Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

Change

"the aircraft involved was making four flights a week between the airport and Bangkok" to "the aircraft type involved was making four flights a week between the airport and Bangkok".

[Rationale: Clearly flights on that route were not operated only by the specific aircraft involved in the accident, that's not how airlines work. Jeju operates around 3 dozen B738s]. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Source specifically states "Flight 7C 2216, the airliner that crashed, traveled between Bangkok and Muan four times a week." Unless you have a source that supports your request, I'm afraid it can't be made @DaveReidUK CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The source IS correct; but it does not support the statement that cites it, although you don't appear to understand the difference. A better form of words (which the citation does support) would be "The airliner that crashed was operating Flight 7C 2216, that traveled between Bangkok and Muan four times a week". I hope that helps you to understand the issue. DaveReidUK (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo I believe DaveReidUK is correct here – just because the same flight number was used for all flights on this route doesn't necessarily mean the same aircraft was used for all such flights. Toadspike [Talk] 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike @DaveReidUK I'm totally fine to be proved wrong here, and I don't doubt that that's the case, but the source itself does not make that distinction. The exact text of the source more makes it sound as if that plane specifically is flight xyz, not that it was one of multiple on one route, which is an absolute pain in the ass. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems both are right, strangely enough. The source does say "flight 2216 traveled four times a week", which technically doesn't imply only this aircraft, but flight tracking websites do show aircraft HL8088, specifically, flying from Bangkok (VTBS) to Muan (RKJB) five(!) times between 22/Dec and 29/Dec: once on the 22nd, once on the 23rd, once on the 26th, once on the 27th, and the accident flight on the 29th — all numbered as flight 2216. Further data also confirm this was the only aircraft carrying out this flight number since the 22nd, with various others doing that job before then. At this point this might qualify as original research, maybe, but the claim is technically correct, if poorly phrased. —Lokarutlot (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for confirming. This is exactly the kind of technicality a journalist might miss, but if more technical sources confirm it, then I drop my objections. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I suppose whoever wrote it in the source didn't know better to distinguish a plane's tail number from a flight number but still came to the correct conclusion by chance due to this specific situation — which, on second read, is what I think DaveReidUK meant on their second message. Could still mean we might need an extra source verifying it was indeed the same aircraft and not just flight number (archives of flight trackers?), but I'll defer that to someone who actually knows policy better than me. Lokarutlot (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but the solution seems pretty clear to me. Leaving aside the fact that the source conflates "aircraft" with "flight", there appears to be a consensus here (supported by the source) that the flight number in question operates 4x per week from Bangkok to Muan. Why not simply leave the Wiki entry at that? Yes, it happens that the last few instances of that flight number were operated by the accident aircraft, but so what? - that has no more relevance to the accident than the (equally verifiable) fact that the aircraft flew on plenty of other servicew, on other routes, in between times. Nobody, as far as I can see, is suggesting that events would have been any different had the flight been operated by a different tail number, so the past history of that specific tail number is totally irrelevant and any reference to its history is needlessly confusing and unnecessary. DaveReidUK (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I was mostly going off of What's Already There, but I tend to generally agree with this sentiment, to be fair. Until some unknowns are answered, weekly time or distance flown have no bearing on the outcome of this flight (despite what some media outlets have been suggesting). A rewrite along the lines of what you propose here (e.g. "and the Bangkok-Muan flight operated four times a week, a service[...]") seems appropriate. Lokarutlot (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is original research and I'm not advocating for anything to be added based on this, but this is a case of poor English quality in a source. See this log of airframes used on that flight number, showing that while the same airframe made the flight for a few times, it was changed out every week or so. Furthermore, the sentence implies that the flight to/from Bangkok was all the airframe was doing - i.e. it was stationed in Muan and flew to and from Bangkok exclusively - which is also not true, it having flown many other routes within East Asia (including Japan, Malaysia, and Taiwan). I recommend changing the sentence to and the airline was operating four flights a week between Muan and Bangkok - this can be cited to the same source in my opinion, as it's just an editorial change. I don't believe that the information that this airframe had made 4 prior rotations to Bangkok (spread in between many more rotations to/from other destinations) is worth including at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Well put, and thank you for summarising the above discussion so succinctly. This one appears to have been dumped by the editors in the “too difficult” tray and abandoned, with the result that the article continues to contain a “fact” that is demonstrably not true, citing a misunderstood source written by a journalist who clearly doesn’t understand how airlines work. Not a great advert for Wikipedia and its administrators, nor for common sense.DaveReidUK (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection for 8+ hours now, I'll go ahead and make my suggested change referencing this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@DaveReidUK: Done now. Keep in mind, Wikipedia operates on consensus - not on what one editor thinks is most important. Further, it actually is true as I point out that this specific airframe had made the last 4 (or 5, I don't remember) flights on this route, so while it's incomplete, it's not "demonstrably not true" even if it is barely so. At the time of the crash, the airframe had operated 4 flights per week to Bangkok. But again, Wikipedia operates on consensus, even when it creates delays, hence why I was not willing to just change this while it was under discussion here without giving others a chance to reply. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I'd say that pretty well all the contributors above to the debate had already indicated they had no problem with the proposed change. I stand by my criticism of the way that was ignored by the administrators, however it's water under the bridge now.DaveReidUK (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

