Regulations & Safety
Jeju Air Flight 2216 Crash Caused by Pilot Error and Bird Strike
Jeju Air Flight 2216 crashed due to pilot error shutting down the wrong engine after a bird strike, prompting new safety measures in South Korea.
The crash of Jeju Air Flight 2216 on December 29, 2024, has become one of the most scrutinized aviation disasters in South Korea’s history. The flight, en route from Bangkok to Muan International Airport, ended in tragedy after a dual engine failure and a series of missteps during emergency procedures. The South Korea-led investigation has revealed that the pilots shut down the less-damaged engine following a bird strike, a decision that critically contributed to the loss of all thrust and the eventual crash.
This article examines the background of the incident, the investigation’s findings, industry reactions, and the broader implications for aviation safety. We aim to present a balanced, evidence-based overview grounded in verified data and expert analysis.
Jeju Air Flight 2216 was a scheduled passenger flight operated by a Boeing 737-800. On December 29, 2024, while approaching Muan International Airport, the aircraft encountered a bird strike involving migratory Baikal teal ducks. Both engines ingested birds, but only the right engine sustained critical damage. The aircraft lost thrust and failed to deploy its landing gear, ultimately skidding off the runway and catching fire upon impact with a concrete barrier.
Of the 181 people on board, 179 lost their lives. The only survivors were two flight attendants who managed to escape the wreckage. This made the crash one of the deadliest in South Korea’s aviation history. Investigators quickly focused on the sequence of events following the bird strike, particularly the pilots’ decision-making under pressure.
Initial findings highlighted long-standing concerns about Muan Airport’s vulnerability to bird strikes. Environmental assessments dating back over a decade had flagged the airport’s proximity to wetlands and migratory paths as a high-risk factor. In fact, a bird-strike prevention committee convened just ten days before the crash, acknowledging the lack of personnel and ineffective deterrent systems. Despite this, no significant changes were implemented before the incident.
Flight data and cockpit voice recordings revealed that after the bird strike, the flight crew mistakenly shut down the left engine, which remained operational, instead of the right engine, which was critically damaged. The captain issued the command to shut down engine number two (the right engine), but the fuel cutoff switch for engine number one (the left engine) was activated instead. The fire extinguisher was also discharged on the left engine, effectively eliminating all available thrust.
This error severely compromised the aircraft’s ability to maintain altitude and speed. Compounding the problem, the landing gear was never deployed. The aircraft attempted a belly landing at high speed, which led to the runway overrun and collision with a concrete barrier. The lack of thrust and gear deployment created a scenario from which recovery was virtually impossible.
The Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) confirmed these findings in its interim report released in July 2025. The report emphasized that the left engine was fully functional prior to being shut down and that the right engine had failed due to the bird strike. The investigation also noted that the landing gear lever was never activated during the emergency procedures. “Shutting down the wrong engine reflects breakdowns in cockpit coordination and procedural discipline during cascading emergencies.”, John Cox, former crash investigator
The interim report sparked significant backlash from victims’ families, pilot associations, and aviation experts. The Korea Civil Aviation Pilots Association criticized the investigation for focusing too heavily on pilot error while ignoring systemic issues, including airport safety and infrastructure. Families of the victims also expressed frustration over the ARAIB’s reluctance to release complete flight recorder data and accused the agency of downplaying the role of the concrete barrier in exacerbating fatalities.
Independent aviation analysts have pointed out that bird strikes alone typically do not result in complete loss of aircraft control. Alvin Lie, an aviation analyst, remarked that landing gear failures are not commonly associated with bird strikes and suggested that other factors, such as crew disorientation or procedural lapses, likely contributed to the crash. Matt Driskill, editor of Asian Aviation, noted that the high-speed belly landing indicated significant deviations from standard emergency protocols.
Experts have also highlighted deficiencies in crew resource management (CRM). The pilots did not follow standard checklists and made unconventional maneuvers after the bird strike, including a climb and a downwind landing attempt. These actions reduced the time available for corrective measures and increased the risk of a catastrophic outcome.
Bird strikes are a well-documented hazard in aviation, particularly during takeoff and landing. According to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), there were over 19,000 bird strikes in 2023, with a notable increase attributed to climate change and urban sprawl affecting bird migration patterns. Globally, bird strikes cause more than $1.2 billion in damages annually.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) recommends wildlife hazard assessments and the use of radar and thermal imaging systems for real-time bird detection. However, only a minority of airports worldwide have implemented these technologies. Muan Airport, for instance, relied on periodic patrols and loudspeakers, methods considered outdated and insufficient by modern safety standards.
In the aftermath of the crash, South Korea mandated the installation of bird-detection radar at all domestic airports by March 2025. This move aligns with practices at major international hubs such as JFK and Denver, where integrated detection and deterrent systems are already in place. These systems combine radar, AI, and habitat management to reduce bird strike risks effectively.
