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

221–230 of 365 posts

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

#221

Post by jmward01 »

inoffensivename wrote: post #92

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?…

These were my thoughts exactly. Even if they lost all engines/power/hydraulics they would have had 8 mins to start up the APU so gear and flaps wouldn't have been an issue and clearly they still had some control. Did they try to go around and lose all power on the go? Gear up landings do happen in GA but I can't think of the last commercial aviation gear up landing. There will probably be a lot of useful things coming out of this. Changing design and placement of structures at the end of runways probably isn't a big one though.

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

#223

Post by loeg »

markdown wrote: post #193
loeg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... the degree of control they have over the plane on landing suggests they have some degree of hydraulic control. It's possible they throttled down the wrong engine, but this is speculation at this time. Landing gear has a manual gravity release by the first officer that doesn't require the hydraulics. (But does take some time.) Ground effect was certainly involved (why they glided so far before touching down) but…

> Landing gear has a manual gravity release by the first officer that doesn't require the hydraulics. (But does take some time.) You have to reach all the way back to do it, difficult to do with all the other shit going on.

Yes.

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

#224

Post by hyperific »

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?

Maybe the footage from runway cameras was sequestered for internal review.

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

#225

Post by hmcq6 »

markdown wrote: post #188
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.

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.

This is a slippery slope that leads to infinitely long runways.

Any length of runway you agree on can still fail. As you just said, it's an eventual certainty.

Rather than fixating on what didn't cause the crash how about we spend that energy on finding out why this flight unlike 99.99% of flights couldn't stop in the allotted space.

If they were gonna land halfway down the runway why didn't they just do another go-around? Did the thrust reversers not work? Doesn't the 737-800 have a backup way of dropping the landing gear?

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

#226

Post by timewizard »

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.

> The wall is a red herring.

This is not how safety works.

> Something bad is going to happen if you do that at any runway on earth.

Then the question is can we do any sort of engineering to reduce the number of fatalities that might occur when this _inevitably_ happens.

> Stop looking at the wall and look at the minutes before the crash.

The plane hit the wall and exploded. The wall seems pretty important here. I mean, yes, there are also other problems to solve, but solving them does not let you off the hook here.

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

#227

Post by yongjik »

dredmorbius wrote: post #204
dredmorbius wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the moment before encountering the Muan Murder Wall, there were 181 souls alive, healthy, and uninjured aboard Jeju Air Flight 2216. At the moment after encountering the Muan Murder Wall, there were 2 souls alive, one severely injured, and 179 corpses, most mutilated beyond all recognition. Multiple things had clearly gone wrong with the flight, and we're going to have to wait for results of investigations to dete…

I'm going through more of the Wikipedia category entries. AA 1420 (1999) is notable for similarities with Jeju 2216: The aircraft continued past the end of the runway, traveling another 800 feet (240 m; 270 yd), and striking a security fence and an ILS localizer array. The aircraft then collided with a structure built to support the approach lights for Runway 22L, which extended out into the Arkansas River. Such stru…

I looked up the AA 1420 crash report (linked from Wikipedia) and it says:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...

> The calculated ground trajectory indicated that the flight 1420 airplane departed runway 4R at about 97 knots and impacted the runway 22L approach lighting system support structure at about 83 knots.

97 knots is 112 mph. Somewhere below another commenter said Jeju Air 2216 left the runway at about 160 knots (184 mph). It's a pretty big difference.

I'm no expert, but my guess is that the main distinguishing factor of all the accidents where most/all survived is not the lack of killer berms, but the speed of the plane when it left the runway.

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

#228

Post by Aloisius »

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 sits uphill.

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

#229

Post by hmcq6 »

dmurray wrote: post #134
pfannkuchen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were those obstacles installed by the airport though? I thought it was like stuff on land outside of the airport for those other examples.

Does it matter? Either it's safe to have obstacles within 300m of the end of the runway, and this was a reasonable location for the Korean airport to put their localizer in, or it's not, and the likes of Burbank should shorten their runway to ensure there's sufficient buffer space at the end of it.

>and the likes of Burbank should shorten their runway to ensure there's sufficient buffer space at the end of it.

... you can't be serious with this? 300 more feet of unused runway is equivalent to if not better than 300 feet of buffer. You're fixated on following the "rules" without any understanding as to why they exist.

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

#230

Post by mmooss »

neom wrote: post #158
formerly_proven wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True! I misremembered, in the longer video it's hard to see that the nacelles are dragging on the ground all the way. Still doesn't seem to slow down much.

It was in gound effect floating till very near the end, these two video show the story very well: https://x.com/vinfly4/status/1873285591900836307 https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1hopl7d/longer_vi... As you can see, it actually isn't touching the ground for quite some time, it looks like it because one of the engines is smoking and the plane is throwing up dust etc from the ground as it floats above. Pure…

Assuming that's true, would earlier ground contact have saved lives by slowing the plane more before colliding with the barrier?

I don't know if we could expect the pilot to know about or expect the barrier there.

Post reply on HN