Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 365 posts

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#241

Post by kijin »

MoreMoore wrote: post #161
reso wrote: post #149

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.

People keep saying that, but I don't see how it's excusable for there to be a massive concrete block against which planes disintegrate at the end of any runway. Maybe everybody would've died some other way, maybe only 10 people would have survived, who knows. But we won't know because somebody put a massive concrete block in the way. We aren't talking about any of your examples in this crash. And it isn't relevant fo…

Yes, especially because the concrete block is against regulations.

A terminal beside the runway at roughly the same distance is not against regulations.

Almost every rule in aviation is written in blood, so if there's a rule about something, there's probably a damn good reason why.

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#242

Post by sinuhe69 »

reso wrote: post #149

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 don’t think so. Would the localizer have been made of less rigid structure and not a steel-reinforced concrete, the fatality could be much lower. Also problematic is the brick wall at the end. They could make it as fence only and not a brick wall. That will help, too. Of course, one need to investigate the whole situation, for example why did the pilot choose to land immediately, why no flaps and spoilers were released and why no attempt has been made to manually release the landing gears (using gravity if needed) are things of intense scrutiny now.

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#243

Post by Xixi »

munchler wrote: post #198
markdown wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not this one. Not this one. Without the wall, it's likely many more would be alive.

Yes, this one. Just like the others, this airport had a dangerous obstacle at a considerable distance from the runway. It's not a design goal of these runways to make such a landing survivable.

Indeed, this one. But was it known to the pilots? The other dangerous obstacles you mention tend to be known and visible, not hidden and unexpected (against best practices).

The pilots didn't have to land there, they could have attempted a US Airways Flight 1549 rather than aiming at a piece of reinforced concrete.

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#244

Post by reso »

Xixi wrote: post #239
reso wrote: post #149

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.

You are making an assumption here, that I think is unreasonable: that the pilots (who have probably landed at this airport hundreds of times, it's not like they don't know the place) were expecting a large piece of reinforced concrete to be in the path of the plane. I'm speculating, of course, but pilots made the decision to land there (albeit in a very short amount of time). They probably made the reasonable assumpt…

You're making an assumption that the outcome would have been different if that wall wasn't there. You're wrong. 50m past that wall is another wall, 5m after that is a highway.

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#245

Post by inoffensivename »

Xixi wrote: post #239
reso wrote: post #149

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.

You are making an assumption here, that I think is unreasonable: that the pilots (who have probably landed at this airport hundreds of times, it's not like they don't know the place) were expecting a large piece of reinforced concrete to be in the path of the plane. I'm speculating, of course, but pilots made the decision to land there (albeit in a very short amount of time). They probably made the reasonable assumpt…

> I'm speculating, of course

People should stop doing this. Transport category airplanes are designed to suffer multiple failures and still be controllable. Why the airplane landed where it did, when it did, and how fast it did are the relevant questions.

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#246

Post by reso »

Aloisius wrote: post #228
reso wrote: post #149

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.

> In SFO you'll end up in the bay or hit the terminal depending on the orientation. The bay is survivable and I don't think you can hit the terminal. You could possibly hit the freeway though. That said, two of the runways at SFO are 1.5 km longer than the one in Korea. > In Toronto you'll crash into a highway. That runway is 1.5 kilometers longer than the one in Korea and it's another kilometer to the highway that s…

In Toronto, the 427 is ~100m from the edge of 24R.

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#247

Post by chii »

reso wrote: post #244
Xixi wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making an assumption here, that I think is unreasonable: that the pilots (who have probably landed at this airport hundreds of times, it's not like they don't know the place) were expecting a large piece of reinforced concrete to be in the path of the plane. I'm speculating, of course, but pilots made the decision to land there (albeit in a very short amount of time). They probably made the reasonable assumpt…

You're making an assumption that the outcome would have been different if that wall wasn't there. You're wrong. 50m past that wall is another wall, 5m after that is a highway.

the 2nd wall is a brick wall, rather than reinforced concrete (which is what seems to be the first wall).

I dont think the plane would get pulverized hitting a brick wall, and the distance will also slow the speed.

And the highway is not above the plane's travel axis, so the highway is a non sequitur. Not to mention even more distance to slow down.

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#248

Post by kijin »

munchler wrote: post #200
markdown wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a lame comment. This isn't how aviation safety is managed. You expect planes to land halfway down the runway at high speed and out of control. It's an eventual certainty. > 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. Ending up in a bay or crashing into a highway would likely have resulted in far less loss of life.

And hitting the terminal would likely have resulted in far more loss of life. Are airport designers supposed to consider this as "an eventual certainty"?

Terminals are generally located to the side of a runway at some distance, where a plane aligned with the runway is unlikely to hit them no matter how fast it's going.

Not sure if there's a regulation that requires this kind of arrangement, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are stricter rules about structures that cross a plane's usual trajectory.

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#249

Post by WeylandYutani »

WalterBright wrote: post #222

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?

Because bystanders are allowed to upload their videos while companies are not. Or is it normal for security camera footage to show up on the internet where you live?

Re: Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

#250

Post by pixelesque »

Xixi wrote: post #239
reso wrote: post #149

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.

You are making an assumption here, that I think is unreasonable: that the pilots (who have probably landed at this airport hundreds of times, it's not like they don't know the place) were expecting a large piece of reinforced concrete to be in the path of the plane. I'm speculating, of course, but pilots made the decision to land there (albeit in a very short amount of time). They probably made the reasonable assumpt…

Firstly, this airport has only been taking international flights since the early December.

There was also construction work going on at one end of the runway (until March), and the threshold was pushed back 300 metres, shortening the runway by that much:

http://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2024-10-31-AIRAC/html/...

The runway also is not flat (which is why the localiser beams at that end need to be raised in the first place to intercept the correct glideslope angle).

As the OP mentioned, trying this (a very fast landing, with no gear or flaps, spoilers) at many airports around the world on such a short runway (albeit one which with gear and flaps down is long enough for normal landings with the required 240 m runoff areas), is not going to work well.

Post reply on HN