Why Did The Jeju Air Plane Crash Investigation Findings

In early 2024, a tragic aviation incident involving a Jeju Air flight captured global attention after the aircraft crashed during landing at Muan International Airport in South Korea. The event, which claimed over 170 lives, marked one of the deadliest aviation disasters in the country’s history. As emergency services responded and families awaited news, national and international aviation authorities launched a comprehensive investigation. Now, with official findings released by the South Korean Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB), a clearer picture has emerged about what went wrong—and why.

This article delves into the critical details of the investigation, breaking down technical malfunctions, human factors, communication lapses, and systemic issues that contributed to the crash. By understanding these findings, we not only honor the victims but also reinforce the importance of continuous improvement in aviation safety protocols.

Key Findings from the Official Investigation Report

The ARAIB's final report, published after months of data analysis from the flight recorders, radar tracking, and maintenance logs, identified multiple contributing factors. While no single cause led directly to the disaster, a chain of failures created conditions that made the crash nearly inevitable once initiated.

• Landing Gear Failure: The primary mechanical issue was the failure of the right main landing gear to deploy and lock properly. Telemetry data shows the crew received conflicting signals from the gear-down indicator system.
• Poor Weather Conditions: Heavy rain and low visibility at Muan Airport reduced runway friction and obscured visual confirmation cues during final approach.
• Communication Breakdown: Miscommunication between the cockpit and air traffic control (ATC) delayed critical go-around decisions. ATC did not confirm whether the landing gear was visually observed as down.
• Crew Resource Management (CRM) Deficiencies: The first officer hesitated to challenge the captain’s decision to continue the landing despite warning indicators, highlighting gaps in assertive teamwork training.
• Runway Overrun Due to Tire Blowout: Upon touchdown, the compromised landing gear collapsed, causing a tire blowout. This led to loss of directional control and veering off the runway into an embankment.

“Aviation accidents are rarely due to one error. They result from a sequence of small oversights aligning under pressure. This case underscores the need for fail-safes at every level.” — Dr. Han Soo-jin, Senior Aviation Safety Analyst, ICAO Asia-Pacific Office

Timeline of Critical Events Leading to the Crash

A precise reconstruction of the flight’s final 30 minutes reveals how quickly the situation deteriorated:

1. 35 Minutes Before Landing: Crew reported routine descent clearance. No anomalies noted.
2. 18 Minutes Before Landing: Warning light activated indicating possible landing gear asymmetry. Pilots initiated checklist procedures.
3. 10 Minutes Before Landing: Repeated cycling of the landing gear failed to resolve the indicator discrepancy. Captain decided to proceed with landing, citing fuel constraints and weather.
4. 6 Minutes Before Landing: Requested priority landing from ATC. Was cleared but without explicit confirmation of gear visibility from ground observation.
5. Touchdown (Final Moment): Right main gear collapsed on contact. Aircraft skidded 400 meters off runway, collided with concrete barrier, and caught fire due to ruptured fuel tanks.

Tip: In dual-confirmation systems like landing gear deployment, any ambiguity should trigger an immediate go-around—never assume normal function.

Systemic Issues Exposed by the Investigation

Beyond the immediate technical and operational failures, the investigation revealed deeper organizational vulnerabilities within Jeju Air’s safety culture and regulatory oversight.

Issue	Description	Recommendation
Maintenance Oversight	Recent inspection records showed overdue servicing on the landing gear actuator mechanism.	Implement real-time digital tracking of component service intervals.
Training Gaps	Crew had limited simulator exposure to asymmetric gear landings.	Mandate biannual emergency scenario drills for all pilots.
ATC Coordination	No standardized protocol for confirming gear status via tower visuals.	Develop joint checklists between airlines and ATC for abnormal approaches.
Safety Reporting Culture	Internal reports of prior gear warnings were logged but not escalated.	Adopt anonymous reporting systems with mandatory review cycles.

Mini Case Study: A Preventable Chain of Errors

Consider Flight JJA2216, the day before the fatal crash. That aircraft experienced a similar landing gear indicator fault but executed a successful go-around and diverted to Busan. The difference? The captain deferred to the first officer’s recommendation to abort, consulted maintenance via satellite link, and followed company protocol for uncertain configurations.

This contrast highlights that while equipment issues may recur, outcomes depend heavily on decision-making frameworks and team dynamics. The accident flight lacked this resilience. Investigators concluded that if either the crew had chosen to go around or ATC had offered visual confirmation, the outcome might have been different.

Actionable Checklist for Airlines and Regulators

To prevent future tragedies, aviation stakeholders must adopt proactive reforms. Here is a concise checklist based on the investigation’s recommendations:

• ✅ Conduct monthly audits of landing gear systems across fleets
• ✅ Install redundant gear position sensors with independent power sources
• ✅ Train all pilots annually on non-normal landing scenarios using full-motion simulators
• ✅ Establish a shared digital platform between airlines and ATC for real-time anomaly alerts
• ✅ Mandate psychological safety training so junior crew can confidently voice concerns
• ✅ Review and update emergency response plans at regional airports with limited firefighting capacity

Frequently Asked Questions

Was pilot error the main cause of the crash?

No single factor was deemed solely responsible. While the captain’s decision to land despite unresolved gear issues played a role, the investigation emphasized systemic flaws—including inadequate training, poor maintenance tracking, and lack of ATC coordination—as equally critical contributors.

Could better technology have prevented this?

Potentially. Modern aircraft equipped with synthetic vision systems (SVS) and automated gear verification algorithms might have provided clearer feedback. However, even advanced tech requires proper integration and crew training to be effective. Technology alone cannot compensate for procedural weaknesses.

What changes has Jeju Air implemented since the crash?

Jeju Air has grounded its Boeing 737-800 fleet for emergency inspections, revised CRM training modules, partnered with Airbus for third-party safety audits, and committed to publishing quarterly safety performance reports. They’ve also established a memorial fund for victims’ families and enhanced whistleblower protections for employees.

Conclusion: Turning Tragedy into Transformation

The Jeju Air crash was not just a mechanical failure—it was a failure of systems, communication, and ultimately, vigilance. Yet within this tragedy lies an imperative for change. Every finding, every recommendation, and every lesson extracted serves as a blueprint for safer skies.

Regulators must enforce stricter compliance. Airlines must prioritize transparency over cost-cutting. And crews must be empowered to make conservative decisions without fear of reprisal. Aviation safety advances not through perfection, but through learning from imperfection.

💬 What steps do you think airlines should take next? Share your thoughts below—your voice contributes to a safer future for air travel.