On the conditions of the go-around (protected edit request 2 January 2025)

Quoting from the #Accident section:

A minute later, it issued a mayday alert. At 9:00 a.m., the plane attempted an emergency landing, being forced to go around after the landing gear was not deployed. A minute later, it received authorization to attempt a landing from the opposite direction.

This reads as if the crew attempted to continue the approach after the bird strike, experienced a landing gear deployment failure, then performed the go-around and the belly landing, which is not supported by the given sources. Only The Independent has a timeline that kind of alludes to that, but that itself looks like a slight misread of other sources.

According to Reuters, BBC, and the AvHerald (all of which are already reference in the article), the crew declared "mayday, bird strike, going around" and immediately discontinued the approach. This was followed by a request to land on the opposite direction, which they were cleared for^­†, a 180° turn, and a touchdown without the landing gear (unknown if it failed, as somewhat alluded to by the current text), all within less than three minutes. The sources given also agree the crash against the ILS structure happened at 09:03 LT, not "between 9:03 and 9:07" as stated in the beginning of the following paragraph, with the touchdown having been some time after 09:02.

Proposed rewrite:

Two minutes later, the crew declared mayday, citing a bird strike had happened, and advised ATC they were going around. At 9:00 a.m., they requested clearance to attempt a landing from the opposite direction, which they were then given at 9:01.

Though also requesting help from more experienced editors on phrasing here.

^†Speaking of clearances, this passage also uses the terms "authorization" and "authorized" (for landing/to land), which I imagine might be direct translations by existing sources from Korean material (perhaps "허가" also meaning "permission"? See also Wiktionary and Collins dictionary entries) — the proper phraseology in English for landing (and other) permissions is "clearance" and "cleared" (as I've used them in the proposed rewrite), but I'm unsure if that specific rewrite qualifies as OR. For what it's worth, the AvHerald does phrase it as "[ATC] clears the aircraft to land".

References

— Lokarutlot (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like another instance of an assertion in the article that isn't cited in the source. "Being forced to go around after the landing gear was not deployed" makes it sound as if the go-around was a consequence of not being able to deploy the gear. It is perfectly possible that the go-around decision was a consequence of the bird strike, and the confirmed fact that (as in any go-around) it was performed with the gear stowed does not rule out it having been previously lowered prior to the bird strike and then retracted for the GA. At the very least, the current wording needs to have a [citation needed] tag. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the current text is a combined (mis)interpretation of the timeline given by The Independent and the text in the BBC source, but as I said above, The Independent is the only source that says "9am: The plane attempted to land on the runway but failed to deploy its landing gear", all other sources saying 9am was the time of the go-around. I firmly believe the Independent either misinterpreted a different source or just wrote their timeline poorly, so even a [citation needed] wouldn't cut it and a rewrite is needed IMO. Given how close they were to landing (1.5~2.5 nmi?), they really probably did have gear down before the mayday. Lokarutlot (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done I've made some changes to that section to remove the times that are disputed or that are not reported as the same between sources. The wording is still quite awkward, so any editor should feel free to update it to flow better (ideally without re-adding the times that are different depending on what source is viewed). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

In section "Investigation", in the 6th paragraph starting "The barrier in question", change "about 250 meters (820 ft)" to "202 meters (663 ft)".

The distance is provided by reference 81 ""Exclusive: Muan Airport fails to meet safety regulations on localizer setup". The Chosun Daily. 31 December 2024. Archived from the original on 31 December 2024. Retrieved 31 December 2024." linked to in the previous sentence. Jcaron (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done: As a reliable secondary source which even cites its primary source, I see no reason not to include the exact number in the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025 (2)

Please change "Within the last year" under "Aircraft" to a more specific date. Please add a date to the first sentence under the "accident" heading.

