World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Everything about this incident is just so fucking odd. That a bird strike could take out both engines isn't unheard of (see US Airways Flight 1549) but I've heard reports that there was a failed emergency landing attempt before the one that we saw video of, so they clearly had thrust enough to stay in the air for a go-around, and from the video we saw they carried in a ton more speed than I would expect if there had been catastrophic damage to both engines.
Except that the lack of landing gear suggests loss of hydraulic power from both engines... Except there is an emergency release that drops the gear on a 737 with just gravity, and there's no evidence this was even attempted.
Now it looks like some electrical systems, including power to the data recorders, died right at the start of the incident, which would require not just double engine failure but failure of the APU and backup battery systems. That just seems incredibly unlikely.
Catastrophic electrical failure several minutes before the crash, though, would suggest that it wasn't just a case of a panicked aircrew making a chain of bad decisions, which was my initial read of the situation and maybe the best fit for the rest of the circumstances.
I just can't think of a chain of events that could reasonably lead to all the failures in evidence while still allowing the aircraft to remain airworthy for two landing attempts.
And then you get to the horrifying fact that a relatively new and modern airport had a giant concrete obstacle in what would be considered the Runway Safety Area at a US facility... Like, what the fuck? That seems like it's designed to create this sort of a disaster.
The swiss cheese model says that a bunch of failures have to line up just to make one bad thing happen, but in this case it seems like only a few failures lined up and a bunch of bad things happened. This is highly unusual.
Depends on the field you're in. In IT cascading failures are common.
My gut tells me that there was also a sensor failure and that the pilots were operating on erroneous information, which caused them to take actions that ended up compounding the problem.
Only a few that we know of so far.
But here's the list I'm tracking -
Video footage and teardrop go around suggests neither engine was producing thrust.
Possible smoke in cabin making an already hard go around harder
Runway on wrong side of go around for primary pilot to have good visibility
Airport did not staff anti bird crew correctly
Airport does not have state of the art anti bird systems
Pilots decided on a go around instead of putting the bird struck plane on the ground for unknown reason. (Generally you continue your approach if you can) The unknown reason could be pilot error or a mechanical failure.
That's quite a lot to go wrong already.
Your comment posted multiple times. Lol
Must be one of those cascading failures I've heard about.
I know you joke, but likely not far from the truth. I was talking about misleading sensors, and this is an example of that - either my client didn't get a response from the server indicating that the comment was received and retried, or my server didn't get a response on OP's server. Either way miscommunication happened, and the result (repeated comments, and from what I can see received at different times too) is much worse than the desired result (one comment entry only).
It seems like everyone is talking about these cascading failures.
I didn't, but now I'm paranoid that whatever caused the comment to be sent multiple times is still going on 😅
Not sure what's going on but this comment has been posted like 10 times from your account on this thread
Uh, you ok bud?
Very odd, I swear I wrote the post only once. I was having slowness loading the page - maybe there was a problem with my client not being able to get a response from the server and retrying, or the server processing the post multiple times (timestsamps are odd too)? Kind of serendipitous though - one system not getting the data it expects, and defaulting to a behaviour that is unintended.
Must be one of those cascading failures we’ve been told about
Happens to me if I'm in an area of bad signal. It's like the post sends but you never get a sent receipt so it just keeps sending.
Why did you post this same comment nine times?
See the other threads. I Posted the comment once, but something (either client or server) kept posting it. It could have been a temporary misconfiguration (happened at least once before), a bug in the server code, or a combination of unreliable network and my client retrying.
Electrical failure doesn't absolutely require that the engines fail. Supposing you short the electrical system?
Like, United Air Flight 232 had an uncontained engine failure that then severed all three hydraulic systems. The real problem that the pilots faced wasn't "we've lost one of our three engines", but rather the secondary damage to other aircraft systems resulting from that failure.
I assume that there's some level of electrical system redundancy, but then, the same was true of the hydraulic systems on UA232 -- it just required a really unlucky failure, with the engine shrapnel hitting multiple things, to cause the redundancy to also be wiped out.
looks for WP page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Air_Flight_2216
I don't see how a hydraulic system failure alone would have caused the flight recorder to go offline.
