The South Korean crash involved a Boeing 737 again – are they safe to fly?

South Korea witnessed its worst aviation disaster in decades on Sunday, when 179 people were killed and only two survived.

While it was Jeju Air’s first fatal crash, it is not the first incident involving the Boeing 737.

Two other notable incidents, the fatal Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes in 2018 and 2019, claimed 346 lives and led to the grounding of all MAX 8 aircraft from March 2019 to December 2020.

In January this year, Boeing 737 MAX 9 planes were grounded after a cabin panel detached from a new jet.

The recent South Korean tragedy has once again placed the Boeing 737 under the spotlight, with many saying they’ll be “never flying Boeing again”.

Experts are now weighing in as people question whether the planes are safe.

‘Very safe’

“The 737 series of aircraft has been flying for decades … and we can be very sure that flying in them will be a very safe experience,” said one of Australia’s leading aviation experts Keith Tonkin.

Tonkin told 7NEWS.com.au that the 737-800 and other New Generation variants, have a similar number of fatal accidents per million flights to other popular aircraft, such as the Airbus A320 series.

With thousands of these aircraft flying worldwide every day, some are also in operation in Australia.

Tonkin explained that the process of approving an aircraft for flight is complex.

“Aircraft manufacturers first have to satisfy design and manufacturing requirements of their aviation regulator before the aircraft can enter service.

Then the individual aircraft operator (airline) must be approved to carry out the intended operation with that aircraft, by establishing appropriate operation and maintenance procedures, management and control arrangements and safety management systems,” he said.

Should we worry about birds?

Yonhap News Agency reported that airport authorities suggested a bird strike may have caused the landing gear malfunction that led to the deadly crash.

“Bird strikes are relatively rare, but not uncommon,” Tonkin said, adding that they “generally don’t result in significant damage.”

He said bird strikes are more likely to cause little or no damage to an aircraft, perhaps leaving dents on the edges of wings or the nose, while engine damage is rare.

While it’s difficult to stop birds from flying, measures have been put in place worldwide to reduce the risk of them colliding with planes.

Tonkin explained that airports typically have wildlife hazard management plans, which include monitoring bird activity, such as their numbers, types, and behaviours.

These plans aim to identify whether birds are roosting, nesting, or feeding near the airport and implement strategies to keep them away from flight paths.

Planning controls also play a role, with restrictions on developments like water bodies or food sources that could attract birds.

Some airports have even installed radar systems to detect birds, and others provide information on times of the day or year when the risk of bird strikes is higher.

Although there are reports of a bird strike being responsible for the deadly crash, Tonkin said this doesn’t explain why the pilots attempted a landing without properly configuring the aircraft by lowering the landing gear and extending the flaps.

Another aviation expert Gregory Alegi, also told Reuters that the bird strike report and the way the aircraft attempted to land raised more questions than answers.

“At this point there are a lot more questions than we have answers. Why was the plane going so fast? Why were the flaps not open? Why was the landing gear not down?” said Alegi.

Was the wall detrimental?

In the video, the plane is seen crashing into the wall at the end of the runway and exploding.

Some believe that if the wall hadn’t been there, it’s possible everyone on board might have survived.

Leading air safety expert David Learmount told Sky News that the concrete wall was the “defining moment” of the disaster.

“Not only is there no justification [for it to be there], I think it’s verging on criminal to have it there,” he said.

He believes the chances of survival would have been much higher if the wall hadn’t been there.

“He [the pilot] has brought it down beautifully given the circumstances, they are going very fast but the plane is still intact as it slides along the ground,” he said.

“That kind of structure should not be there,” he said.

In response to this theory, Tonkin explained that the plane struck what appears to be an earthen mound that supports antenna equipment for the instrument landing system.

Beyond this mound is the perimeter wall.

He noted that, while it would be ideal if the mound were not there, it may be allowed under South Korea’s airport design regulations and standards.