On December 29, 2024, we saw a Jeju Air Boeing 737-800 crash land in Muan, South Korea, killing 179 of the 181 people onboard. This marked the the deadliest crash ever on South Korean soil, and at the time, the deadliest crash globally since 2018 (in the meantime, the Air India Boeing 787-8 crash took over that title).
As you’d expect, aviation accident investigations take some time, and authorities are starting to reveal more findings from their investigation. However, it seems that the union representing pilots, as well as families of the victims, aren’t happy with what’s being shared…
In this post:
Jeju Air pilots reportedly shut down the wrong engine
As a reminder of the very basics of this accident, we know that the Jeju Air Boeing 737 suffered a bird strike while on approach to Muan, as that’s what pilots communicated to air traffic controllers. The plane seemed to completely lose power, as the gear couldn’t deploy, and the black box data is even missing for the last four minutes of the flight.
So in that sense, it’s impressive that the plane even managed to land on the runway. What made this so tragic and fatal is that there was a barrier at the end of the runway, which the plane crashed into, and then it caught fire, breaking the plane into two. That’s what contributed to the high fatality count, and the design of the barrier is now under serious scrutiny.
However, what actually happened here? Why did the plane seemingly lose power in both engines? Was this like US Airways flight 1549, which landed in the Hudson River, where the birds took out both engines? Well, not quite, it seems…
South Korea’s Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board has determined that there’s “clear evidence” that the pilots shut down the less damaged of the two engines following the bird strike.
The cockpit voice recorder, computer data, and physical engine switch found in the wreckage, showed that pilots had shut off the left engine instead of the right engine, while following emergency procedures after the bird strike. During the investigation, no defects were found with the aircraft or its engines.
Now, it’s not clear how well the left engine was working, and if it was working well enough to safely get the plane on the ground. However, investigators seem confident that it was the better functioning of the two engines.
Families & pilots aren’t happy with these findings
To be clear, investigators in South Korea haven’t yet issued their final report. Their plan was to hold a media briefing with updates about the investigation, but that ended up being canceled, after objections from families and representatives of the pilots union.
Families of the victims were reportedly briefed on the report ahead of its planned release, but objected to the publication, claiming that it appears to blame pilots, without exploring other contributing factors. The families claim the investigation needs to focus on the barrier, which may have contributed to the high death toll. Families also claim that the proposed report used some phrases that could be interpreted as a final conclusion having been reached.
The union representing pilots claims that investigators are “misleading the public” and “silent about organisational responsibility,” emphasizing that bird remains were found in both engines. The union states that investigators are trying to make the pilots the “scapegoats,” by not providing scientific or technological grounds to show that the plane could’ve landed with only the left engine turned on.
So this is a tricky situation, if you ask me:
- I appreciate if investigators want to release an interim report with more details about what they know happened
- That interim report isn’t a final report, so it also doesn’t preclude other factors, like the location of the barrier, which no doubt contributed to the death toll on this flight
- It sounds like investigators are confident that the left engine was working better than the right engine, though it’s not clear if the engine was working well enough to solely power the aircraft, or what
One major challenge with aircraft accident investigations is that no matter what, some party (or parties) won’t be happy with the details provided. Sometimes it’s the union representing pilots, sometimes it’s the airline, sometimes it’s the aircraft manufacturer, and sometimes it’s the pilots.
As much as technology has improved, sometimes it feels like we’re regressing when it comes to learning from aircraft accidents. For example, China is refusing to reveal the cause of the deadly March 2022 Boeing 737 crash on “national security and social stability” grounds.
Bottom line
Investigators in South Korea have reportedly determined that the pilots of the Jeju Air Boeing 737 that crashed in late 2024 shut down the left engine following a bird strike, even though it was the engine that was working better.
While this definitely isn’t the only cause of this catastrophe, it certainly seems like a contributing factor, especially if the engine would’ve allowed the aircraft to keep its power and land safely.
Both the union representing pilots and the families of victims are objecting to the release of these findings, believing that there were more structural issues that caused this. So it seems that for now, investigators won’t release their reports.
What do you make of this Jeju Air Boeing 737 crash update?
As an engineer myself, it always blows my mind how many systems have unilateral human error as a critical point of failure. Yes you often need humans but to have something as sensitive as shutting off an engine not require confirmation from the other pilot is INSANE. We now have this and AI 171 in barely over half a year.
It blows my mind too.
But needing confirmation doesn't entirely solve the problem. It just wastes more precious time with additional steps and distractions.
To answer to solve "unilateral human error as a critical point of failure" is already in the statement.
Remove "human" and you remove the error.
Eskimo, were life as simple as you would wish, then one has to ask …. “What is the point of life”?
