By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Sunday’s deadly Boeing 737-800 crash at Muan International Airport, another Jeju Air Boeing 737-800 experienced a landing gear malfunction, forcing it to return to Gimpo International Airport. The aircraft, carrying 161 passengers, landed safely after a reported malfunction shortly after takeoff. Passengers were transferred to a different plane and continued their journey to Jeju Island. The Sunday crash, involving a Jeju Air flight from Bangkok, resulted in 179 fatalities, with initial investigations pointing to a potential landing gear malfunction possibly caused by a bird strike.
Read the original article here
A second Jeju Air plane, the same Boeing 737-800 model involved in a recent tragic accident, experienced a landing gear malfunction. This raises serious questions about potential underlying causes, particularly given the alarming similarity to the previous incident.
The initial speculation regarding the first incident centered on a possible bird strike causing a hydraulic failure, potentially compounded by pilot error or pre-existing maintenance issues. This theory, however, faces scrutiny due to the complex interplay of systems within the 737, making a direct causal link between a bird strike and a complete landing gear failure improbable.
This skepticism is amplified by the occurrence of a second similar incident involving another Jeju Air 737-800. The recurrence strongly suggests a systemic issue, and points towards a more likely culprit: inadequate or compromised maintenance practices within the airline itself.
The reliability of the Boeing 737-800 is well-established; these aircraft perform countless landings globally without significant gear failures. Attributing the incidents solely to Boeing is akin to blaming Toyota for a wheel falling off a fifteen-year-old Corolla. The responsibility for regular maintenance and upkeep lies squarely with the airline operator, not the manufacturer.
Focusing on Jeju Air’s maintenance protocols becomes crucial. Reports emerged detailing extremely tight maintenance schedules, including instances where pre-departure checks were completed in only the mandated minimum time – a mere 28 minutes. Mechanics describe the intense pressure to prioritize operational efficiency over thorough safety checks, leaving little room for detailed inspections. This high-pressure, time-constrained environment makes it plausible that critical maintenance oversights could occur.
The pattern of these incidents, with similar issues affecting multiple Jeju Air planes of the same model, strengthens the argument for an internal airline problem. It’s statistically unusual to see multiple landing gear failures on the same aircraft type within a short time frame when the planes operate within a global fleet exhibiting no such pattern. This strongly implies the common denominator – Jeju Air – is the source of the problem.
The suggestion of parts sourcing issues, using potentially non-conforming or substandard parts, adds another layer of concern. This, coupled with reports of alleged cost-cutting measures and overworked maintenance crews, paints a disturbing picture of a potential systemic failure in Jeju Air’s maintenance practices that prioritizes speed over safety.
The fact that other airlines operating the same model of aircraft have not reported similar issues underscores the likelihood of an internal problem within Jeju Air. While Boeing’s past history includes regrettable incidents, the current scenario points strongly towards maintenance shortcomings as the primary cause. A thorough and independent investigation is imperative to determine the precise cause of these malfunctions and to ensure similar incidents are prevented in the future. The safety of passengers should always remain the paramount concern, requiring stringent oversight of airline maintenance practices and rigorous safety standards.
The implications of these incidents extend beyond Jeju Air. It serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of robust maintenance protocols, adequate crew training, and vigilant oversight within the aviation industry. The investigation into these incidents must be thorough and transparent, leading to actionable improvements in airline safety procedures globally.