Jeju Air 737-800 gear up landing slams into wall

Skåning said:
Does your boyfriend who works at Boeing know when we will be getting more?
Click to expand...

3 this quarter, dadbod. 😍

That’s all that’s on the books and he says it’s unrealistic, since they are still training the machinists. The one we are supposed to get this month was promised in December…
 
Looks like this B73 wasn't RIPS compliant (didn't have to since the implementation date was "2009") and this aircraft was manufactured just before the cut-off date of the FAA mandate. So once both GEN are out, the only way to power the recorders is to switch the APU on pronto "a la Sully".
 
Last edited:
Inverted said:
I think the dual engine failure, or at least a complete, two engine out scenario is out based on the sound of this video.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-n2yPOywgM
Click to expand...

@MikeD

In this video, I'm perplexed by the suppression effort once ARFF had arrived and is engaging the fire and wonder if you could enlighten me on the fire attack. One of the rigs seems stationary, located a long way from the fire; one (also stationary) has the nozzle elevated to almost 90 degrees. In both cases the streams seem hugely ineffective for a fire of this size and intensity. I can't imagine much of the water in those broken streams is even hitting the target as it "rains" down.

Anything you might care to add that I might learn would be greatly appreciated in terms of tactics.
 
Bob Ridpath said:
One of the rigs seems stationary, located a long way from the fire; one (also stationary) has the nozzle elevated to almost 90 degrees. In both cases the streams seem hugely ineffective for a fire of this size and intensity.
Click to expand...

Good catch, they dont seem to be doing much, especially at that distance

1737354638075.png
 
Bob Ridpath said:
@MikeD

In this video, I'm perplexed by the suppression effort once ARFF had arrived and is engaging the fire and wonder if you could enlighten me on the fire attack. One of the rigs seems stationary, located a long way from the fire; one (also stationary) has the nozzle elevated to almost 90 degrees. In both cases the streams seem hugely ineffective for a fire of this size and intensity. I can't imagine much of the water in those broken streams is even hitting the target as it "rains" down.

Anything you might care to add that I might learn would be greatly appreciated in terms of tactics.
Click to expand...

They’re attempting to arc the finished foam onto the fire, one of the three methods for foam application. The truck with the nozzle nearly vertical is too close to fire to be attempting to do that; at their close proximity, they’d be better off attempting the roll-on method for the foam, shooting the ground just in front of the fire and pushing the finished foam into the fire itself. The first truck shown attacking the fire, has a good foam application going with a slight angle, closer to the aircraft, and moderate fog nozzle selection, putting some good foam on the fire.

With foam, at the pressure these guys are flowing, they cannot hit the fire directly with a straight stream. This will result in unfinished foam being applied to the fire, and very high temp pooled fuel fires like this one will just eat the unfinished foam, that never gets aerated enough to be able to form a vapor and cooling blanket, is thus ineffective, and just gets eaten up by the fire. This is known as plunging, and it results in high amounts of wasted foam and water, with little accomplishment in suppression.

The AA 383 engine fire at ORD in 2016, you can see the plunging happening in the ARFF truck cams, and the resultant low effect on the fire. Plus, foam/water has little effect anyway on a three-dimensional fuel fire. Crew here needed to cease the foam straight stream that wasn’t accomplishing anything except plunging, dismount a firefighter or two to pull a handline and actually be able to reach the seat of the fire that the crash trucks can’t, and deploy some form of dry chemical powder such as Purple K, in order to really take down that running fuel fire. The other ARFF truck nearly hitting them as it was leaving the scene, as well as the never ending activated PASS alarm, is also noteworthy.

Video here



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAf4XmoRRcU
 
MikeD said:
They’re attempting to arc the finished foam onto the fire, one of the three methods for foam application. The truck with the nozzle nearly vertical is too close to fire to be attempting to do that; at their close proximity, they’d be better off attempting the roll-on method for the foam, shooting the ground just in front of the fire and pushing the finished foam into the fire itself. The first truck shown attacking the fire, has a good foam application going with a slight angle, closer to the aircraft, and moderate fog nozzle selection, putting some good foam on the fire.

