Written by Bart Meyer
(Reuters) – Doubt surrounds the deadliest plane crash on South Korean soil, experts said on Sunday, casting doubt on initial suggestions that a bird strike may have brought down Jeju Airlines Flight 7C2216.
The apparent absence of landing gear, the timing of the twin-engine Boeing 737-800 landing at Muan International Airport and reports of possible bird strikes have all raised questions that cannot yet be answered.
The single-aisle plane was seen in a video broadcast by local media sliding down the runway with no visible landing gear before it crashed into a wall amid an explosion of flame and debris.
“Why didn't the fire tenders put foam on the runway? Why weren't they present when the plane landed? Why did the plane land on the runway that low? And why was there a brick wall at the end of the runway?” said Aviation News Editor Geoffrey Thomas.
South Korean officials said they were investigating the cause of the accident, including a possible bird collision, which killed nearly all 181 people on board.
The flight data recorder was found at 11:30 a.m. (0230 GMT), about two and a half hours after the accident, and the cockpit voice recorder was found at 2:24 p.m., according to the South Korean Ministry of Transport.
“This gives you all the parameters for all the plane's systems. The plane's heartbeat is on the flight data recorder,” Thomas said. “The audio recorder probably provides the most interesting analysis of what happened in this tragic accident.”
Within a few minutes, the control tower issued a bird strike warning, and the pilots declared a mayday and then attempted to land, although it was not clear whether the plane had struck any birds, officials said.
Experts said it was unlikely that the bird collision caused a malfunction in the landing gear.
“Bird strikes are not unusual, and undercarriage problems are not unusual,” Thomas said. “Bird strikes happen often, but they usually do not cause the loss of the aircraft per se.”
“I've never seen a bird strike prevent the landing gear from extending,” Australian aviation safety expert Geoffrey Dale (NYSE:) said.
Australian aviation consultant Trevor Jensen said fire and emergency services were usually prepared for a belly landing, “so it appears this was not planned.”
Deal said the bird strike could have affected CFM International's engines if a flock had been sucked into them, but that would not have caused it to shut down immediately, giving the pilots some time to deal with the situation.
Dale and Jensen said it was not clear why the plane did not slow down after hitting the runway.
“Normally in a belly landing, you would land with your engines on and your flight would be bumpy,” Thomas said.
“You come in with minimal fuel, you have fire engines present, you cover the runway in foam, you land at the far end of the runway and it usually ends up being a good situation.”
