Jeju Air 737 crash South Korea

[KKLoco]

EMAS is becoming more common, but slowly. Not sure it would have helped here though as fast as they were going when they left the end of the runway.

Thank you for the explanations. This is exactly why I don’t usually reply in aviation threads lol. I’ll go back to being a voyeur…

[quintessentone]

EMAS is becoming more common, but slowly. Not sure it would have helped here though as fast as they were going when they left the end of the runway.

Zaphod 58, I want and demand better passenger protection and life saving measures at all levels.

[Zaphod58]

Zaphod 58, I want and demand better passenger protection and life saving measures at all levels.

Passenger safety is as high as it’s ever been. The numbers for 2023 show it was one of, if not the safest year in history. There was one accident per 1.26 million flights, with 30 accidents. Of those, one was fatal. There were zero accidents or hull losses for passenger jet aircraft, with 37.7 million aircraft movements. The five year average is 38 accidents a year. Taking out Azerbaijan, because if wasn’t considered an accident, this year will be slightly higher than average for fatalities, but on par for accidents. Air travel will never be perfectly safe for more than a year or two, but it’s about as safe as it’s possible to get.

[Zaphod58]

The FDR is missing a connector that goes between the data storage unit and the power storage unit. Investigators are looking for ways to restore the data in the data storage unit.

As for the localizer the ICAO recommends a 240 meter runway end safety area, which is an empty area at the end of the runway. The localizer antenna was 250 meters from the end of the runway.

[Zaphod58]

The Flight Data Recorder is being sent to the US for data extraction. It was deemed irrecoverable at the local level due to the damage sustained.  The Cockpit Voice Recorder was already downloaded.

[quintessentone]

Passenger safety is as high as it’s ever been. The numbers for 2023 show it was one of, if not the safest year in history. There was one accident per 1.26 million flights, with 30 accidents. Of those, one was fatal. There were zero accidents or hull losses for passenger jet aircraft, with 37.7 million aircraft movements. The five year average is 38 accidents a year. Taking out Azerbaijan, because if wasn’t considered an accident, this year will be slightly higher than average for fatalities, but on par for accidents. Air travel will never be perfectly safe for more than a year or two, but it’s about as safe as it’s possible to get.

I am on about preventative safety measures at all levels and this requires thinking outside the box, or for manufacturers and airport design, putting people's lives first - ahead of profit.

Take 9/11 for an example, proper safety measures, which were in line with the global threat at that time, were implemented after the fact and the same will happen with this tragic crash. Why not before? Why not a 'better to be safe than sorry' attitude?

Already most aviation experts are saying there should never be any type of barrier at the end of a runway - let alone a concrete one that could stop a train.

Additionally, they are saying that pilots nowadays have less flying time/experience and are 'learning as they fly', not to mention they are expected to remain calm and be able to follow protocol to the letter during a mayday situation. Have you seen the cumbersome and time-consuming way that is required to manually release landing gear - let alone doing it under extreme stress? Odd isn't it that S. Korean officials felt it necessary to raid airline offices and cancel 60,000 flights if their safety operational standards and/or crew/pilot training/resources were not in question?

Let's talk about plane engines not being able to recover from larger bird strikes, e.g. seagulls (as was most likely the case here considering the location near water). Why are engines not designed to withstand larger bird strikes? It boggles the mind.

It's also about injuries, such as when a plane experiences turbulence or air drafts where passengers are jostled/banged around so much so that they could end up with severe injuries. Why not better harness systems on seats?

https://www.griffithinjurylaw.com/faqs/c...flight.cfm

[Zaphod58]

I am on about preventative safety measures at all levels and this requires thinking outside the box, or for manufacturers and airport design, putting people's lives first - ahead of profit.

Take 9/11 for an example, proper safety measures, which were in line with the global threat at that time, were implemented after the fact and the same will happen with this tragic crash. Why not before? Why not a 'better to be safe than sorry' attitude?

Already most aviation experts are saying there should never be any type of barrier at the end of a runway - let alone a concrete one that could stop a train.

Additionally, they are saying that pilots nowadays have less flying time/experience and are 'learning as they fly', not to mention they are expected to remain calm and be able to follow protocol to the letter during a mayday situation. Have you seen the cumbersome and time-consuming way that is required to manually release landing gear - let alone doing it under extreme stress? Odd isn't it that S. Korean officials felt it necessary to raid airline offices and cancel 60,000 flights if their safety operational standards and/or crew/pilot training/resources were not in question?

