Plane Crash in South Korea

  • Thread starter Thread starter AGinAg (37)
  • Start date Start date
It has been flying non-stop with only 50 to 65 minutes interval in between its flights. Is it normal for a carrier to operate their plane like that?
1000000762.jpg
 
Merryna Santy 🧑🎄 said:
It has been flying non-stop with only 50 to 65 minutes interval in between its flights. Is it normal for a carrier to operate their plane like that?View attachment 32104
Click to expand...
For a short-haul, low-cost airline, this isn’t unusual, and the carrier seems to have a good safety record. It seems like everything went wrong at once - a bird strike caused an engine fire and damaged the hydraulics (people online saying it’s reverse thrusters weren’t on) and by the third landing attempt, they came in fast and far down the runway. If the cabin was full of smoke by then, they probably didn’t have much choice. The real disaster came from the structure at the end of the runway. Without it, the plane could have run off into the field and slowed down naturally via dig-in, even without the landing gear down.
 
Last edited:
I fly regularly and it doesn’t phase me at all but seeing that video really shook me :(
 
Yes, looks like the tail was largely intact.

So many strange things about this (setting aside the state of the runway) - the bird strike looks like it resulted in hydraulic failure but the landing gear can still be lowered by letting gravity do its job. Also, after two go arounds, why did the pilots not dump fuel, particularly if facing a belly landing. Such an odd chain of events.
 
Me only learning today that our Kratz is some sort of aviation expert / superfan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D5K
Kratz said:
For a short-haul, low-cost airline, this isn’t unusual, and the carrier seems to have a good safety record. It seems like everything went wrong at once - a bird strike caused an engine fire and damaged the hydraulics (people online saying it’s reverse thrusters weren’t on) and by the third landing attempt, they came in fast and far down the runway. If the cabin was full of smoke by then, they probably didn’t have much choice. The real disaster came from the structure at the end of the runway. Without it, the plane could have run off into the field and slowed down naturally via dig-in, even without the landing gear down.
Click to expand...

Moopy aviation expert Kratz delivering us the news before the BBC :o

Why was there a wall at the end of a runway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom