The crash of Jeju Air Flight 2216, triggered by a devastating bird strike and dual-engine failure, has raised pressing questions around aviation safety, wildlife management, and airport emergency preparedness. Here’s what we know so far and what remains a mystery.

Originally cleared for an approach to Runway 01 at Muan Airport, Jeju Air Flight 2216 encountered a bird strike during descent, prompting the flight crew to declare a mayday to air traffic control (ATC) at 08:59 local time and subsequent and go-around. Video shows the landing gear is retracted for the go around. The aircraft subsequently touched down on Runway 19 with the landing gear still retracted at 09:02 local time and crashed head-on into an embankment at the end of the runway. The aircraft touched down 1,200 metres into the 2,800-metre-long Runway 19, leaving insufficient distance to come to a stop. Only two cabin crew members seated in the rear galley survived the crash.

Preliminary reports suggest the aircraft suffered a bird strike to both engines( first the left and then the right), resulting in a complete loss of power and hydraulic systems, which control the landing gear. Feathers and blood were found in both engines, confirming the bird strike.

The flight data recorder (black box or FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) ceased recording four minutes before the crash, hampering the investigation. It remains unclear whether the flight crew attempted an engine relight (the process of restarting an aircraft's engine after it has shut down or failed during flight) following the dual-engine failure. However, the fact that the aircraft landed on the opposite runway suggests that this was not feasible.

The loss of hydraulic power was a critical factor in this accident, as these systems control the aircraft’s essential flight surfaces—movable components on the wings, tail, and other structures that enable the pilot to manage the aircraft's movement and stability by manipulating airflow. Without hydraulic power, the landing gear could not be deployed, leaving the flight crew insufficient time to manually extend it using the gravity drop system.

The exact cause of the CVR and FDR failure remains under investigation, but it is likely due to the loss of power or electrical failure resulting from the engine failure. This absence of critical data has significantly hindered the investigation, leaving key gaps in the timeline of events. While it is unlikely, the possibility of crew interference with the recorders cannot be ruled out at this stage. Given the high-stress nature of the moments leading up to the crash and the complete loss of engine power, it remains unclear whether the crew would have had the time or motivation to disable the devices. Both the CVR and FDR have been sent to the United States for further analysis.

Weather reports at the time of the crash indicated favourable weather conditions, with few clouds at 4,500 feet and a very light wind from the south-southwest. Weather has been ruled out as a contributing factor in the crash. However, Muan Airport’s ATC advised the flight crew of bird activity at 08:57 local time.

One of the major issues highlighted by this accident is the urgent need for improved wildlife management to reduce the risk of bird strikes, as engine vulnerability to such events remains a significant concern. Several bird roosting and feeding grounds surround Muan International Airport, posing an ongoing risk to its operations.

Muan Airport's emergency response also faced criticism for delays in reaching the crash site. The crash occurred outside the airport's perimeter fence, in an area with uneven terrain, making access difficult for heavy emergency vehicles. Although the crash was reported quickly, miscommunication between ATC and emergency teams delayed dispatch to the correct location. Furthermore, traffic congestion on the perimeter road further hindered rescue efforts.

Outdated communication systems, inadequate firefighting resources, and a lack of proper access roads hindered the emergency response. The airport's preparedness for first aid and medical emergencies was also criticised, as its facilities were designed for minor incidents, not large-scale accidents.

Although too little, too late, in a positive step, South Korea will change the concrete barriers used for navigation at nine airports across the country following the Jeju Air crash. Seven airports will also have their runway safety areas modified following a review of all South Korean airports that has since been carried out.

There are notable similarities between this incident and the "Miracle on the Hudson" in January 2009, when a US Airways A320-214 ditched in the Hudson River following a bird strike and dual-engine failure. Had Jeju Air Flight 2216 touched down further up the runway, it is possible the aircraft could have stopped in the grass area, potentially avoiding the embankment collision. This raises questions about Jeju Air’s emergency protocols and the flight crew’s decision-making during the incident.

This tragic accident highlights critical gaps in aviation safety, wildlife management, and airport emergency preparedness. While Jeju Air and Muan International Airport operate in a region with unique challenges, the incident underscores the need for robust protocols to mitigate bird strike risks, ensure effective communication during crises, and enhance emergency response capabilities. Lessons learned from this disaster should drive improvements across the aviation industry to prevent similar tragedies in the future, and it is encouraging to see that such changes are already being implemented across airports in South Korea.