Jeju Air 737 crash South Korea

[Zaphod58]

Funny how people's trauma and fatalities does little to nothing to improve safety measures.

By the way, to me, 1 in a million accidents is one too many when profit is put ahead of people's lives and in this case recommendations for end of runway is another 1000 feet - not a requirement though.

Other S. Korean airlines also have similar obstacles at the end of their runways. As well, their culture is such that if a  Captain or more senior crew is making mistakes, the other crew will not confront that crew member. Also, fatigue may play a part in this crash because they left Thailand at around 2:30 am - and landed at the tail end of when those seabirds were still active, around 9 am, in the area. And there were suppose to be four employees chasing birds away but only one person was on duty.

Also, as for injuries while wearing seatbelts in planes, here's a quick AI google search:
 

You want a 100% safe way to travel, where nothing ever goes wrong, or if it does, everyone survives. Why don’t we just wrap everyone in bubble wrap, or ban traveling altogether. It’s the only way any method of travel will ever be perfectly safe. There is no such thing as a 100% safe way to travel, and there never will be.


People’s trauma and fatalities does little to improve safety? Are you serious? How do you think we’ve had years with no fatalities? Or the US hasn’t had a fatal crash of a commercial survey since the Colgan accident? It sure as hell isn’t because the industry has ignored previous accidents.

Yes, injuries will happen wearing seatbelts in an accident. They happen with car seatbelts and air bags too. They’d happen with a five point harness too.

[quintessentone]

You want a 100% safe way to travel, where nothing ever goes wrong, or if it does, everyone survives. Why don’t we just wrap everyone in bubble wrap, or ban traveling altogether. It’s the only way any method of travel will ever be perfectly safe. There is no such thing as a 100% safe way to travel, and there never will be.


People’s trauma and fatalities does little to improve safety? Are you serious? How do you think we’ve had years with no fatalities? Or the US hasn’t had a fatal crash of a commercial survey since the Colgan accident? It sure as hell isn’t because the industry has ignored previous accidents.

Yes, injuries will happen wearing seatbelts in an accident. They happen with car seatbelts and air bags too. They’d happen with a five point harness too.

And yet smoke still gets into the cockpit and passenger cabin, and large bird strikes still cause enough damage that planes have to mayday, and passengers still do not have harnesses only seatbelts, and airport runways still follow the minimum requirements and not the recommendations, and plane parts are faulty and there still is no safety oversight inspections, and landing gear is still dependent on the engine functioning but with time-consuming and cumbersome manual landing gear protocols.

I am listening to pilots' blogs and all of them are confused as to the decision-making of these two pilots, just saying. I am waiting to learn what the S. Korean authorities find lacking with crew/staff training and resources, not to mention their airport design decisions. Why is will be interesting is that some pilots on their blogs say that the S. Korean operational training and protocols are similar worldwide.

Why not have a bubble-type protective devices be available to people on planes to further protect them from flying debris and fire?

Profit over people's lives, that's why.

Now that S. Korean authorities have handed over the flight recorder to the U.S. for investigation, one SK official is already accusing the U.S. that their final assessment will favour Boeing and blame it all on S. Korean failings.

Is Boeing being protected by U.S. government because $$$? There's a conspiracy theory for everyone.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

People’s trauma and fatalities does little to improve safety? Are you serious? How do you think we’ve had years with no fatalities? Or the US hasn’t had a fatal crash of a commercial survey since the Colgan accident? It sure as hell isn’t because the industry has ignored previous accidents.

Southwest had a fatality. They have gotten in several car accidents too. They T-Boned a minivan in Chicago once, and almost hit a gas station in Burbank. Occasional cabin depressurization. And with one of those, a single passenger was partially sucked through an hole caused by shrapnel.

My friend is a flight attendant for Alaska, and they do some joking about Southwest. Which is funny to me, coming from the airline that once pushed jack screw maintenance to every 2500 flight hours.

And contributed to airline safety by setting an example what happens if you ignore manufacturer specifications 4x over.

I feel bad for Boeing at times. The other countries that buy their planes (Including South Korea) put pilots in them with low situational awareness and crappy stick/rudder skills, like the Asiana Captain THAT DIDNT KNOW HOW TO FLY A VISUAL APPROACH. I'm sure their Max crashes were from similar pilot ineptitude and pilots fighting their own reliance on automation. And not just cutting autopilot and flying.

I realize the newer Boeings are easy to fly. And who needs to actually land the plane when you can set an altimeter, nav frequency, and runway heading. And then trim the plane, set the approach speed, and TOGO setting. God forbid they have cross the controls on a visual crosswind.

This isn't the case on this flight. This flight makes no sense.

How does a bird strike cause loss of the hydraulics on the gear?

I am trying to find a causal link.