The Jeju Air Flight 2216 crash was a tragic convergence of human error and systemic failures. While the immediate cause was the shutdown of the wrong engine, deeper issues such as inadequate bird strike prevention, insufficient training, and flawed airport infrastructure played significant roles. The incident underscores the importance of comprehensive safety protocols and the need for real-time hazard detection systems.
Going forward, the aviation industry must prioritize proactive risk management, especially in regions with known environmental hazards. Regulatory bodies should enforce ICAO standards more rigorously, and airlines must invest in CRM training that prepares crews for complex, high-stress scenarios. Transparency in investigations and infrastructure audits will also be key to restoring public trust and preventing future tragedies. What caused the crash of Jeju Air Flight 2216? How many people died in the crash? What safety measures are being implemented post-crash?
Jeju Air Flight 2216 Crash: Pilot Error in Engine Shutdown After Bird Strike
Background of the Jeju Air Crash
Bird Strike and Engine Shutdown Sequence
Expert Reactions and Industry Criticism
Global Context and Bird Strike Mitigation
Conclusion
FAQ
The crash was caused by a combination of a bird strike that damaged the right engine and a pilot error that led to the shutdown of the functional left engine, resulting in total thrust loss.
179 of the 181 people on board died. Only two flight attendants survived.
South Korea is mandating bird-detection radar at all domestic airports and revising pilot training protocols to include more intensive emergency response simulations.
Photo Credit: SCMP
Regulations & Safety
FAA Mandates Merit-Based Pilot Hiring in New Operations Specification
The FAA issues a mandatory directive requiring U.S. airlines to adopt merit-based pilot hiring and end race or gender-based recruitment programs.
This article is based on an official press release from the FAA.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has announced a significant shift in federal aviation policy, directing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue a new mandatory “Operations Specification” (OpSpec) for all commercial airlines. The directive requires carriers to formally commit to merit-based hiring practices for pilots and certify the termination of recruitment programs based on race or gender.
The announcement, released through the FAA newsroom, frames the initiative as a measure to “purge DEI from our skies” and restore a focus on technical qualifications. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the move aligns with President Trump’s Executive Order on Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.
This policy marks a sharp departure from the previous administration’s approach, with Secretary Duffy explicitly criticizing prior directives as “absurd” and emphasizing that safety must remain the sole priority in aviation recruitment.
Under the new FAA directive, all U.S. commercial carriers must adopt the updated OpSpec, which legally obligates them to certify that their pilot hiring processes are exclusively merit-based. The FAA stated that failure to comply with this certification could subject airlines to federal investigation.
In the official release, Secretary Duffy emphasized the administration’s stance that demographic factors should play no role in the cockpit.
“When families board their aircraft, they should fly with confidence knowing the pilot behind the controls is the best of the best. The American people don’t care what their pilot looks like or their gender, they just care that they are most qualified man or woman for the job.”
, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy
The FAA has indicated that the new OpSpec is a “commonsense measure” designed to increase transparency between passengers and airlines. While the agency acknowledged that it has already raised performance standards and dismantled internal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, the new mandate extends these requirements directly to private carriers. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford supported the Secretary’s position, stating that the agency’s primary focus remains the safety of the traveling public.
“It is a bare minimum expectation for airlines to hire the most qualified individual when making someone responsible for hundreds of lives at a time. Someone’s race, sex, or creed, has nothing to do with their ability to fly and land aircraft safely.”
, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford
The directive is part of a broader effort by the DOT to roll back policies established during the Biden-Buttigieg era. The press release explicitly mentioned the reversal of directives that “wasted time renaming cockpits to flight decks,” signaling a return to traditional aviation terminology and a rejection of language changes viewed by the current administration as ideological.
According to the FAA statement, the agency is acting on “allegations of airlines hiring based on race and sex,” though specific carriers were not named in the release. The mandate aims to ensure that technical knowledge, cognitive skills, and piloting experience are the only metrics used in hiring decisions.
This new OpSpec represents a significant regulatory pivot for the U.S. aviation industry. By formalizing “merit-based” hiring into a mandatory Operations Specification, the FAA is moving the issue from political rhetoric to regulatory enforcement. Airlines, which operate under strict FAA certification rules, will likely need to review their internal HR policies to ensure they can sign the required certification without legal exposure.
While major U.S. airlines have historically maintained that safety is their top priority, many had also publicly embraced diversity initiatives in recent years to broaden their pilot pipelines. The new directive may force a restructuring of these programs to avoid the threat of federal investigation. It remains to be seen how the FAA will define “merit” in a legal context if an airline’s hiring practices are challenged, or how this mandate will interact with existing equal opportunity employment laws.
