Skip to content 
Investigators later found evidence consistent with bird strikes in the aircraft’s engines.
However, a bird strike alone did not immediately explain every aspect of the accident. Investigators needed to determine how the aircraft’s engines, landing gear, flight controls and other systems performed during the emergency.
This distinction is important because early reports about aviation accidents often change as investigators examine flight data, cockpit recordings and physical evidence.
Reuters reported that investigators continued examining the circumstances surrounding the engines and the aircraft’s final approach, and a final determination of responsibility has remained a subject of investigation.
## The Black Boxes
Investigators recovered the aircraft’s two important flight-recording systems, commonly known as the “black boxes.”
One is the **flight data recorder**, which records information about the aircraft’s speed, altitude, engine performance and other systems.
The other is the **cockpit voice recorder**, which captures communications and sounds inside the cockpit.
These recordings are crucial in determining what happened during the final minutes of a flight.
Investigators also examined the wreckage, the runway, weather conditions, airport infrastructure and possible bird activity.
Because aviation accidents are usually caused by a combination of factors rather than one simple mistake, investigators have examined the entire sequence of events rather than immediately assigning blame.
## Why Did the Plane Hit the Structure?
One of the most important questions concerns the structure located at the end of the runway.
After the aircraft overran the runway, it collided with a structure supporting airport navigation equipment and a substantial barrier. The impact dramatically increased the severity of the crash.
Later investigations and government reviews have raised concerns about the design and placement of the structure at the runway’s end.
In March 2026, South Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection reported problems involving approvals and the airport’s construction arrangements. Separately, an independent investigation was later proposed to examine issues including the bird-strike risk, possible engine or mechanical problems and the structure that the aircraft struck.
These developments show why determining the cause of the disaster is more complicated than simply asking whether the aircraft suffered a bird strike.
## The Human Cost
Behind the statistics were 179 individual victims and their families.
Many of the passengers were South Korean citizens returning from a trip to Thailand. Two Thai nationals were also among those aboard.
News of the crash brought large crowds of grieving relatives to Muan International Airport. Families waited for information while authorities worked to identify the victims and recover remains.
The tragedy became one of the most painful moments in South Korean aviation history.
Jeju Air’s chief executive apologized publicly following the crash and promised cooperation with investigators.
South Korea also declared a national period of mourning and designated the area around Muan as a special disaster zone.
## South Korea’s Worst Aviation Disaster
The Jeju Air crash was particularly significant because South Korea has a major commercial aviation industry and maintains high aviation-safety standards.
The Boeing 737-800 involved in the accident is one of the world’s most widely operated passenger aircraft.
The aircraft was approximately 15 years old and had been operating a flight from Bangkok to Muan.
The crash was the deadliest aviation accident involving a South Korean airline in decades and the deadliest accident on South Korean soil.
The disaster immediately prompted authorities to review airline operations and safety procedures.
## The Investigation Continues
Although the crash occurred in December 2024, questions about exactly what caused the disaster have continued.
Investigators have examined the possible role of bird strikes, engine performance, the aircraft’s landing configuration, pilot decisions, airport infrastructure and other factors.
In 2025, investigators reported information suggesting that one engine had sustained less damage than the other and that the aircraft’s engine shutdown sequence required further examination. Reuters reported that investigators had still not produced a final report at that stage.
By 2026, South Korean authorities and lawmakers were still facing pressure from victims’ families for clearer answers. Parliament subsequently moved toward an independent investigation into the disaster.
That continuing investigation is important because it means some claims circulating online should be treated cautiously. Statements about a single definitive cause should not be presented as established fact unless they are supported by the final investigative findings.