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

Post by Aloisius » Mon, Jan 06, 2025, 5:42 AM UTC

reso wrote: post #246

Aloisius wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by russdill » Mon, Jan 06, 2025, 6:05 AM UTC

bink wrote: post #126

ynniv wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cause of death was landing halfway down a runway at high speed with no gear. Why were they cleared to land if they hadn't set flaps and locked gear? There was ocean in front of them both before and after their turn: landing there would have been more survivable than landing fast and hard with no gear. They were below minimum turnback altitude, and wouldn't have been able to complete the planned turn without the same…

They declared an emergency. It's typical in that scenario to be approved for whatever runway the pilot deems best... or golf course... or field.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 06, 2025, 6:32 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #208

likeabatterycar wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The pilots on 9/11 were intentionally directing their aircraft toward specific structures to maximise destruction, casualties, and terrorist impact. That was their express intent and mission for which they had specifically trained. In all likelihood the pilot of Jeju 2216 was not specifically directing his aircraft to the nonfrangible ILS Muan Murder Wall. There is no way to charitably argue otherwise.

Post by stouset » Mon, Jan 06, 2025, 6:52 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #258

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.

Right. Pilot boards agree on this. It's clear that the plane landed halfway down the runway at high speed, no gear, flaps, slats, or speed brakes. A runway overrun was inevitable from that point. Nobody knows yet why they landed in that configuration. Failed go-around? Engine out landing? Cut wrong engine after a bird strike? Loss of hydraulics? Too rushed for landing checklist in an emergency? All of those are possi…

Post by bonestamp2 » Mon, Jan 06, 2025, 6:57 AM UTC

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…