181–190 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely no. There is the suspicion that they even shut down the good engine after the bird strike.
> Absolutely > suspicion "suspicion" seems like fragile grounds for "Absolutely".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't know that for sure yet. The gear being down is based on an eyewitness report, as far as I understand from Juan Browne. The readout from the flight data recorder will provide a more trustworthy account.
If I recall right the video that purportedly shows the bird strike shows the gear down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Tell her she is wrong. It's an international airport with commercial traffic. 11th most busiest airport in the country.[0] 11th out of 15 total, servicing about 4 flights / 630 passengers per day on average using the very same statistics you've linked. That sounds like a pretty small airport to me, both in absolute and relative terms. "International airport" means very little outside of large nations like the US, Ru…
"International airport" means very little outside of large nations like the US, Russia, Canada, Brazil or China. In the U. S., at least, "international" just means there's a customs station. There are some pretty small airports that have "international" in the name. Fairbanks, Alaska, comes to mind.
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.
There was a similar accident in Hiroshima, Japan several years ago: Airbus A320-200 skidded past the end of the runway at similar speed and struck down ILS. It eventually stopped -- damaged the airplane but no fatality.
1. Localizer at Yeosu Airport, similar to Muan's, raises safety concerns, 2025.01.02 (23:58), KBS News.
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…
> 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. (Assuming the math is correct:) That's the average speed over that distance. The plane would have been slowing down the whole time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is discouraging investigation of the other factors or thinks they aren't significant.
Except they are and they do. The quoted "air safety expert" in the BBC article essentially says the landing was "as good as can be" and that most or all of the people onboard would have survived if the localizer berm wasn't present.
None of these people are calling for not investigating the other factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a few hundred meters would do nothing. I think the estimates I saw were over 150 knots Show you working. Not feelings because people don't have intuition for such unusual motion. You could equally have said "a few hundred meters would be enough."
150 knots is like 77 meters a second, a 747 can do like 2m/s^2 braking giving 35 seconds to stop, 1500 meters required. Stopping time: t=v/a, t=77/2. Stopping distance: d=v^2/2a, d=77^2/2*2
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. 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.
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.
Most of the busiest airports in the world have some sort of dangerous obstacle roughly the same distance from many of their runways. Ravines, buildings, hills, water, trains/trams, etc, etc.
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.
Like doing what things? What I read so far is that they suspect the pilot had control issues. I don't think people who say that it's a bad idea to have a concrete wall at the end of the runway argue the plane should make its way to a nearby motorway. I think most refer to using EMAS, ie a crushable concrete floor in which the plane sinks and stops.