As 2024 comes to a close, the aviation industry has been marked by a series of harrowing incidents. On December 25, Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243, an Embraer 190 en route from Baku to Grozny, was struck by a missile launched by Russian forces. The attack caused the crew to lose control of the aircraft, leading to its crash during an emergency landing attempt near Aktau, Kazakhstan. This tragic event claimed the lives of all on board. Just days later, on December 28, an Air Canada Express flight experienced a landing gear failure, forcing an emergency evacuation on the tarmac in Halifax. That same evening, a KLM Boeing 737-800 veered off the runway during an emergency landing in Norway after suffering a hydraulic failure.
Amid these distressing events, December 29 saw the deadliest aviation disaster in South Korea’s history. Jeju Air flight 2216, a Boeing 737-800 traveling from Bangkok to Muan International Airport, suffered a catastrophic runway overrun during landing. The aircraft collided with a wall at the end of the runway, disintegrating on impact and claiming the lives of 179 of the 181 people on board.
This was the first fatal accident in Jeju Air’s history since its founding in 2005.
In this article, I will analyze the technical aspects of the Jeju Airlines crash using available video footage and eyewitness testimonies. While the official investigation is ongoing, I will focus on potential causes and contributing factors, including mechanical, operational, and structural elements that may have played a role in this disaster.
The Incident: Key Technical Observations
The Jeju Airlines aircraft, a Boeing 737, was attempting to land on a 2,800-meter runway. While this length is generally adequate for emergency landings, the plane touched down in the last quarter of the runway at an excessively high speed, leaving insufficient distance for deceleration. The aircraft then exited the runway and collided with a mound supporting an Instrument Landing System (ILS) antenna.
Potential Factors Behind the Crash
1. Late Touchdown and High Speed
The aircraft’s late touchdown suggests either an approach miscalculation or an inability to decelerate adequately before landing.
The high landing speed might indicate that critical systems like flaps and slats, which increase lift and reduce landing speed, were not deployed. This would significantly impact the plane’s ability to land safely.
2. Landing Gear Failure
Evidence suggests that the landing gear was not deployed or failed to lock in place, which prevented the automatic deployment of the spoilers. On the Boeing 737, the landing gear is hydraulically operated, but it can also be manually extended in emergencies using a cable system. If the pilots were unable to use this system, it could indicate either mechanical failure or an oversight due to high stress and workload during the incident.
3. Spoilers and Thrust Reversers
Spoilers, designed to reduce lift and improve braking efficiency, did not deploy. This failure is typically linked to the landing gear not being down or armed, as the system relies on compression sensors in the landing gear to trigger the automatic deployment.
Video footage reveals asymmetry in thrust reverser deployment. The thrust reverser for Engine 2, which reportedly suffered a failure, appeared to activate, while Engine 1’s thrust reverser did not. One possible explanation is that the pilots may have mistakenly shut down Engine 1, the functional engine, under the belief that it was Engine 2 that had failed due to a bird strike or other mechanical issue. This misidentification could have stemmed from the high-stress environment and the multiple alarms triggered by the vibrations and failure in Engine 2.
This imbalance in thrust reverser deployment where the damaged engine’s reverser was active while the functional engine’s reverser remained inactive likely compromised both directional control and braking efficiency, further exacerbating the overrun scenario.
4. Engine Malfunction
Engine 2 reportedly suffered a failure, potentially due to a bird strike, as indicated by an explosion and subsequent vibrations observed in the cockpit. Such a failure would have triggered numerous alarms, potentially overwhelming the pilots and contributing to a misdiagnosis of the issue.
Historically, there have been cases where pilots, under stress, have shut down the wrong engine in similar scenarios. The possibility that Engine 1, the operational engine, was mistakenly shut down while Engine 2, the damaged engine, remained partially active cannot be ruled out. This error would have deprived the aircraft of critical thrust and reverse thrust capabilities on the functional engine during the landing roll.
The Role of the ILS Antenna Mound
The aircraft’s collision with the earthen mound supporting the ILS antenna was a critical factor in the severity of the crash. International aviation standards, as outlined in ICAO Annex 14, prohibit solid obstructions at the end of runways. Structures like antennas should be mounted on collapsible supports to minimize damage in overrun scenarios. The placement of the ILS antenna on a mound of earth raises questions about adherence to these safety standards.
What Could Have Been Done Differently?
Based on the available information, here are potential measures that might have mitigated the severity of the incident:
Manual Landing Gear Deployment: If hydraulic failure occurred, manually extending the landing gear could have enabled the deployment of spoilers and improved braking efficiency.
Flap Deployment: Ensuring full or partial deployment of flaps and slats would have reduced the landing speed significantly, making the touchdown more manageable.
Obstacle-Free Runway Ends: Ensuring that no solid obstructions exist beyond the runway is crucial to minimizing post-landing collision risks.
Limitations of the Analysis
It is essential to emphasize that this analysis is speculative and based on publicly available information, including videos and eyewitness accounts. The official investigation will provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors leading to the crash, including mechanical failures, human error, and external conditions.
Conclusion
While the Jeju Airlines crash is undeniably tragic, it highlights the complex interplay between technical systems and human decision-making in aviation. The available evidence points to a combination of mechanical malfunctions and procedural lapses under stress. However, without the findings of the official investigation, these observations remain hypotheses. This incident serves as a sobering reminder of the critical importance of rigorous maintenance, strict adherence to safety standards, and comprehensive crew training to ensure passenger safety in all circumstances.