Let's talk about plane engines not being able to recover from larger bird strikes, e.g. seagulls (as was most likely the case here considering the location near water). Why are engines not designed to withstand larger bird strikes? It boggles the mind.

It's also about injuries, such as when a plane experiences turbulence or air drafts where passengers are jostled/banged around so much so that they could end up with severe injuries. Why not better harness systems on seats?

https://www.griffithinjurylaw.com/faqs/c...flight.cfm

This was a once in a million accident. You don’t design airports and runways around one in a million. The ICAO recommends a 240 meter clear zone off the end of the runway. The localizer was 250 meters out from the end of the runway.

As for 9/11, the only thing that was on those planes that was considered a threat was pepper spray, and that’s notoriously hard to see at screening.


Jet engines are extremely hard to make proof against everything, but I’ve seen one take a 20 pound Canadian goose and the pilots barely notice. The only reason it was changed was because the book required it. Most of the time it’s shut down due to smoke in the cockpit, or vibration because a fan blade is unbalanced. They’re usually producing some power afterwards, unless the bird hits just right or it takes multiple birds. Multiple birds will do quite a bit of damage.


As for turbulence injuries, 99.9% of those are passengers that aren’t wearing their seatbelt. They’re standing, or just took it off because the sign wasn’t lit. Absolutely nothing to do with harness design.

[quintessentone]

This was a once in a million accident. You don’t design airports and runways around one in a million. The ICAO recommends a 240 meter clear zone off the end of the runway. The localizer was 250 meters out from the end of the runway.

As for 9/11, the only thing that was on those planes that was considered a threat was pepper spray, and that’s notoriously hard to see at screening.


Jet engines are extremely hard to make proof against everything, but I’ve seen one take a 20 pound Canadian goose and the pilots barely notice. The only reason it was changed was because the book required it. Most of the time it’s shut down due to smoke in the cockpit, or vibration because a fan blade is unbalanced. They’re usually producing some power afterwards, unless the bird hits just right or it takes multiple birds. Multiple birds will do quite a bit of damage.


As for turbulence injuries, 99.9% of those are passengers that aren’t wearing their seatbelt. They’re standing, or just took it off because the sign wasn’t lit. Absolutely nothing to do with harness design.

That's another thing, why does the cockpit and/or passenger compartment have to take on smoke from either engine? It just boggles the mind.

All I can say is Boeing and airline companies had better get their act together because passengers have filed a class action lawsuit for that door that flew off - for $1 Billion. It's not just the door flying off - it's the trauma caused by their negligence (in their own words).

As for S. Korean aviation standards and that particular airline's maintenance and crew operations/training, well we will be seeing what are the underlying issues after they comb through their safety operational standards, which they raided from the airline offices.

[Zaphod58]

That's another thing, why does the cockpit and/or passenger compartment have to take on smoke from either engine? It just boggles the mind.

All I can say is Boeing and airline companies had better get their act together because passengers have filed a class action lawsuit for that door that flew off - for $1 Billion. It's not just the door flying off - it's the trauma caused by their negligence (in their own words).

As for S. Korean aviation standards and that particular airline's maintenance and crew operations/training, well we will be seeing what are the underlying issues after they comb through their safety operational standards, which they raided from the airline offices.

Because the pressurization system uses bleed air from the engines to operate. So if the engine is smoking ahead of where the bleed air is taken in, it gets into the cockpit or cabin, depending on which engine it is.


I’m sure they suffered a billion dollars in trauma. It wouldn’t matter if it was a minor pressure issue, they’d still sue for the same amount. They won’t get anywhere near that and it will be settled. Funny how money always fixes trauma.

[quintessentone]

Because the pressurization system uses bleed air from the engines to operate. So if the engine is smoking ahead of where the bleed air is taken in, it gets into the cockpit or cabin, depending on which engine it is.


I’m sure they suffered a billion dollars in trauma. It wouldn’t matter if it was a minor pressure issue, they’d still sue for the same amount. They won’t get anywhere near that and it will be settled. Funny how money always fixes trauma.

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:
 

Passengers can sustain injuries while wearing seatbelts on airplanes, particularly during landings and takeoffs: 

• Seat belt syndrome: A collection of injuries that can occur during rapid deceleration, including:
  • Contusions to the front torso, Injuries to internal organs, Spinal fractures, Skin abrasions to the neck, chest, and abdomen, 
    
  • Spinal fractures: Lap belts can cause spinal fractures because they don't offer upper body restraint.
    

• Internal injuries: Lap belts can cause internal injuries during crash landings or accidents.