Optional: Please change "a service that Jeju Air had begun on 8 December." to "a service that Jeju Air began on 8 December." JarJarInks (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Please change "Within the last year" under "Aircraft" to a more specific date. –  Not done: The cited reference does not specify any dates, although if you have sources that include dates, feel free to cite then.
• Please add a date to the first sentence under the "accident" heading. –  Done.
• Optional: Please change "a service that Jeju Air had begun on 8 December." to "a service that Jeju Air began on 8 December." –  Done. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Aviationwikiflight is it possible to use the December 2024 publication date (edit: of the source https://www.reuters.com/graphics/SOUTHKOREA-CRASH/MAPS/movawoejova/, which is the cited source for that sentence) as a basis to change "Within the last year" to "During 2024", or would that be considered OR? The source uses the phrase "over the past year," so I feel confident that its referring to 2024. (I'm new, so I'm unsure of the scope of the OR rule). Thanks for the other changes as well! JarJarInks (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I feel that would be inappropriate, as it requires us to assume things. In this case it's best to just say what the source says. Since it seems everything's been either done or not done I've marked this request as completed. If there's further discussion that results in a consensus to make a change to the date/timeframe, please open a new edit request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, could we add the "When" template to that statement? JarJarInks (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, I won't say not to add it (the page is no longer protected so if you feel it's necessary, you can add it). But I don't think it's really necessary, as this is a time frame directly used by the source. I do, however, doubt that any statement of "within the last X time frame the plane flew X times to (summary of destinations)" is actually useful - beyond a week or two before the incident. Generally speaking, planes fly a lot. That's common knowledge. It's unimportant exactly how many flights this plane had made in the past month, 6 months, in 2024, in the past year (past 12 months)... etc. And it's also unimportant whether the plane flew more international or domestic flights - because "international" versus "domestic" doesn't really mean anything - it's not like planes are stressed more for an hour long international flight as it would be for an hour long domestic flight. So if people feel strongly that it's unclear/causes confusion, I'd rather the entire statement just be removed - it's not really adding any useful information other than "this plane was a normal plane and flew places". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I would echo that - the annual utilization of the aircraft has little or no relevance to anything. And as for citing an article claiming that the aircraft would have undergone "minimal maintenance" both with Jeju Air and its previous operator Ryanair, and that the latter "may have overused" the aircraft shows pretty poor judgement IMHO. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@DaveReidUK @Berchanhimez Agreed. Statement removed per consensus. JarJarInks (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• See also > Similar accidents and incidents should include LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16 Another incident involving belly landing, though with no casualties :Polish Airlines Flight 16 Jakozaur (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)–  Not done.

Aircraft photo

Aerial view of Muan International Airport, taken around 1 PM on December 29, 2024, 4 hours after the accident

I found a photo of the aircraft taken 4 days before the accident and uploaded on Commons. File:Boeing 737-8AS Jeju Air HL8088, Jeju Int'l Airport, 25 December 2024 01.jpg Additionally, I also found aerial photo of the Muan Airport around 4 hours after the accidet from the same photographer, but the images are too small and maybe unnecessary for the article. I would like to ask for the opinions of other users.--Namoroka (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the copyright license is incorrect. It specifies non-commercial, but Wikimedia Commons requires commercial. I think the photo should be removed from commons unfortunately. seefooddiet (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope, please see the small grey icon on the bottom-right of the page. Only this post in the blog is released in CC BY by my request. All other posts in the blog are released in other license. They can specify the CCL for each post in Naver blog.--Namoroka (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah you're right, my mistake seefooddiet (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just uploaded the various photos of crash site from Youtube. Someone thankfully uploaded a video in 4K under free license. File:Jeju Air flight 2216, Muan Int'l Airport, 29 December 2024.webm--Namoroka (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Concrete Wall or Earthen Berm

