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

281–290 of 365 posts

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

#281

Post by dmurray »

hmcq6 wrote: post #229
dmurray wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. I agree with you: there shouldn't be a hard rule of "no obstacles within 300m of the runway, and the Muan airport authorities were negligent in having one".

If they'd shortened the "runway" by 300m (let's say the unused space was still tarmacked and empty, but not designated as a runway, although I understand there are better materials for arresting overruns) would all those people still have died and would people still be blaming the airport layout?

Perhaps the pilot would have made a different decision if the runway was advertised as 2500m instead of 2800m, but that also suggests people are looking at the wrong thing, and pilots looking for emergency landings should consider not only the runway length but also any buffer available.

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

#283

Post by fontrash »

carabiner wrote: post #278
neom wrote: post #99

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.

[flagged]

What the hell.

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

#284

Post by fontrash »

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?

Trying to get the conspiracy theories started early, eh? I would say I expect better from you, Walter, but at this point, I really don't.

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

#285

Post by N19PEDL2 »

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…

It is clear that the main cause of the disaster was the landing in the middle of the runway and at excessive speed. However, if instead of that concrete wall there had been, for example, an extension of the runway filled with some material that could help dissipate the kinetic energy, perhaps the death toll would have been lower.

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

#286

Post by user_7832 »

neom wrote: post #256
WalterBright wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason he touched down halfway down the runway could have been because the gear was up. If the gear was down, he would have touched down much earlier. He may not have known the gear was up, or did not account for the gear being up in his approach.

They executed a pretty difficult turn, apparently it's called the impossible tear drop and you're trained specifically NOT to ever do it. I looked at the flight tracking, I suspect the maneuver they pulled just put them at that point in the runway[1]. If you read my reply to the comment above you, it has some additional context you might find interesting. They pilots I watched all mentioned really, it doesn't make se…

> it's called the impossible tear drop

Minor nit, I believe it’s called the teardrop go around for such cases. You also have the impossible turn which is meant typically for engine/power failure during takeoff, and it actually is possible to be safely done - as demonstrated by the former ALPA Air Safety Institute Senior VP Richard McSpadden in one of his YouTube videos.

However, it can be deceptively difficult to have the right conditions to pull it off - as demonstrated by the ironically fatal crash that killed Commander (Ret) McSpadden (though iirc it was not clear if he was flying the craft at the time).

(Edits made for clarity/content.)

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

#287

Post by bagels »

dredmorbius wrote: post #267
bagels wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The choice of keeping the craft intact is much more likely likely to lead to a safer outcome, isn't it?

It's a vastly more challenging goal, with higher engineering, financial, and land-use requirements. Passenger survivial: Decelleration g-forces kept within a given threshold, evacuation slides operable, passengers cleared within 90 seconds. Hull is sacrificed. Airframe survival: No significant damage to aircraft structure or systems. Humans in this case are substantially more robust than aircraft. You'll find a simil…

When the wings come off, you get a pretty big fire though. Obviously they cannot be made infinitely strong, but I'd rather be in the plane that isn't disintegrating and in fire.

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

#288

Post by blitzar »

ynniv wrote: post #108
blitzar wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cause of death was impacting a concrete barrier.

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…

If we go back far enough the fatal error is the Wright brothers inventing the airplane.

It might be more useful to start with the solid concrete plane stopper and work backwards than work forwards from 1903.

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

#289

Post by ricardobeat »

tooltalk wrote: post #184
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.

Occam's razor: the wall is most probably the cause of the unnecessary explosion that killed 179 people. The airport built ILS, or localizer, on unnecessarily over-engineered concrete structure where there shouldn't have been any obstruction. The ILS are supposed to be built on level surface or "frangile" structure so they can be easily destroyed when there is an overrun. There are reportedly at least 4 other airports…

If the wheels drop off my car at 100km/h and I lose control and hit a wall, is the wall the cause of the accident?

The barrier was 250m away from the end of the runway, the extra 50m if following regulations wouldn’t have changed the outcome. And if the wall wasn’t there, the plane would dive right into a highway anyway. That’s the point.

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

#290

Post by nialv7 »

ricardobeat wrote: post #289
tooltalk wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's razor: the wall is most probably the cause of the unnecessary explosion that killed 179 people. The airport built ILS, or localizer, on unnecessarily over-engineered concrete structure where there shouldn't have been any obstruction. The ILS are supposed to be built on level surface or "frangile" structure so they can be easily destroyed when there is an overrun. There are reportedly at least 4 other airports…

If the wheels drop off my car at 100km/h and I lose control and hit a wall, is the wall the cause of the accident? The barrier was 250m away from the end of the runway, the extra 50m if following regulations wouldn’t have changed the outcome. And if the wall wasn’t there, the plane would dive right into a highway anyway. That’s the point.

bad analogy. a better one would be: a wheel fell of an F1 car, car hit perimeter wall, driver dies. should we maybe put a crash barrier in front of the wall?
Post reply on HN