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

31–40 of 365 posts

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

#31

Post by fl7305 »

Towaway69 wrote: post #17
cm2187 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> bad idea to have a concrete wall at the end of the runway but was it the end of the runway? As I understand, the pilot came in from the opposite direction, i.e. > The pilot then aborted the original landing and requested permission to land from the opposite direction.[1] So that wall was located at the beginning of the runway if the runway was used correctly. From the bottom image[2], it would appear the wall is lo…

> So that wall was located at the beginning of the runway if the runway was used correctly.

Most runways are intended to be used in both directions depending on the wind. This one doesn't seem to be an exception?

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

Towaway69 wrote: post #17
cm2187 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> bad idea to have a concrete wall at the end of the runway but was it the end of the runway? As I understand, the pilot came in from the opposite direction, i.e. > The pilot then aborted the original landing and requested permission to land from the opposite direction.[1] So that wall was located at the beginning of the runway if the runway was used correctly. From the bottom image[2], it would appear the wall is lo…

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by underseacables »

hilux wrote: post #2

So many things went wrong, and yet the pilots brought the plane down safely – and then this!? Just infuriating.

They did not bring the plane down safely! The pilot failed to lower the landing gear, or extend the flaps, both of which, for all intensive purposes were technologically possible. Multiple redundant systems for these. I think they completely lost situational awareness, and panicked.

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

#36

Post by baq »

tedunangst wrote: post #19

How much difference would an additional 50m have made?

To be brutally honest, the plane would crash about a second later, so approximately none whatsoever.

But this isn’t the right question to ask, as it isn’t the right question to ask why the wall was there. Why did the pilot and ATC decide it’s a good idea to attempt a gear up landing in the wrong direction is a good start.

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

#39

Post by K0balt »

gazchop wrote: post #13
mcflubbins wrote: post #3

I was wondering the same thing and suspected it was some safety feature (better for a plane to smack into said wall instead of crash into some populated area, etc) I had no idea he had to make the approach in the opposite direction.

They already botched a gear down landing, which is almost never mentioned. They retracted the gear and did a teardrop go around from a headwind into a tailwind belly flop. Stinks of bad crew resource management and ATC which is why the ATC and airline for raided by SK officials.

We don’t know why the pilot elected to double back instead of go around. There may have been indications of a progressive failure that indicated that course of action, but it does seem hasty. That haste may have caused them to not be able to set up a stabilized, minimum speed approach, and may have contributed to the long touchdown, which certainly was a contributing factor.

If there were significant winds it would have compounded those factors.

It is curious that the gear was retracted. I can only think that this was due to some kind of system failure? Perhaps that same failure explains the decision to double back instead of going around?

Lots of questions, hopefully there will be answers.

Still, the structure does not seem to meet the standard for frangibility that is indicated for objects in the approach path within 300m, although it’s not like it was at the very end of the runway.

Runway over/undershoots are actually quite common, and the building of a nonfrangible structure on an otherwise safe skid zone is a significant error in design principles that is not common or conformal to industry standards.

If those antennas had been placed on property designed towers instead of a concrete bunker, the passengers and crew very well may have walked away without a scratch, despite any errors on the part of the crew or procedures of the airline.

Post reply on HN