Latest news with #Flight2216
Korea Herald
23-07-2025
- Korea Herald
Was pilot error to blame? Jeju Air crash investigation sparks controversy
Provisional findings suggest pilot may have mistakenly switched off wrong engine A recent government analysis suggests that the pilot involved in the fatal Jeju Air crash last December at Muan Airport in South Jeolla Province may have made a critical error by shutting down the left engine, which was intact, instead of the right engine damaged by a bird strike. However, the preliminary findings have sparked an outcry from the victims' families and the pilots' labor union at Jeju Air. They argue that the report unfairly places blame on the pilot, who died in the crash, before the investigation is complete. The Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board, under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, had planned to announce the interim results of its probe into the deadly crash of Jeju Air Flight 2216, which claimed the lives of 179 of the 181 passengers and crew onboard. But the announcement was canceled following a strong backlash from the bereaved families, who say the report overlooks other contributing factors. According to preliminary findings, a bird strike caused severe damage to Flight 2216's right engine. Despite this, the pilot reportedly shut down the left engine, which was undamaged. If confirmed, this would indicate that pilot error contributed, at least in part, to the crash. The plane landed on its belly, without the landing gear deployed. It skidded off the runway, collided with an embanked structure and exploded in flames. The investigation board told local media that shutting off the engine likely cut power to the system responsible for deploying the landing gear. Report not final, but complaints over 'bias' The conclusion of the ongoing investigation is expected by June 2026, when the final report will be made public. However, the bereaved families claim the investigative board was vague about the grounds for its preliminary findings, arguing that it unfairly implies that the main cause was human error. They said the report does not cover other crucial factors suspected to have led to the tragedy, like a potential defect in the aircraft or the presence of the earthen berm supporting the localizers that the plane crashed into. The berm had concrete structures inside, which is suspected to have led to a more destructive impact, causing the explosion and fire that led to the high casualty rate. One member of the family group said that when he asked the ARAIB about the integrated drive generator, a crucial unit inside the aircraft engine, the board said it was still under investigation. Kim Yu-jin, the head of the bereaved families' group, urged the ARAIB to provide detailed explanations in the report and to provide additional materials for every point of controversy. The full details of the report have not yet been made public, as a protest by victims' families during an unofficial briefing led to the cancellation of Saturday's planned press briefing. The ARAIB has denied the accusations of bias, saying that its findings are based on inspections of the engines and the flight data recorder. It said an investigation into whether the airport berm exacerbated the tragedy is still ongoing, with the results due as soon as late August.
Qatar Tribune
21-07-2025
- Qatar Tribune
Victims' families criticise report blaming pilot error for Jeju Air crash
Agencies An investigation into South Korea's deadliest air disaster has found that a pilot mistakenly shut off the wrong engine, local media has reported. All but two of the 181 people on board Jeju Air Flight 2216 were killed when it crashed into a barrier in December while attempting to land at Muan International Airport, following a bird strike on one of its engines. The release of the investigation, scheduled for last weekend, has been delayed after protests from the families of the victims who were briefed on its findings. They accused investigators of pinning the blame on the pilot while ignoring other contributing factors. On the morning of 29 December, the pilots of Flight 2216 reported a bird strike and made a mayday call as their aircraft approached the runway. The pilots then tried to land from the opposite direction. Video showed the plane making a belly landing - without landing gear - and skidding along the runway into a concrete barrier. The aircraft's two engines were sent to France in March for analysis. The recent findings from South Korea's Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board found that a pilot had turned off the left engine - which had no defects - instead of the right engine, which was severely damaged by the bird strike. However, families of the victims said that the report did not mention the concrete barrier at the end of the runway, which they argued is what made the accident so devastating. 'The bereaved families seek a fair and transparent investigation into the accident,' they said in a statement, and urged investigators to conduct a press briefing 'only after a full and careful examination has been completed'. In a statement on Sunday, the Jeju Air pilots' union similarly criticised the recent findings for allegedly focusing on pilots' misjudgement and downplaying other contributing factors. A source with knowledge of the probe, however, told Reuters that investigators would not change their findings as they had 'clear evidence and backup data'. Following the crash, South Korea's transport ministry said in January that it would remove concrete barriers at seven airports. In May, families of the victims lodged a criminal complaint against Jeju Air chief executive Kim E-bae, citing professional negligence. Mr Kim is among 24 people being investigated over the accident.