But it does kinda sound to me like maybe they're talking about a bird strike causing some kind of secondary problems. Supposing a bird strike caused an uncontained engine failure -- which has happened before -- and that then caused secondary problems as bits of engine severed other things in the aircraft. What if those secondary problems were electrical in nature, rather than hydraulic?
EDIT: The landing was also apparently done without use of flaps. Looking online, it sounds like the lack of landing gear and flaps suggests that hydraulics weren't available. But I'd guess that a loss of electrical power to the hydraulic system, rather than the hydraulics themselves failing, could also explain such a situation.
EDIT2: If there's power loss, some aircraft have a ram air turbine that drops down to get a small amount of electrical power. I was thinking that that might have been usable as an indicator that electrical power was gone. In the video, I don't see that, but it sounds like a 737-800 doesn't have one. According to this, that aircraft is also apparently capable of being controlled to a limited degree even without electrical power due to mechanical connections:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/42565/does-a-boeing-737-800-have-a-ram-air-turbine-rat
That'd permit for them being able to bring the plane down the way they did, assuming that they didn't have electrical power.
Hydraulics and electric system are independent in commercial aircraft -- hydraulic pumps are directly driven from the engines, as are electrical generators. Redundancy is provided via independent loops/buses from each engine. A bird strike on its own is unlikely to be energetic enough to sever one of those independent systems, let alone all four. Losing both engines could do it, -- but again, they had enough thrust to attempt a go-around, so they weren't a glider immediately after the bird strike. The 737 is an old-school design, too, so most critical components have full manual reversion -- as long as you have airspeed and altitude enough to get to the runway, you can fly and land the plane just with cable controls and manual releases in the event of total electric and hydraulic failure.
I did a bit of reading from other sources and this particular aircraft predates the requirement for battery backup of the FDR and CVR, and the APU does not start up automatically on a power failure, so the failure chain for that part of the incident isn't as long as I initially thought. Still, lots of questions, and I think the simplest explanation so far is the aircrew panicking and making a survivable situation into a bloodbath.
I wonder if they had an electrical fire under the cockpit while flying.
The loose of systems normally segregated with multiple backup, the strange 2nd approach too fast without using the gears or flap...
Total chaos and panic... or system damaged because of the impact with birds.. or a drone? Damaged battery can produce a lot of heat and fire...
Hmm. Fair enough.
Looking at a couple other sources, it also sounds like ADS-B data stopped being transmitted prior to the landing. So that does seem like another data point besides the data recorder maybe cutting out arguing for some measure of electrical issues (which doesn't necessarily mean that the electrical system is damaged, but for power not to be going to part of the plane's systems).
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/jeju-air-2216-muan/
EDIT: I did also see a pilot talking about the video and pointing out that while the crew didn't get flaps or gear, they managed to deploy at least one thrust reverser. I'm not sure what drives that (Do you need hydraulics? Electricity?), but it might say something about what was available to them.
I don't believe the APU would be usable in flight, but they should have a RAT. Also don't black boxes have their own batteries?
You have normally 2 segregated electrical system (1 & 2) with, for each system, several sub-segregation (like primary, secondary, essential, secours with bus bars, contactors that can cut some non-essential systems depending on rules or switch in the overhead panel) and several sources of power (engines, apu, batteries, sometime rat).
Black boxes don’t have battery (to dangerous, the battery could destroy the recordings when damaged and that would also require specific maintenance) but normally they have several power source. Loosing power like that is strange and could indicate a fire or a maintenance problem (on board batteries should be able to work for at least 40min without engine... but they had a running engine as far as i know... that doesn’t make any sense).
APU can be run while flying, you must be below a certain flight level to use it (<FL100?).
737s don't have RATs. According to some 737 pilots I've seen commenting, the APU is operable in flight, but doesn't kick in automatically and would have required ~60 seconds to start. The main electrical generators don't automatically restart after tripping, either, so a scenario where electric power is hypothetically available, but a panicked or overloaded flight crew don't take the steps to bring it online, is plausible.
APU's absolutely are usable in flight, and if the plane is ETOPS certified (I don't know if Jeju is) then they even have to be able to start the APU at cruise altitude after cold soaking for 2+ hours
Good to know