211–220 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally they land with flaps down, which reduces landing speed.
I've heard sometimes landing gear is also involved.. We really need a placebo controlled double blind study to learn if landing gear is actually effective of just a cargo cult like parachutes.. [0] https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a pilot. In the video it looked like the plane was only running on the rear landing gears, I assume with no brakes applied, since that would've caused it to violently pitch down I assume. Only in the last bit did it pitch down and started scraping along the runway. It certainly doesn't look like it was efficiently shedding speed (but looks can be deceiving).
I have been under the distinct impression for a long time that a plane slowing on the runway has very little to do with landing gear brakes.
Commercial jet aircraft utilise thrust reversers, speed (or air) brakes (usually control surfaces which can extend out from the aircraft fuselage or wings), and landing gear brakes.
The latter are not insignificant, but thrust reversers and speed brakes are major contributors, especially immediately after touchdown.
There's also the effect of spoilers which increase the load over the gear and hence the braking capabilities of landing gear brakes.
Jeju 2216 failed to utilise nearly all of these mechanisms. It landed without flaps, spoilers, or gear, and possibly w/o thrust reversers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obstacle obviously didn't cause the crash, but it's still probable that fewer people would have died if it wasn't there, and it seems to have been put there for no valid reason, quite recently, and against standard practice. Along with the reports that their bird control devices had not been implemented and that only 1 of the required 4 staff to repel birds were on duty. All these factors together may suggest an…
"Normal Accidents" is a term for when things, well, normally go sideways in complex systems, and there's a whole book on it. Otherwise, it's pretty typical in disasters for there to be a laundry list of root causes and contributing factors: the Titanic was going too fast, there was hubris, and icebergs, and it was sad when the great boat went down. Could the disaster have been missed or been less bad if one or severa…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To continue your idiom, it's not a red herring, it's the elephant in the room. Seriously, I think the incident it's a hard lesson for airport designer and ICAO. For better civil aviation safety, the next airport runway should have ample room for safer aircraft landing without landing gears. Previously there's no real-time aircraft tracking requirement for passenger aircraft only for cargo, but after MH370 it's mandat…
Very, very few airport runways are long enough for a plane without brakes to land halfway and be fine. It's simply not possible to build airports in useful places and guarantee three-mile runways.
Muan airport runway distance is one the shortest in Korea, less than 3 km and ironically during the incident reportedly there is an ongoing construction to increase the length of the runaway to more than 3 km, but effectively further shorten the runaway to 2.5 km (similar to Yangyang Airport). Strangely South Korea has many shorter runway international airports.
Most of the modern international airport have more than 4 km runway, and new major airports for example Qatar Doha, US Denver and SA Upington has runaway length close to 5 km.
[1] Operational Landing Distances: A new standard for in-flight landing distance assessment.
[2] Muan Airport runway previously shortened, impact under scrutiny:
I'll recite an avherald comment: If you look at "Video of aircraft after touchdown sliding along the runway and impacting the fence:", you will find out that it took them ~1.7 sec from leaving the tarmac until they hit the construction. If you measure the distance on Google earth you come up with ~140m. That means they hit the construction with roughly 296km/h or 160 knots. If it wasn't the construction it would have…
> it took them ~1.7 sec from leaving the tarmac until they hit the construction. If you measure the distance on Google earth you come up with ~140m. That means they hit the construction with roughly 296km/h or 160 knots. (Assuming the math is correct:) That's the average speed over that distance. The plane would have been slowing down the whole time.
So if we know the landing speed (which should come out of the flight data recorder), we'll know the terminal velocity given the average speed (distance/time) which is determinable from the video.
No doubt Jeju 2216 was moving hot, but a longer run could have bled off far more speed, and kinetic energy is based on velocity squared, so every bit helps a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But not this one. Not this one. Without the wall, it's likely many more would be alive.
Yes, this one. Just like the others, this airport had a dangerous obstacle at a considerable distance from the runway. It's not a design goal of these runways to make such a landing survivable.
How much difference would an additional 50m have made?
50m of runway? Not much difference 50m of arrestor bed? Some difference, probably meaningful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestor_bed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They declared mayday and then were on the ground in like 3 minutes. I think they probably just forgot gear given how rushed the landing was. We'll find out from the investigation.
Youtuber’s Denys Davydov (ex pilot of same plane), pet theory: bird got into the engine, pilot by mistake shut off wrong engine, due to no engine - hydraulic pump was non-functional, which resulted in landing gear problems. (also something about ground effect)
"TransAsia Pilot Shut Off Wrong Engine Moments Before Crash" (2015)
Taiwan aviation officials on Tuesday released a detailed report of how the pilot mistakenly shut off the plane's only working engine after the other lost power. "Wow, pulled back the wrong side throttle," the captain said shortly before crashing.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonwells/transasia-pi...>
I seem to recall a Mentour Pilot episode (YouTube channel) describing either that or a similar incident.
Point being that when things start going very wrong you've got to actively think to prevent making them worse.
The wall is a red herring. The plane landed halfway down the runway at high speed. Something bad is going to happen if you do that at any runway on earth. In SFO you'll end up in the bay or hit the terminal depending on the orientation. In Toronto you'll crash into a highway. Stop looking at the wall and look at the minutes before the crash.
What a lame comment. This isn't how aviation safety is managed. You expect planes to land halfway down the runway at high speed and out of control. It's an eventual certainty. > In SFO you'll end up in the bay or hit the terminal depending on the orientation. In Toronto you'll crash into a highway. Ending up in a bay or crashing into a highway would likely have resulted in far less loss of life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True! I misremembered, in the longer video it's hard to see that the nacelles are dragging on the ground all the way. Still doesn't seem to slow down much.
It was in gound effect floating till very near the end, these two video show the story very well: https://x.com/vinfly4/status/1873285591900836307 https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1hopl7d/longer_vi... As you can see, it actually isn't touching the ground for quite some time, it looks like it because one of the engines is smoking and the plane is throwing up dust etc from the ground as it floats above. Pure…