Saudi Gazette
21-07-2025
- Saudi Gazette
Victims' families criticise report blaming pilot error for Jeju Air crash
SINGAPORE — An investigation into South Korea's deadliest air disaster has found that a pilot mistakenly shut off the wrong engine, local media has reported. All but two of the 181 people on board Jeju Air Flight 2216 were killed when it crashed into a barrier in December while attempting to land at Muan International Airport, following a bird strike on one of its engines. The release of the investigation, scheduled for last weekend, has been delayed after protests from the families of the victims who were briefed on its findings. They accused investigators of pinning the blame on the pilot while ignoring other contributing factors. On the morning of 29 December, the pilots of Flight 2216 reported a bird strike and made a mayday call as their aircraft approached the runway. The pilots then tried to land from the opposite direction. Video showed the plane making a belly landing - without landing gear - and skidding along the runway into a concrete barrier. The aircraft's two engines were sent to France in March for analysis. The recent findings from South Korea's Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board found that a pilot had turned off the left engine - which had no defects - instead of the right engine, which was severely damaged by the bird strike. However, families of the victims said that the report did not mention the concrete barrier at the end of the runway, which they argued is what made the accident so devastating. "The bereaved families seek a fair and transparent investigation into the accident," they said in a statement, and urged investigators to conduct a press briefing "only after a full and careful examination has been completed". In a statement on Sunday, the Jeju Air pilots' union similarly criticised the recent findings for allegedly focusing on pilots' misjudgement and downplaying other contributing factors. A source with knowledge of the probe, however, told Reuters that investigators would not change their findings as they had "clear evidence and backup data". Following the crash, South Korea's transport ministry said in January that it would remove concrete barriers at seven airports. In May, families of the victims lodged a criminal complaint against Jeju Air chief executive Kim E-bae, citing professional negligence. Mr Kim is among 24 people being investigated over the accident. — BBC
Observer
20-07-2025
- General
- Observer
South Korea pulls plane crash report after families protest
MUAN, South Korea — South Korean officials on Saturday abruptly canceled the release of an intermediate report into the deadly crash of a Jeju Air passenger jet, after relatives of the victims disrupted a news conference, saying that the report was inadequate. The confrontational scene unfolded after officials had earlier briefed the families privately on the latest stage of the investigation. The officials were planning to publicly release some findings from an analysis of the engines on the Boeing 737-800 that crashed Dec. 29, killing 179 of the 181 people on board. A lawyer for the relatives, who saw the officials' presentation in the private meeting, said the investigators had found no fault with the engines and instead appeared to blame birds — which struck the engines minutes before it made an emergency landing — and the plane's pilots prematurely. 'The families did not get an adequate explanation,' said Pillkyu Hwang, the lawyer, speaking at a lectern in the Muan International Airport where the investigators of the crash had been expected to give their report. 'Depending on how you look at it, it kind of puts all the blame on the dead birds and the dead pilots,' he said, without specifying what details officials gave about the pilots' actions. 'Of course, that may be the outcome of the investigation. But that requires tremendous rigor and very careful wording. And something came out that wasn't careful at all,' Hwang said. The relatives' delegation said in a statement that the framing of the report could imply that conclusions had been reached when the crash was still under investigation. Many relatives said they feared the report could be misconstrued by the news media as being more definite than it truly was. The Transport Ministry distributed copies of its report to journalists as they waited in a meeting room for the news conference to begin. Kim Byung-chae, a ministry spokesperson, said the report would not officially be made public until the start of the briefing. But after the families burst in, shouting objections, the news conference was canceled. Officials took the copies back, declaring that the report had not been issued. Jeju Air Flight 2216 landed on its belly after reporting a bird strike and issuing an emergency call. The plane overran the runway and struck a concrete berm that housed navigation aids, bursting into a deadly fireball. Only two people — flight attendants at the back of the plane — survived. The cause of the disaster, the deadliest plane crash on South Korean soil, is still being investigated, hampered by the absence of a crucial piece of evidence: Flight recorders, known as black boxes, stopped recording for about the final four minutes of the flight. Investigators have previously disclosed that bird feathers were found in both engines of the plane, but have not addressed their role in the disaster. The report expected Saturday was about the engines, which were manufactured by CFM International, a joint venture between GE Aerospace and Safran Aircraft Engines. The start of the news conference was repeatedly postponed as reporters were told investigators were still speaking to the relatives in the nearby terminal building. After about an hour of postponements, chaos erupted in the room where the reporters waited. Some members of the relatives' delegation who had been speaking to the investigators stormed in, shouting. 'This briefing is not happening. Everyone get out!' one bereaved woman yelled. 'They've just blamed it all on the pilots!' a man cried out. Officials from the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board, dressed in black uniforms, entered the room. One began speaking into the microphone, saying over the shouting relatives that he was going to start the news conference. A group of relatives swiftly pushed him out of the room. Kim, the ministry spokesperson, said that the news conference was canceled and that investigators would consult further with the relatives. The report about the engine analysis could be rescheduled, he added. Kim Yu-jin, president of the relatives' delegation, said the families did not disagree with the report's findings but felt the presentation was unsatisfactory. 'When the investigators take a position, it should be accompanied by many documents that support their position and convince the bereaved family that their conclusions are inevitable,' she told reporters. 'But we were only given their conclusions and told they couldn't disclose the process or evidence that led them to those findings.' In the families' meeting with officials, she said the delegation had requested the original findings of the analysis of the engine, which was conducted by U.S., French and South Korean investigators in France, where Safran, one of the engine manufacturers, is based. 'We have repeatedly asked them to be careful about these disclosures because the way that the results of the investigation are communicated can have an impact on the compensation that families receive,' she told reporters. 'What we heard today did not take into account those things.' This article originally appeared in
