Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mvynnxzzmo
334 コメント
The wall is a red herring. The plane landed halfway down the runway at high speed. Something bad is going to happen if you do that at any runway on earth. In SFO you'll end up in the bay or hit the terminal depending on the orientation. In Toronto you'll crash into a highway. Stop looking at the wall and look at the minutes before the crash.
I'll recite an avherald comment:
If you look at "Video of aircraft after touchdown sliding along the runway and impacting the fence:", you will find out that it took them ~1.7 sec from leaving the tarmac until they hit the construction. If you measure the distance on Google earth you come up with ~140m. That means they hit the construction with roughly 296km/h or 160 knots. If it wasn't the construction it would have been the treeline or something else. That plane was doomed, concrete construction or not.Lots of airports have obstacles not far from the end of the runway. Burbank, Midway, Orange County are a few that come to mind.
Why did they need to land when they did?
Why did they need to land so soon after the mayday call? (only 8 minutes from mayday to crash, as I understand it)
Why couldn't they land on a longer runway?
Why did they land so far down the runway?
What forced them to land in a clean configuration?
As an airline pilot, these are some of the questions I have. The flight data and cockpit voice recorders should be able to answer these questions.
Why did they need to land when they did?
Why did they need to land so soon after the mayday call? (only 8 minutes from mayday to crash, as I understand it)
Why couldn't they land on a longer runway?
Why did they land so far down the runway?
What forced them to land in a clean configuration?
As an airline pilot, these are some of the questions I have. The flight data and cockpit voice recorders should be able to answer these questions.
My wife is South Korean (from andong). I asked her and she looked at me like I'd grown a second head "because it's South Korea? We're a young country and that is tiny airport in the south, half of Korea is a safety hazard and you know that fine well, some freaking idiot put a wall there, oh well, it's korea" and walked off pretty angry I'd even asked.
I was wondering the same thing and suspected it was some safety feature (better for a plane to smack into said wall instead of crash into some populated area, etc) I had no idea he had to make the approach in the opposite direction.
Ate Chuet made a quick analysis about the crash: https://youtu.be/xUllPqirRTI. The wall is there because that area is regularly flooded, it serves for the ILS system, and it is unfortunately over the minimum legal distance for such an object.
Feels like a “pieces of flair” issue.
The runway should be as long as it’s required to be. If after (and before) the paved runway they need a length of open space, that should be however long it is required to be, too. Beyond that there could be a minefield, a pillow warehouse, an ocean, a mountain, etc. It shouldn’t matter.
The runway should be as long as it’s required to be. If after (and before) the paved runway they need a length of open space, that should be however long it is required to be, too. Beyond that there could be a minefield, a pillow warehouse, an ocean, a mountain, etc. It shouldn’t matter.
Just a message thinking for anyone reading who might have had some relative in this plane: sincere condolences.
A plane usually crashes because of multiple reasons. The fact that runway design was one of them is a big deal because it was a concern for all airplanes landing there not just one of them.
This is probably only the tenth or eleventh most-important question to answer about why this disaster happened, unfortunately.
The wall is a red herring 2. why was a commercial airliner attempting a no-gear belly landing with full fuel load on a runway that's only 2,800m, rather than divert to Incheon?
The title question is like the 20th in order of importance why this crash happened…
The graphic in the article is pretty misleading. The video of the accident shows the plane touching down with about a third of the runway left, not two thirds. All discussion of the localizer obstruction is secondary to (a) why did they touch so late and (b) why did they land so urgently.
Why are we seeing random videos of this from bystanders? Why are there not video cameras constantly recording the activity on the ramp and runways?
> At a news conference on Tuesday, Jeju Air's chief executive Kim Yi-bae would not be drawn when asked about the concrete wall.
I don't understand what means "would not be drawn"?
> Asked by a reporter if he thought the wall was a factor in the disaster, he did not give a direct answer and instead said it was right to call the plane crash the Jeju Air disaster, rather than the Muan Air disaster.
If I get this right, I think this CEO deserves props for not trying to point blame away. Let's see what investigation shows.
I don't understand what means "would not be drawn"?
> Asked by a reporter if he thought the wall was a factor in the disaster, he did not give a direct answer and instead said it was right to call the plane crash the Jeju Air disaster, rather than the Muan Air disaster.
If I get this right, I think this CEO deserves props for not trying to point blame away. Let's see what investigation shows.
> Firefighters said some bodies were scattered 100 to 200 m (330 to 660 ft) from the crash site while others were found mutilated or burnt among the wreckage.[61] Police officials said it would require over a week to identify the more than 600 human remains recovered.[62] Some family members provided officials with DNA samples at the airport to help identify the dead.[4] (Wikipedia)
Does this mean the crash was so violent that the 179 bodies disintegrated into more than 600 parts?
Does this mean the crash was so violent that the 179 bodies disintegrated into more than 600 parts?
Korean police have raided the airport offices
https://youtu.be/3D9BDIH553U
https://youtu.be/3D9BDIH553U
I was wondering what if they tried to turn whether by rudder or thrust differential would the outcome have been different/worse. Maybe you can't do much at that speed and so little room.
[deleted]
I don’t know why people keep fixating on this. Airplanes can’t skid out of the airport into the surrounding city. Mistakes were made, but this isn’t one of them. I suspect it is people trying to deflect blame from pilot error, which seems by far the most likely issue. They did none of the things you should do to stop a plane.
How much difference would an additional 50m have made?
I think this is disingenuous reporting.
It’s too early to actually draw a conclusion. We should wait for the full investigation.
There are a large number of compounding problems here. That was just the last one.
It’s too early to actually draw a conclusion. We should wait for the full investigation.
There are a large number of compounding problems here. That was just the last one.
Why is it always Boeing?
I have been to airports whose runway end in the ocean, a swamp, a mountain and a 5 lane highway.
Runway’s gotta end somewhere
[deleted]
So many things went wrong, and yet the pilots brought the plane down safely – and then this!? Just infuriating.