Maybe CFM engines are just prone to catastrophic failure. That's like half of Southwest's incidents. Maybe this wasn't a bird strike as much as an another uncontained failure from a CFM engine on a 737?

Seems unlikely though. I am still not seeing bird strike = loss of gear.

[Zaphod58]

And yet smoke still gets into the cockpit and passenger cabin, and large bird strikes still cause enough damage that planes have to mayday, and passengers still do not have harnesses only seatbelts, and airport runways still follow the minimum requirements and not the recommendations, and plane parts are faulty and there still is no safety oversight inspections, and landing gear is still dependent on the engine functioning but with time-consuming and cumbersome manual landing gear protocols.

I am listening to pilots' blogs and all of them are confused as to the decision-making of these two pilots, just saying. I am waiting to learn what the S. Korean authorities find lacking with crew/staff training and resources, not to mention their airport design decisions. Why is will be interesting is that some pilots on their blogs say that the S. Korean operational training and protocols are similar worldwide.

Why not have a bubble-type protective devices be available to people on planes to further protect them from flying debris and fire?

Profit over people's lives, that's why.

Now that S. Korean authorities have handed over the flight recorder to the U.S. for investigation, one SK official is already accusing the U.S. that their final assessment will favour Boeing and blame it all on S. Korean failings.

Is Boeing being protected by U.S. government because $$$? There's a conspiracy theory for everyone.

And you keep proving you have no clue what you’re talking about. You just keep pushing “profit over safety” and expecting 100% safe 100% of the time. You have absolutely no clue how much safety has improved over the years because of previous accidents, but keep screaming “profit over safety!” Why don’t you try learning what’s changed.

As for your wrap to protect passengers, that would work SO well when you have to evacuate 250 people in 90 seconds. I’m sure it would cause any safety issues or kill anyone when the cabin ignites from the fire they were trying to get away from.

[Zaphod58]

Southwest had a fatality. They have gotten in several car accidents too. They T-Boned a minivan in Chicago once, and almost hit a gas station in Burbank. Occasional cabin depressurization. And with one of those, a single passenger was partially sucked through an hole caused by shrapnel.

My friend is a flight attendant for Alaska, and they do some joking about Southwest. Which is funny to me, coming from the airline that once pushed jack screw maintenance to every 2500 flight hours.

And contributed to airline safety by setting an example what happens if you ignore manufacturer specifications 4x over.

I feel bad for Boeing at times. The other countries that buy their planes (Including South Korea) put pilots in them with low situational awareness and crappy stick/rudder skills, like the Asiana Captain THAT DIDNT KNOW HOW TO FLY A VISUAL APPROACH. I'm sure their Max crashes were from similar pilot ineptitude and pilots fighting their own reliance on automation. And not just cutting autopilot and flying.

I realize the newer Boeings are easy to fly. And who needs to actually land the plane when you can set an altimeter, nav frequency, and runway heading. And then trim the plane, set the approach speed, and TOGO setting. God forbid they have cross the controls on a visual crosswind.

This isn't the case on this flight. This flight makes no sense.

How does a bird strike cause loss of the hydraulics on the gear?

I am trying to find a causal link.

Maybe CFM engines are just prone to catastrophic failure. That's like half of Southwest's incidents. Maybe this wasn't a bird strike as much as an another uncontained failure from a CFM engine on a 737?

Seems unlikely though. I am still not seeing bird strike = loss of gear.

The Southwest fatality wasn’t a crash. It was a serious incident, but as I said, there has not been a fatal crash of a commercial aircraft since Colgan went down in Buffalo.

The CFM56 is one of the most reliable engines flying. Southwest and other short haul carriers put a lot of strain on their aircraft, which generally leads to a shorter time between failures.

Both engines have a hydraulic pump mounted to them. If a blade failed, and punched through a hydraulic line, or took the pump out, the hydraulic fluid is going to leak out extremely fast, leading to a failure of whichever system that engine feeds. On the 737, if it’s the #1 engine it’s landing gear, and #1 reverse thrust IIRC. If it’s #2, it’s flaps, slats, and #2 reverse thrust. If the crew accidentally shut the wrong engine down, which has happened many times, no matter where it’s being flown, they would have lost both hydraulic systems if the one in the bad engine was damaged.

[quintessentone]

And you keep proving you have no clue what you’re talking about. You just keep pushing “profit over safety” and expecting 100% safe 100% of the time. You have absolutely no clue how much safety has improved over the years because of previous accidents, but keep screaming “profit over safety!” Why don’t you try learning what’s changed.

As for your wrap to protect passengers, that would work SO well when you have to evacuate 250 people in 90 seconds. I’m sure it would cause any safety issues or kill anyone when the cabin ignites from the fire they were trying to get away from.

Serious question Zaphod58, are you a Boeing shareholder?

