is something to consider.

I would continue to land, (did it once with engine failure on final at FACT with a b737), but the rwy is long enough.

Thinking about this as a Bus Driver, not so much up to speed with the B-team systems, it was a long time ago.

[hans39]

Let's look at this accident from a different angle using available facts.
0854: The a/c was cleared to land.
0857: Tower broadcast a bird advisory. Birds are obviously a problem at this airfield. The Captain over the years must have operated through this
airfield and would have been well aware of the bird problem and as such decided to do a precautionary go around and land on the other
runway.
0859: Towards the end of the go around they would have been close to being overhead the airfield at about 1,000ft with the gear up and the flaps
LED's in the final stage of retraction. Speed about 210 Kts. Here they encountered a compressor stall probably caused by bird ingestion, this
being confirmed by the video sequence. This produces a loud bang and is accompanied by a rapid rise in EGT with a good chance of leading to
an engine overheat. They shut the engine down by recall, thrust lever closed and start lever cut off. ( Moving the start lever to cut off is a
critical action and both crew members should confirm that they are shutting down the correct engine.) There is a strong possibility that instead
of selecting the #2 start lever they moved #1 to cut off due to no double check. This would have led to an immediate engine #1 shut down. As
soon as they realised they had a dual engine failure they made the Mayday call.
0902: In the 3 minutes period prior to landing they would have had to maintain 200kts to avoid getting into a stall situation and things must have been
hectic. The pilot flying would have been fully engrossed in flying the a/c to ensure landing on the runway. Did they check the start levers after
they lost # 1 ? Who knows? If anything their mindset would have been bird orientated, first the warning, then the ingestion and then assuming
that the #1 shut down was bird related.
From the compressor stall video sequence it is obvious that they did not encounter any birds whilst on final approach since that video shows the
gear up and flaps nearly retracted, certainly not a configuration to be in shortly before landing

[savas]

Let's look at this accident from a different angle using available facts.
0854: The a/c was cleared to land.
0857: Tower broadcast a bird advisory. Birds are obviously a problem at this airfield. The Captain over the years must have operated through this
airfield and would have been well aware of the bird problem and as such decided to do a precautionary go around and land on the other
runway.
0859: Towards the end of the go around they would have been close to being overhead the airfield at about 1,000ft with the gear up and the flaps
LED's in the final stage of retraction. Speed about 210 Kts. Here they encountered a compressor stall probably caused by bird ingestion, this
being confirmed by the video sequence. This produces a loud bang and is accompanied by a rapid rise in EGT with a good chance of leading to
an engine overheat. They shut the engine down by recall, thrust lever closed and start lever cut off. ( Moving the start lever to cut off is a
critical action and both crew members should confirm that they are shutting down the correct engine.) There is a strong possibility that instead
of selecting the #2 start lever they moved #1 to cut off due to no double check. This would have led to an immediate engine #1 shut down. As
soon as they realised they had a dual engine failure they made the Mayday call.
0902: In the 3 minutes period prior to landing they would have had to maintain 200kts to avoid getting into a stall situation and things must have been
hectic. The pilot flying would have been fully engrossed in flying the a/c to ensure landing on the runway. Did they check the start levers after
they lost # 1 ? Who knows? If anything their mindset would have been bird orientated, first the warning, then the ingestion and then assuming
that the #1 shut down was bird related.
From the compressor stall video sequence it is obvious that they did not encounter any birds whilst on final approach since that video shows the
gear up and flaps nearly retracted, certainly not a configuration to be in shortly before landing

The only question I would have with this theory that is going around , is it at all possible that the 737 can do a glide approach and turn 180deg dead stick? seems a bit impossible from only 1000ft downwind.