Hindustan Times
12-06-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
Experts examine what could have gone wrong
The Boeing 787 aircraft that crashed soon after taking off — it spent all of 33 seconds in the air — from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport has left the aviation industry stunned, with experts examining what could have gone wrong with the 11-year-old aircraft carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew. Video evidence from a surveillance camera at the airport showing the aircraft's final moments provide some crucial clues about the accident sequence. It reveals the plane following a normal take-off trajectory before suddenly losing its ability to climb. Moments later, it slowly descends into the horizon and erupts into a ball of fire. According to officials aware of the matter, a Mayday call was issued by the pilots shortly after take-off. HT spoke to multiple experts on the possible scenarios that may have unfolded in the moments before the crash and while each of them cautioned that early clues were insufficient to draw conclusions, they agreed that the profile of the flight in its final moments — maintaining a nose-up attitude while descending — was consistent with sudden, severe power loss. 'A B787 aircraft has extremely powerful engines. It is hard to guess what went wrong. It looks like the pilot could not get adequate thrust and realised the issue immediately after take-off,' said Amit Singh, aviation safety expert and founder of Safety Matters Foundation. What led the plane to lose power would likely be at the centre of the investigation, said another expert. 'While nothing can be said by merely looking at the video, it could be possible that the crash was because both engines stalled. Investigations will reveal what led to the situation,' said Sam Thomas, president of the Airline Pilots Association of India (ALPA). That's an extremely rare event on a 787, with a probability of a 1 in billion flying hours. A third expert, Mohan Ranganathan, agreed that from the visuals, that it appeared there was 'a loss of thrust and compressor failure' — referring to the scenario when not enough air enters the engine, reducing thrust. One of the other scenarios that HT brought up was a bird strike which can potentially disable one, or in the extremely rare case of the December 2024 crash of Korea's Jeju Air Flight 2216, both engines. Thomas said the possibility was extremely slim. 'It is highly unlikely that a flock of birds hit both the engines leading to the crash,' he said. Ranganathan, however, added that 'during monsoons, bird activity around the airport increases and the airport is known for flocks of birds flying in its vicinity.' The runway surveillance footage did not have the typical signs of a bird hit, where flames or smoke is momentarily seen from an engine when birds are ingested. Another scenario involves determining what some experts said was a peculiar configuration of the plane in its final moments. In another video shot by a bystander with a closer view of the crash, the plane's landing gear is still extended but its flaps – a sort of wing deployed to generate lift – are retracted. 'That should not have been the case at all,' said Singh. A senior pilot, who asked not to be named, too drew attention to the landing gears having not been retracted as a crucial indicator. 'Landing gear is retracted after an average of 35-100 ft of climbing since the aircraft achieves what is known as a positive climb rate. As per Flightradar24, the aircraft achieved a height of 650 ft. The Ahmedabad airport is at an elevation of 180ft which essentially means aircraft achieved a height of around 400 ft. This indicates that something more systemic could have happened and was detected immediately after take-off,' said this person, suggesting the pilots may immediately have planned for a return. Other scenarios, experts said, would require investigation of whether there were problems with the fuel or the take-off weight, both of which could hamper an airliner's ability to climb. Aviation expert Vipul Saxena said that the aircraft would have had 100,000 litres of fuel for its non-stop flight to London. Saxena noted that the aircraft took off in clean configuration but faced challenging conditions. 'The aircraft experienced strong cross winds at atmospheric temperatures of above 30 degrees, which in itself could have caused certain amount of loss of lift,' he said. He highlighted the unusual landing gear configuration as a critical factor. 'Till the aircraft crashed, the undercarriage were still not retracted, which was very unusual and which too would have required more lift and, thus, more engine power,' he explained. The expert suggested a possible control system failure contributed to the aircraft's inability to recover. 'The situation seems complicated since the aircraft started sinking in a take-off attitude, which points to failure of one of the controls (may be flaps or elevators) that increased descent in take-off attitude,' Saxena said. The accident has raised broader questions about aviation safety standards. 'The 787 has been in revenue service with Air India under government management for 15 years, and it has been one of the safest Gen5+ passenger airliners ever made,' said Mark D Martin, MRAeS and CEO of Martin Consulting. 'It's shocking that, with qualified crew having extensive experience in flying hours and maintenance, we see a catastrophic incident such as this.' The pilots operating the aircraft were Capt Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kundar. According to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Capt Sabharwal was a line training captain with 8,200 hours of flying experience, while the co-pilot had 1,100 hours. Officials who knew Capt Sabharwal, who joined Air India in the late 1990s, described him as 'one of the best pilots of Air India' who 'always followed the rule book and was always sincere towards his work.' Only a detailed analysis of data from the flight data recorder, when it is found, will answer the questions that remain about Flight 171.