What is an Operations Specification (OpSpec)? Does this ban diversity in hiring? What happens if an airline does not comply?
Transportation Secretary Duffy Announces Mandate for Merit-Based Pilot Hiring, Targets DEI Initiatives
New “Operations Specification” Mandate
Enforcement and Compliance
Shift in Federal Aviation Policy
AirPro News analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
An OpSpec is a legal document issued by the FAA to an airline that outlines the specific authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which the airline must operate. It is legally binding.
The directive requires hiring to be “exclusively merit-based” and demands certification that race or sex-based hiring practices are terminated. It frames DEI initiatives as contrary to merit-based principles.
According to the press release, failure to certify compliance with the new mandate will subject the airline to a federal investigation.
Sources
Photo Credit: Pilot Headquarters
Regulations & Safety
NTSB Report Blames FAA Airspace Failures for Deadly Potomac Midair Collision
The NTSB final report identifies FAA airspace design flaws and lack of collision avoidance tech as causes of the 67-fatality Potomac midair collision near DCA.
This article is based on an official report and press materials from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued its final report on the catastrophic midair collision between a Bombardier CRJ700 and a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk over the Potomac River. In findings released on January 27, 2026, the Board determined that the accident, which claimed 67 lives on January 29, 2025, was driven primarily by “deep underlying systemic failures” within the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) airspace design rather than simple pilot error.
The collision, which occurred approximately 0.5 miles southeast of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), resulted in the deaths of all 64 passengers and crew aboard American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated by PSA Airlines) and the three crew members of the Army Helicopters. It stands as the deadliest U.S. commercial aviation disaster since 2001, ending a 16-year safety streak for U.S. passenger airlines.
According to the NTSB’s Investigation (DCA25MA108), the probable cause was the FAA’s failure to separate helicopter routes from commercial approach paths, compounded by an overreliance on “see and avoid” visual separation protocols in a complex, high-traffic environment.
The NTSB report identifies the proximity of “Route 4”, a published helicopter route along the Potomac River, to the active approach path for Runway 33 at DCA as the critical flaw. Investigators found that the FAA had placed these routes without sufficient vertical or lateral separation, creating a hazard that went unmitigated despite previous safety recommendations.
At the time of the accident, air traffic control relied on pilots to visually identify and avoid other aircraft. However, the NTSB concluded that this method was inadequate for the conditions present on the night of the crash. Cockpit simulations conducted during the investigation revealed that the Black Hawk’s position lights were “barely visible” to the CRJ700 crew against the bright backdrop of Washington, D.C., city lights until mere seconds before impact.
“This complex and comprehensive one-year investigation identified serious and long-standing safety gaps in the airspace over our nation’s capital. Sadly, the conditions for this tragedy were in place long before the night of Jan. 29.”
, Jennifer Homendy, NTSB Chair
While the primary blame was placed on airspace design, the NTSB identified several contributing factors related to equipment and military oversight. The investigation found that the Black Hawk crew likely believed they were complying with the route’s 200-foot altitude ceiling. However, due to allowable equipment tolerances and airflow disruption caused by wing-mounted stores, the helicopter was actually flying at approximately 300 feet, 100 feet higher than the crew’s instruments indicated. This deviation placed the helicopter directly into the descent path of the incoming commercial jet.
The report highlighted a critical lack of collision avoidance technology on both aircraft:
NTSB simulations indicated that if the CRJ700 had been equipped with functioning ADS-B In technology, the crew could have received an alert 59 seconds before the collision, potentially allowing enough time to take evasive action.
One of the most startling revelations in the final report is the frequency of similar conflicts in the airspace surrounding DCA. The investigation uncovered that between October 2021 and December 2024, there were 15,214 occurrences where an airplane and a helicopter were separated by less than one nautical mile laterally and 400 feet vertically.
NTSB Board Member Michael Graham described the accident as the result of a “multitude of errors,” noting that the sheer volume of near-miss data suggests a failure by organizations to foster robust safety cultures that would have identified the risk earlier.
The revelation of over 15,000 proximity events in just three years raises serious questions about the efficacy of voluntary reporting systems and the FAA’s internal review processes. While the “see and avoid” concept is a cornerstone of VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight, applying it as a primary separation tool in one of the nation’s most restricted and congested airspaces appears, in hindsight, to be a calculated risk that failed.
This report will likely force a paradigm shift in how mixed-use airspace is managed near major metropolitan airports. The days of relying on visual separation for military and general aviation traffic operating underneath heavy commercial corridors may be ending, replaced by rigid positive control and mandatory electronic conspicuity.
In response to the tragedy, the NTSB has issued 50 new safety recommendations aimed at preventing a recurrence. Key directives include:
Following the accident, the FAA temporarily closed Route 4. The NTSB’s findings effectively recommend that this closure be made permanent or that the route undergo a drastic redesign to eliminate the conflict with commercial traffic.