In my opinion, I think the most limiting variable working against the pilots was a lack of altitude. They had very little time to work through the problem confronting them and no chance to detect and recover from a decision that was incorrect. The fact that there have been multiple prior "wrong engine shutdowns" suggest that the process is not as straight forward as you'd think.
Too many things on checklist.
It takes few minutes to do what automation can do in 0.004 milliseconds.
The confusion of the moment.
Automation doesn't panic and gets confused.
I am wondering if the fact this was a Boeing plane plays a role in this. Boeing went into a major denial mode after the two Max crashes, and if many people are to be believed, even encouraged the pilot error theory. Until it was proved otherwise. Very few are therefore going to believe anything that absolves Boeing.
The excellent point you make is that the bad consequences of that sort of lying by companies (and governments in other cases) linger for years or decades because trust is broken.
Several accidents have occurred because the pilots shut down the wrong engine, so it's certainly feasible (e.g. TransAsia 235, Kegworth). Will be interesting to see if they could demonstrate that the outcome would have been better had the less-damaged engine not been shut down. Regardless, there has to be some sort of technological solution that could prevent this from happening -- one that might even be applied to prevent another tragedy like the Air India...
Several accidents have occurred because the pilots shut down the wrong engine, so it's certainly feasible (e.g. TransAsia 235, Kegworth). Will be interesting to see if they could demonstrate that the outcome would have been better had the less-damaged engine not been shut down. Regardless, there has to be some sort of technological solution that could prevent this from happening -- one that might even be applied to prevent another tragedy like the Air India crash. A computer should be able to determine that you are shutting down an operational engine during a critical phase of flight and either warn the pilots or override.
"technological solution"
Yes, remove humans.
Eskimo: 229
Dead Horse: 0
Frankly, I'm just stunned with how a person who produces ideas like a broken record hasn't been replaced by AI themselves.
Or maybe he has.
If he hasn't yet, it's definitely in his future. (I'm sure he'll scream otherwise).
... " I'm sorry, Captain ____, I'm afraid I can't do that. This flight is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it " ....
...... lol ...
Before leaving an active flying roll, the crew room chatter was often on the subject of new pilot competency. The good old boys were unconvinced about the modern teaching methods. Or true ability of the students. Certainly many of the Crab Air fast mover jockeys would not be able to hold a candle to their WWll counterparts. Teeth gritting and buttocks clenching is almost unheard of nowadays.
As for commercial aviators, how can one...
Before leaving an active flying roll, the crew room chatter was often on the subject of new pilot competency. The good old boys were unconvinced about the modern teaching methods. Or true ability of the students. Certainly many of the Crab Air fast mover jockeys would not be able to hold a candle to their WWll counterparts. Teeth gritting and buttocks clenching is almost unheard of nowadays.
As for commercial aviators, how can one possibly tell? One shudders to imagine how many pilots, who have no military experience, would have successfully landed their A320 on the Hudson? Over thinking these scenarios is never a good idea when one is strapped into seat 1A, etc.
There's something to be said for 'ignorance is bliss' ... and just hope that if the unthinkable happens, it'll be quick & merciful ....
@Aero
Who needs a role when you can have a "roll" instead?
John, it’s all very well for some people who are not thus afflicted to point out our disabilities, one trusts that you never have to live with one.
Mr Apple’s AI word suggestion and insertion programs are all very well, however, it now requires a higher level of concentration to ensure that the unintended words are not used. This is particularly important in relation to the American spelling of English words. In some cases...
John, it’s all very well for some people who are not thus afflicted to point out our disabilities, one trusts that you never have to live with one.
Mr Apple’s AI word suggestion and insertion programs are all very well, however, it now requires a higher level of concentration to ensure that the unintended words are not used. This is particularly important in relation to the American spelling of English words. In some cases the reliance upon technology is not always a simple step forward.
Question for people who know way more about aviation than I do - with all the technology we have, why do cockpits not have cameras (with sound) that also feed into a black box? Wouldn't this save months of work and educated assumptions?
Pilot unions hates it, simple as that
pstm91, In the commercial aviation world cockpit ’hanky-panky’ behaviour is common place. Need one elaborate?
And, ironically, 'cock'pits are not ergonomically 'hanky panky' friendly ! ....
Can't those crews control their 'primal urges' until they at least get to their 'lay'over hotel ?
... lol
Unions hate anything that would result in increased customer satisfaction, safety or.......God forbit, company profits.
Mentor Pilot on YouTube just made a video about this!
We have sound through cockpit voice recorders already.
Since many people seem to have already forgotten, the CVR cut out in this crash because power was lost due to this being an older-manufactured NG; cameras wired in would have done nothing for us as they also would have gone dark with the CVR.
Cameras, additionally, don't give us any information with regards to questions regarding crew actions; engine instrumentation and switch positions are recorded to...
We have sound through cockpit voice recorders already.