With foam, at the pressure these guys are flowing, they cannot hit the fire directly with a straight stream. This will result in unfinished foam being applied to the fire, and very high temp pooled fuel fires like this one will just eat the unfinished foam, that never gets aerated enough to be able to form a vapor and cooling blanket, is thus ineffective, and just gets eaten up by the fire. This is known as plunging, and it results in high amounts of wasted foam and water, with little accomplishment in suppression.

The AA 383 engine fire at ORD in 2016, you can see the plunging happening in the ARFF truck cams, and the resultant low effect on the fire. Plus, foam/water has little effect anyway on a three-dimensional fuel fire. Crew here needed to cease the foam straight stream that wasn’t accomplishing anything except plunging, dismount a firefighter or two to pull a handline and actually be able to reach the seat of the fire that the crash trucks can’t, and deploy some form of dry chemical powder such as Purple K, in order to really take down that running fuel fire. The other ARFF truck nearly hitting them as it was leaving the scene, as well as the never ending activated PASS alarm, is also noteworthy.

Video here



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAf4XmoRRcU
Click to expand...

Thank you, Mike!
 
Latest update from the South Korea Ministry of Transport is that the last data from the FDR has the aircraft at 498 ft MSL (900 ft baro altitude) at 161 knots KCAS at 08:58:56.

This last data, four minutes before the crash on Rwy 19, was on their first landing approach to Rwy 01.

My read is that they lost electrical power on short-ish final of an otherwise normal approach. Then somehow managed to fly for another four minutes and make an impossible turn.

I am unsure what the sequence of events of losing AC power and losing the corresponding engine might be on a 737NG (i.e. were the generators taken offline via checklist procedure or by circumstance).
 
I still can't work out how, even with a double engine FOD/damage/failure (which certainly seems to be the case), the FDR and CVR both failed what sounds like immediately after bird-ingestion. One or the other with a bum battery, ok, believable. But both? Instantly? Especially since (as minuteman points out with the "impossible turn" and the video seems to suggest by the sound) it doesn't seem like both engines quit entirely, instantly.
 
Minuteman said:
Latest update from the South Korea Ministry of Transport is that the last data from the FDR has the aircraft at 498 ft MSL (900 ft baro altitude) at 161 knots KCAS at 08:58:56.

This last data, four minutes before the crash on Rwy 19, was on their first landing approach to Rwy 01.

My read is that they lost electrical power on short-ish final of an otherwise normal approach. Then somehow managed to fly for another four minutes and make an impossible turn.

I am unsure what the sequence of events of losing AC power and losing the corresponding engine might be on a 737NG (i.e. were the generators taken offline via checklist procedure or by circumstance).
Click to expand...

Given your “recently increased interest in the airframe”, are you also studying this on a corporate level?
 
derg said:
Given your “recently increased interest in the airframe”, are you also studying this on a corporate level?
Click to expand...
Not really at this time, but very little data exists right now. I'm sure there's a radar track for the missing time, maybe security camera footage around the airport, and narratives that aren't public yet.

But that won't stop me from saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if the 737 had a RAT?" Maybe stick it where those airstairs aren't anymore. Have a little message to put on the EICAS.

It probably wouldn't change the outcome here after an apparent dual engine failure. But maybe they would have extended some flaps and have ground spoilers out.
 
Minuteman said:
Not really at this time, but very little data exists right now. I'm sure there's a radar track for the missing time, maybe security camera footage around the airport, and narratives that aren't public yet.

But that won't stop me from saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if the 737 had a RAT?" Maybe stick it where those airstairs aren't anymore. Have a little message to put on the EICAS.

It probably wouldn't change the outcome here after an apparent dual engine failure. But maybe they would have extended some flaps and have ground spoilers out.
Click to expand...
The 73 doesnt have a rat? I thought it did
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top