Sources: NTSB Final Report (AIR-26-02), NTSB Investigation Page (DCA25MA108)
NTSB Final Report: Systemic Airspace Failures Caused Fatal Potomac Midair Collision
Probable Cause: Airspace Design and Regulatory Oversight
The Failure of Visual Separation
Contributing Factors: Technology and Equipment Gaps
Altimeter Discrepancies
Missing Safety Technology
A History of Near Misses
AirPro News Analysis
Recommendations and Path Forward
Sources
Photo Credit: NTSB
Regulations & Safety
British Tourist Arrested for Damage at Hong Kong International Airport
A British tourist was arrested at Hong Kong International Airport for damaging kiosks and carrying controlled substances. Charges include criminal damage and possession.
This article summarizes reporting by Fox News and local Hong Kong media.
A 35-year-old British national has been arrested in Hong Kong after allegedly destroying multiple check-in counters and airport equipment in a violent outburst early Monday morning. The incident, which took place at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA), was captured on video and has since circulated widely on social media platforms.
According to reporting by Fox News and local authorities, the tourist launched the attack at approximately 6:00 AM in Terminal 1. Witnesses and security footage show a man using a metal queue barrier to smash self-check-in kiosks and glass panels. Police arrived shortly after the disturbance began and detained the suspect at a nearby bus unloading area.
While the motive remains under investigation, the event has drawn significant attention due to the severity of the damage and the subsequent discovery of controlled substances in the suspect’s possession.
The rampage occurred in Aisle J of the departure hall, a busy section of the airport. Reports indicate that the suspect, who had been in Hong Kong since November 2025, arrived at the airport with the intention of purchasing a ticket to leave the city. However, for reasons yet to be confirmed, he became agitated and began damaging airport property.
Local media reports state that the man toppled railings and used a heavy metal stanchion to strike the screens of approximately 10 self-check-in kiosks. He also reportedly damaged service counters and a glass panel. Airport Authority staff intervened verbally, warning the man to stop, before police officers secured the scene.
Despite the destruction in Aisle J, the Airport Authority confirmed that overall airport operations continued without significant disruption. The damaged kiosks were immediately cordoned off and removed from service.
Following the arrest, the Hong Kong Police Force laid two specific charges against the tourist. The legal consequences for these offenses in Hong Kong can be severe. The primary charge involves criminal damage under the Crimes Ordinance. This offense covers the destruction of the airport’s high-tech kiosks and infrastructure. In Hong Kong, criminal damage is a serious offense; depending on the value of the property destroyed and the court’s ruling, penalties can include imprisonment.
During a search of the suspect’s backpack, police reportedly discovered four pills of sildenafil (commonly known as Viagra). Under Hong Kong’s Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, sildenafil is classified as a “Part 1 poison.”
Unlike in some Western jurisdictions where such medication may be more easily accessible, Hong Kong maintains strict controls. Possession of a Part 1 poison without a doctor’s prescription is a criminal offense. Offenders can face a maximum fine of HK$100,000 (approximately US$12,800) and up to two years in prison.
“Airport Authority staff and airport security personnel rushed to the scene and warned the man to stop causing further damage.”
, Statement attributed to Airport Authority Hong Kong
Security Response and Infrastructure Resilience
This incident highlights the vulnerability of open-plan airport terminals to sudden acts of aggression, yet it also demonstrates the effectiveness of rapid security deployment. While the physical damage to 10 kiosks represents a significant financial cost, the containment of the suspect before he could harm passengers or breach secure airside areas suggests that HKIA’s layered security protocols functioned as intended.
Furthermore, the immediate isolation of the damaged equipment allowed the airport to maintain operational continuity, a critical factor for one of the world’s busiest aviation hubs. The incident serves as a reminder for international travelers to be keenly aware of local laws regarding pharmaceuticals, as regulations regarding common medications can vary drastically across borders.
British Tourist Arrested Following Rampage at Hong Kong International Airport
Details of the Terminal 1 Incident
Charges and Legal Implications
Criminal Damage
Possession of Controlled Substances
AirPro News Analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
Sources
Photo Credit: X
-
Regulations & Safety4 days agoFour Killed in Tennessee-Registered Plane Crash Near Steamboat Springs
-
Regulations & Safety3 days agoJet2 Flight Diverts to Brussels After Violent Midair Altercation
-
Business Aviation5 days agoBombardier Exceeds 2025 Targets and Projects $10B Revenue in 2026
-
Business Aviation6 days agoBombardier Secures Major Challenger 3500 Order from Vista Global
-
Regulations & Safety5 days agoArik Air Boeing 737-700 Diverts to Benin After Engine Failure