[andrem]

Let's look at this accident from a different angle using available facts.
0854: The a/c was cleared to land.
0857: Tower broadcast a bird advisory. Birds are obviously a problem at this airfield. The Captain over the years must have operated through this
airfield and would have been well aware of the bird problem and as such decided to do a precautionary go around and land on the other
runway.
0859: Towards the end of the go around they would have been close to being overhead the airfield at about 1,000ft with the gear up and the flaps
LED's in the final stage of retraction. Speed about 210 Kts. Here they encountered a compressor stall probably caused by bird ingestion, this
being confirmed by the video sequence. This produces a loud bang and is accompanied by a rapid rise in EGT with a good chance of leading to
an engine overheat. They shut the engine down by recall, thrust lever closed and start lever cut off. ( Moving the start lever to cut off is a
critical action and both crew members should confirm that they are shutting down the correct engine.) There is a strong possibility that instead
of selecting the #2 start lever they moved #1 to cut off due to no double check. This would have led to an immediate engine #1 shut down. As
soon as they realised they had a dual engine failure they made the Mayday call.
0902: In the 3 minutes period prior to landing they would have had to maintain 200kts to avoid getting into a stall situation and things must have been
hectic. The pilot flying would have been fully engrossed in flying the a/c to ensure landing on the runway. Did they check the start levers after
they lost # 1 ? Who knows? If anything their mindset would have been bird orientated, first the warning, then the ingestion and then assuming
that the #1 shut down was bird related.
From the compressor stall video sequence it is obvious that they did not encounter any birds whilst on final approach since that video shows the
gear up and flaps nearly retracted, certainly not a configuration to be in shortly before landing

The only question I would have with this theory that is going around , is it at all possible that the 737 can do a glide approach and turn 180deg dead stick? seems a bit impossible from only 1000ft downwind.

My understanding, from the explanations above, is that they were not deadstick at the start of the baulked approached, but rather midway through it, when the wrong engine was switched off.

[propstrap]

One should not assume they shut the wrong engine - or did I miss evidence? Keep an open mind, they could have lost one and reduced power on the other, or many other things.

However, not having enough power to maintain flight will support the extreme rush to get the bird back on the runway. Time will tell.

In a bit of a drift, a Korean A330 overran a runway in the Philippines and went through the localiser, but for the construction of the aerial it could have been another disaster...

From Avherald...

Accident: Korean A333 at Cebu on Oct 23rd 2022, overran runway on landing
By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Oct 23rd 2022 17:05Z, last updated Thursday, Jan 2nd 2025 11:01Z

A Korean Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration HL7525 performing flight KE-631 from Seoul (South Korea) to Cebu City (Philippines) with 162 passengers and 11 crew, had gone around at low height twice following approaches to Cebu's runway 22, climbed back to 5000 feet, entered a hold and landed on Cebu's runway 22 at 23:07L (15:07Z) about 55 minutes after the first and about 42 minutes after the second go around. The aircraft crossed the runway end at about 80 knots over ground and came to a stop about 360 meters/1200 feet past the runway end close to the airport perimeter fence. No injuries are being reported, the aircraft - having broken through the localizer antenna - received substantial damage including collapse of the nose gear, damage to the nose underbelly and penetrations to the cockpit.

It is sad, in retrospect, that the risk of a concrete base at Maun airport was not picked up before, considering the above accident just more than two years ago...

[andrem]

Based on the video analysis and the fact that they landed without flaps, spoilers or reverse thrust, indicates that both engines were off. Exactly how that came to pass, they will hopefully piece together as part of the investigation.

One should not assume they shut the wrong engine - or did I miss evidence? Keep an open mind, they could have lost one and reduced power on the other, or many other things.

However, not having enough power to maintain flight will support the extreme rush to get the bird back on the runway. Time will tell.

In a bit of a drift, a Korean A330 overran a runway in the Philippines and went through the localiser, but for the construction of the aerial it could have been another disaster...

From Avherald...

Accident: Korean A333 at Cebu on Oct 23rd 2022, overran runway on landing
By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Oct 23rd 2022 17:05Z, last updated Thursday, Jan 2nd 2025 11:01Z

A Korean Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration HL7525 performing flight KE-631 from Seoul (South Korea) to Cebu City (Philippines) with 162 passengers and 11 crew, had gone around at low height twice following approaches to Cebu's runway 22, climbed back to 5000 feet, entered a hold and landed on Cebu's runway 22 at 23:07L (15:07Z) about 55 minutes after the first and about 42 minutes after the second go around. The aircraft crossed the runway end at about 80 knots over ground and came to a stop about 360 meters/1200 feet past the runway end close to the airport perimeter fence. No injuries are being reported, the aircraft - having broken through the localizer antenna - received substantial damage including collapse of the nose gear, damage to the nose underbelly and penetrations to the cockpit.

[Ugly Duckling]

Right hand reverser is open in some images