Latest news with #Flight2216
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.
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Time of India
Jeju Air flight veers off course in Vietnam months after deadly crash, no injuries reported
Representative image Jeju Air, South Korea's top low-cost airline, faced another safety scare when one of its planes ran into minor trouble while landing at Da Nang International Airport in Vietnam, local news reported on Wednesday. Jeju Air Flight 2217 from Incheonbriefly went off course while landing at the airport at around 12.50 AM (1.50 AM Singapore time) on Tuesday. The plane, which had 183 passengers on board, quickly got back on track and landed safely. No one was hurt, but the landing gear tyres were damaged. The airline replaced the tires in Da Nang and deployed a replacement plane of the same type, Boeing 737-800, for the return flight. The return flight took off at 4.08 PM on the same day from Da Nang International Airport, 14 hours and 38 minutes later than the initially scheduled time. Jeju Air's fleet comprises mostly Boeing 737-800 planes, which was also the model of the ill-fated Flight 2216. Officials from South Korea's ministry of land, infrastructure and transport are conducting an investigation to determine the exact cause of the incident. This comes months after Jeju Air faced a serious accident on December 29, 2024, when Flight 2216 crash-landed at Muan International Airport in South Jeolla province. The plane slid off the runway and hit a berm that surrounded a concrete structure. It exploded on impact, killing almost everyone on board. Only two crew members sitting at the back of the plane survived.
Straits Times
29-05-2025
- General
- Straits Times
Jeju Air plane damaged in botched landing at Vietnam airport, no injuries
The tires on the plane's landing gear were damaged after it veered off course while landing at Vietnam's Da Nang International Airport. PHOTO: REUTERS SEOUL - Jeju Air, under public scrutiny after the deadly crash of Flight 2216 that killed 179 in late 2024 , had another scare recently when one of its planes experienced minor difficulties while landing at Da Nang International Airport in Vietnam, according to local news reports on May 29 . Jeju Air Flight 2217 from Incheon veered off course for a moment while landing at the airport in Vietnam at around 12.50am (1.50am, Singapore time) on May 28 . The aircraft carrying 183 passengers immediately returned to course and no one was injured, but the tires on the landing gear were damaged in the process. The airline replaced the tires in Da Nang and deployed a replacement plane of the same type — Boeing 737-800 — for the return flight. The return flight took off at 4.08pm the same day from Da Nang International Airport, 14 hours and 38 minutes later than the initially scheduled time. Jeju Air's fleet mostly comprises Boeing 737-800 planes, which was also the model of the ill-fated Flight 2216. Officials of South Korea's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport are conducting an investigation to determine the exact cause of the incident. Jeju Air, one of the leading budget carriers in Korea, suffered a major blow when Flight 2216 belly-landed at Muan International Airport in South Jeolla Province on Dec 29, 2024. The plane overshot the runway and crashed into a berm encasing a concrete structure, leading to an explosion that killed all of those onboard except two crew members in the back. The Transportation Ministry has confirmed a bird strike on at least one of the engines, but the exact details of the accident remain under probe. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Korea Herald
29-05-2025
- Automotive
- Korea Herald
Jeju Air plane damaged in botched landing; no injuries
Plane momentarily goes off course while touching down in Da Nang, sustains damages to tires Jeju Air, under public scrutiny after the deadly crash of Flight 2216 that killed 179 late last year, had another scare recently when one of its planes experienced minor difficulties while landing at Da Nang International Airport in Vietnam, according to local news reports Thursday. Jeju Air Flight 2217 from Incheon veered off course for a moment while landing at the airport in Vietnam at around 12:50 a.m. on Wednesday. The aircraft carrying 183 passengers immediately returned to course and no one was injured, but the tires on the landing gear were damaged in the process. The airline replaced the tires in Da Nang and deployed a replacement plane of the same type — Boeing 737-800 — for the return flight. The return flight took off at 4:08 p.m. the same day from Da Nang International Airport, 14 hours and 38 minutes later than the initially scheduled time. Jeju Air's fleet mostly comprises Boeing 737-800 planes, which was also the model of the ill-fated Flight 2216. Officials of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport are conducting an investigation to determine the exact cause of the incident. Jeju Air, one of the leading budget carriers in Korea, suffered a major blow when Flight 2216 belly-landed at Muan International Airport in South Jeolla Province on Dec. 29, 2024. The plane overshot the runway and crashed into a berm encasing a concrete structure, leading to an explosion that killed all of those onboard except two crew members in the back. The Transportation Ministry has confirmed a bird strike on at least one of the engines, but the exact details of the accident remain under probe.
New York Times
01-05-2025
- General
- New York Times
Jeju Air Disaster Prompts a Reckoning Over Runway Safety
Jeju Air Flight 2216 did not have to end in such a catastrophe. Early on Dec. 29, a clear Sunday morning, the Boeing 737-800 made an emergency landing on its belly at South Korea's Muan International Airport. The aircraft skidded past the end of the runway, smashed into a concrete structure and burst into flames. Of the 181 passengers and crew members aboard, 179 were killed. Runway excursions — when an aircraft overruns or veers off the runway during landing or takeoff — have for years been among the most common type of aviation accident. But in the vast majority of cases, the planes come safely to a stop, saved in part by zones around runways that are supposed to contain only structures that are frangible, meaning designed to break easily upon impact. The New York Times analyzed information on more than 500 runway excursions and found that 41 resulted in deaths. In 2010, 158 people died when a flight in India overran the runway and fell into a gorge. But no other runway excursion has come close to the death toll at Muan airport, according to the data, which was compiled by the nonprofit Flight Safety Foundation. Accidents in which planes hit breakable structures at the end of runways have tended not to be deadly: Damaged antenna structure Damaged antenna structure Damaged antenna structure Damaged antenna Damaged antenna Damaged antenna Path of plane Path of plane Path of plane Part of destroyed plane Concrete structure Part of destroyed plane Concrete structure Part of destroyed plane Concrete structure In October 2022, a Korean Air plane skidded off a runway in the Philippines amid heavy rain and collided with a metal structure. The structure, a mount for an antenna array used to help planes land, broke apart upon impact. All 173 passengers and crew members survived. In November 2018, a cargo plane also overshot the runway and crashed into a similar antenna mount in Halifax, Canada. The structure fell apart, and everyone on board survived. The Jeju Air flight in Muan met a different fate. In Muan, the antenna array mount was made of concrete, reinforced with steel beams. Sources: Alan Tangcawan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images;Transportation Safety Board Of Canada; Video by Lee Geun-young By Agnes Chang The story behind why a steel-reinforced concrete structure stood so close to a runway illustrates a longstanding vulnerability in global air transport. A United Nations aviation safety agency issues recommendations to keep the area near airport runways clear of obstacles. But it is up to national regulators and private companies that manage airports to interpret, implement and oversee compliance of those standards. Inquiries by The Times to airport regulators in more than two dozen countries revealed inconsistencies in how they interpret the standards issued by the U.N. agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