It's my understanding that the object 2216 collided with was an earthern berm with a concrete structure at the top supporting the ILS array. Am I wrong? Many people are equating this disaster with the flight running into a concrete wall...almost like a crash test. Does anyone know if the earthern berm was added to a 'concrete structure' within AND thoughout the entirety of the obstacle or is my understanding of this accurate? Thanks Toastt21 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To raise the position of the localizer, about 10–19 concrete pillars were set up vertically, and a concrete slab was placed on top of them. Then, soil was covered over the structure, creating a mound. See the graphic here and here--Namoroka (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the number of antenna elements in the localizer array with the number of concrete pillars supporting the slab. There is no reason why each element should need to be supported by its own individual pillar - they aren't that heavy (for obvious reasons), and neither graphic suggests that that's the case.DaveReidUK (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, localizer and concrete pillars are not connected to each other. (That's not what I meant.) Localizer was installed on the concrete slab, not pillars. image By the way, most Korean media outlets refer to it as a "concrete berm." (콘크리트 둔덕)--Namoroka (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@DaveReidUK and @Namoroka, FYI, the concrete "pillars" are properly referred to as piers (at least in the U.S.). They are commonly used under concrete slab-on-grade foundations in areas with active soils to prevent the slab from sliding sideways or heaving; in this case, they were presumably added to keep the slab from creeping down one side of the berm. By the way, most Korean media outlets refer to it as a "concrete berm." I suspect this is a good example of inexact translation. Carguychris (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

For perspective, even locals didn’t appear to know what that thing is [1]. Borgenland (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

More accurately, he knew what it is (as would any other pilot), but he didn't know it had a concrete core under the "pile of dirt". DaveReidUK (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"28 minutes"

"Prior to its final trip, the mandatory aircraft pre-flight maintenance was recorded to have been done in 28 minutes – the minimum time allowed by South Korean government regulation". This sounds like nonsense to me. The statement cites an article in the Korea Times (the same article that contains unsubstantiated claims about both Jeju and Ryanair having a "minimal maintenance" policy).

Leaving aside the fact that the pre-departure checks will have different elements for the various members of the 737 family (Classic, NG, Max) and so are unlikely all to require the same elapsed time, I've never heard of a government (or, presumably, its aviation regulator) stipulating a minimum time for specific maintenance checks. I think this is another candidate for omission on the grounds that it's unsubstantiated and probably not true (the aircraft was on the gate at Bangkok for around 90 minutes), but I'd appreciate thoughts on citing an article which at the very least contains some dubious value-judgements and may well be an author with a not-very-well-hidden agenda. DaveReidUK (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@DaveReidUK et al, after reading the cited article, I think this is may be another muddle caused by inexact translation. See this little gem at the bottom: "This article from the Hankook Ilbo, the sister publication of The Korea Times, is translated by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Times." The news story never really details exactly what the mechanics are complaining about. ...I've never heard of a government (or, presumably, its aviation regulator) stipulating a minimum time for specific maintenance checks. Neither have I, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

That being said, I think the "28-minute" tidbit needs some context from aviation experts before including it in the article. WP:NOTNEWS is relevant here; this crash is one of the biggest news stories in recent South Korean history, and The Korea Times/Hankook Ilbo has an incentive to scoop every snippet of information before their competition does, regardless of whether it has any value. This could be a case of some mechanics grousing about annoying and obscure government-mandated maintenance checklists that have no actual bearing on this event, amplified by overeager news media in "print now, ask questions later" mode. Carguychris (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, and I'd go even further. We should ideally not generally be using AI translated articles when the original can be used. Even if that means waiting for a native Korean speaker to explain what the native Korean article says and then we can cite that article itself. So I'd support removing that statement until it can be either clarified from the original language source, or better sourcing found overall. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the passage pending WP:RELIABLE information that it's relevant in some way. Carguychris (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Runway safety areas in the United States

The relevance of the fourth paragraph in the Airport barrier section seems questionable to me. This article is about a crash in South Korea, not the history of runway safety areas in the United States. Carguychris (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's so wildly irrelevant to remove it. The paragraph begins with the ICAO guidelines (international), points out that the US recommendations exceed ICAO recommendations, and then explains why the US does - because the US previously had a somewhat similar crash that led to increased death because of an overrun. Whether this is the best way to include this information, or the best location, I'm not sure. But I think it's certainly relevant that the US previously had a crash resulting in fatalities due to smaller runway safety areas, and that because of that crash they went to the trouble (and cost) of updating (and bringing into compliance) their recommendations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I added that section. To be clear, the cited source made it clear that the effort was not so much about bringing RSAs into "compliance", it was about updating domestic recommendations to exceed the ICAO guidelines and then spending $3 billion to try to meet those higher guidelines. It is relevant to show that this is not the first time a nonfrangible object past the end of a runway has had fatal consequences and that at least one other country has recognized as a result that it needed to go beyond the ICAO recommendations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)