I do see some improvements over the last few years, but that was only because Boeing was forced to do upper management change ups and start listening to their engineers and employees. Key word: Forced to. I don't see any improvements to passenger in-cabin safety or better survival rates no matter where you choose to sit on a plane.

What I see happening at Spirit Aerosystems is the same mindset to save as much money on manufacturing/production as possible - for profit (and Boeing buys 70% of their fuselages). However, I want to believe the Boeing claim that they are implementing thorough inspections at all points and listening to employees, but are they really? What with Boeing's massive loss of profit lately, and upcoming potential expensive class action lawsuits, they have a lot of catching up to do. The only way for them to make money is to manufacture as many planes as quickly as possible, so I am not sure how they can pull this change of thorough inspection and oversight with that kind of 'make more money' pressure.

If they do indeed buy back Spirit, then I think they have a great opportunity to redesign the fuselage to correct all those issues I mentioned previously in this thread. If they can't redesign the engine systems, then they can surely redesign the fuselage to now allow smoke into the cockpit and passenger cabins, add harnesses to passenger seats etc. These, to me, are the most minimal safety changes they can do.

By the way, another 737-800 had hydraulic failure a day before this crash, from Oslo. Somehow these old planes' maintenance just aren't cutting it any more.

Boeing's stocks are very low due to many factors, including passenger lack of confidence. I myself was looking into planning two trips requiring flying on an airplane. I prefer non-stop and when I saw it was a Boeing plane for the non-stops, I just backed off the planning of the trip because I detest multiple stops and layovers, then I found this video.

Safe skies or hidden risks?

Video: "If it's Boeing, I'm not going."



As for evacuating many people quickly from passenger modules, I am sure where there's a will there's a way and aviation engineers, if given the opportunity, could devise many successful inventions - but as always, make as many planes as quickly as possible for the least amount of money and minimalist thought to passenger safety.

[Zaphod58]

Serious question Zaphod58, are you a Boeing shareholder?

I do see some improvements over the last few years, but that was only because Boeing was forced to do upper management change ups and start listening to their engineers and employees. Key word: Forced to. I don't see any improvements to passenger in-cabin safety or better survival rates no matter where you choose to sit on a plane.

What I see happening at Spirit Aerosystems is the same mindset to save as much money on manufacturing/production as possible - for profit (and Boeing buys 70% of their fuselages). However, I want to believe the Boeing claim that they are implementing thorough inspections at all points and listening to employees, but are they really? What with Boeing's massive loss of profit lately, and upcoming potential expensive class action lawsuits, they have a lot of catching up to do. The only way for them to make money is to manufacture as many planes as quickly as possible, so I am not sure how they can pull this change of thorough inspection and oversight with that kind of 'make more money' pressure.

If they do indeed buy back Spirit, then I think they have a great opportunity to redesign the fuselage to correct all those issues I mentioned previously in this thread. If they can't redesign the engine systems, then they can surely redesign the fuselage to now allow smoke into the cockpit and passenger cabins, add harnesses to passenger seats etc. These, to me, are the most minimal safety changes they can do.

By the way, another 737-800 had hydraulic failure a day before this crash, from Oslo. Somehow these old planes' maintenance just aren't cutting it any more.

Boeing's stocks are very low due to many factors, including passenger lack of confidence. I myself was looking into planning two trips requiring flying on an airplane. I prefer non-stop and when I saw it was a Boeing plane for the non-stops, I just backed off the planning of the trip because I detest multiple stops and layovers, then I found this video.

Safe skies or hidden risks?

Video: "If it's Boeing, I'm not going."



As for evacuating many people quickly from passenger modules, I am sure where there's a will there's a way and aviation engineers, if given the opportunity, could devise many successful inventions - but as always, make as many planes as quickly as possible for the least amount of money and minimalist thought to passenger safety.

Not that it's any of your business, but I have no business, holdings, or anything else with Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, or any other aerospace company. So shove that where the sun doesn't shine. I'm not defending Boeing here, I'm arguing with someone that doesn't have a clue what they're talking about, and seems to think that they know far more than they do because they "read pilot's blogs". I would be arguing the same if it was any other manufacturer besides Boeing. I believe that Boeing should be held responsible for what Boeing is responsible for, just as with any other manufacturer. Not that they should be blamed for every single thing that happens years down the road, that's not their fault, like a wheel falling off, or a plane crashing due to a bird strike and other errors.

Yes, another 737 had hydraulic problems. Let me guess, you blame Boeing for that too right? Because obviously Boeing is responsible for everything about these planes since they built them, they must do all the work on them throughout their entire life cycle until they're scrapped, right? Fifteen year old plane having maintenance problems, let's blame Boeing, not the people actually working on it.

[Zaphod58]

Bird feathers and blood have been found in the remains of both engines.