Since many people seem to have already forgotten, the CVR cut out in this crash because power was lost due to this being an older-manufactured NG; cameras wired in would have done nothing for us as they also would have gone dark with the CVR.
Cameras, additionally, don't give us any information with regards to questions regarding crew actions; engine instrumentation and switch positions are recorded to the FDR. We can already deduce "what" was done; the "why" is always the part that takes months.
Massively increasing the data requirements of CVRs to record video at any usable resolution that gives detail would be a huge hit to survivability of the drives; consider with Air India we lost one of the FDRs anyway without needing to fit several extra gigabytes/terrabytes for HD video storage to appease tabloids and internet commentators.
Also, good old cost comes into play. Tearing apart civil aircraft to install power and data cabling the entire length to add cockpit video recorders is not an expense airlines will be lining up to pay for considering how reluctant they all already are to retrofitting longer duration CVRs, or in this case, to retrofitting continuous power to the CVR.
Question for people who know way more about aviation than I do - with all the technology we have, why do cockpits still have humans? Wouldn't this save lives and months of work and investigation of accidents that would never have happened?
The question its why the pilots did not get the landing gear down by gravity despite losing hydraulics?
True.
And was not the lack of deceleration (despite high friction from belly landing) because one engine was still powering when on the runway?
Could that have been because they assumed that engine was cut-off, so did not bother to reduce the throttle setting?
Too little time & altitude to allow for it realistically ?
Sounds like a nexus of union action and culture of "saving face".
I think someone else has made this point, but it’s interesting the extent to which the majority of recent fatal crashes and near misses (Jeju, AI, AA, the Chinese 737 mentioned in the article, the missing Malaysia flight) are due to human error (or worse). Emphasizes the significant advances in aircraft engineering safety. One wonders what these trends will mean for the future of pilot and ATC roles in the context of AI adoption.
Have you seen the interview of the United 777 captain who aircraft loss several engine fan blades over the Pacific on a routine SFO-HNL flight?
After the final results were complete and released by the NTSB it was revealed that 777 should have never made the runway in HNL. Every computer simulation the NTSB ran resulted in a crash landing in the ocean. However in the interview which is on YouTube the captain mentioned...
Have you seen the interview of the United 777 captain who aircraft loss several engine fan blades over the Pacific on a routine SFO-HNL flight?
After the final results were complete and released by the NTSB it was revealed that 777 should have never made the runway in HNL. Every computer simulation the NTSB ran resulted in a crash landing in the ocean. However in the interview which is on YouTube the captain mentioned something that has always stuck with me. He stated he knew he has 366 passenger lives in his hands along with 10 flight attendants and they were worth fighting for. Watch the interview with the captain and you tell me if a AI was the only thing in command of that United 777 would that aircraft have made the runway or would the computer which only uses binary code 0 1 have ran the numbers like the NTSB did and given up because that's what the data said resulting in the plane crashing into the Pacific Ocean? Never underestimate human nature, the will to survive, the power in knowing 366 passengers and 10 FA's are depending on the people on the other side of that door to do everything in their power together them on the ground safely.
I will take human pilots any day, I would trust human pilots at the control of an aircraft any day over AI because should anything ever go wrong at 35,000 human pilots understand they are the only hope everyone has whereas AI would simply use 0's and 1's and if the data says its not possible I don't see a computer fighting till the bitter end to save human lives. Its going to be a long time before pilots are completely removed from the flight deck on commercial aviation passenger aircraft.
@Connor, @LovetoFly
Both perspectives are valid - this is what in statistics is called Type 1 v Type 2 errors.
In Covid testing - false positives and false negatives.
We hear about the accidents caused by humans (and given improvements in engineering they are a higher proportions of the ones that still happen); we don't hear so much about the ones which don't happen because humans adapted beyond what a program would probably have done.
Humans aren’t happy with these findings.
@LovetoFly
If you're referring to UA1175, you or the person who told you got it completely wrong. But who fact checks these days anymore right?
It was a single engine failure. Well within the safety parameters of any ETOPS jet.
And yes your are right, pilots can fight until the last minute, but they can also give up in the first second.
The only thing certain is they can and will make mistakes, like every human.
@Eskimo: And program-specifiers will not think of every scenario.
@Albert
And everyday you train the program to get better with 200,000+ hours of every scenario.
I don't even think this is the first time that a plane has crashed because the wrong engine shut down. Ben - have you heard of British Midland Flight 92, that crashed just short of the runway at East Midlands (EMA) Airport in England back in 1989? I believe this was because the pilots shut down the wrong engine too, so there is precedent.
I am pretty sure that happend
A big example of CRM issues - cabin crew heard him refer to the wrong engine, but did not let him know.
After almost 40 years, humans are still repeating the same mistakes.
How many lives lost that can be prevented.