Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

361–365 of 365 posts

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

#361
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…

I suppose we have to get into the engineering thought process of these Asian cultures.

Where did the idea of fortifying Localizer (LOC) come from, was there prior art specifying any degree of fortification (or lack) ? Perhaps these kind of radar (adjacent) installations are traditionally fortified, like maybe the civil air services were influenced from militry air services were things tend to be overengineered?

Perhaps saving the LOC is more important than saving a single aircraft? Some idea like this piece of infrastructure being more important that any single aircraft's safety?

The point is we might not see the reason why fortifying the LOC was obvious or straight forward to the Korean engineers.

Also, I've seen no credible evidence to support the idea the LOC is supposed to be built on a level surface, or built in a destructable way. Addressing the first point, the LOC makes sense to be slightly elevated given how they operate with near field low power radio waves. That said, these kind of slightly elevated instrument might not require an earthen mound, sourounded by concreate walls. Which goes to the second point, I can think of reasons to have these kind of LOC runways homing antenas destructable, and I can see them being robustly durrable. This thing was way past the end of the runway, and as unpo0pular as it might seems... it's a very bad thing to run out of runway. Somebody else wrote that some airports have a lack of open field beyond the end of the runway, and so it's a persuasive argument stuff could be built out there.

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

#362
post #96
post #70

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".

Those are 2 sentences.

Lately I’ve seen lots of people doing such snarky comments, without reading carefully, or just writing things that are absolutely illogical… what is going on?!

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

#363
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Botched how?

Botched by not using the manual gravity gear drop. Maybe they didn't have enough time. But losing a single engine is not necessarily fatal at that flight phase. Most professionals are still questioning why the rush to get it down. If there is some valid reason, aside from accidentally shutting down the other engine, when we do find out the details, maybe the professionals won't call it botched.

Can’t really call it botched until we know the reason…

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

#364
post #360
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trick is not to lock and use static friction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiction Hm, the stiction page on Wikipedia does not explain how it relates to braking. Maybe check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_braking

Thanks for the link. Nowhere it seems to indicate that the friction of the breaking would be greater than the friction of the hull, since the pages related to non-destructive braking.

Airplanes use disc brakes. These can provide pretty much unlimited friction and are very destructive to the brake pads. They are effectively limited by the static friction of the tire and how much waste heat they can dissipate without blowing the tire.

Look it feels like you want to win an argument. You can only win it for people who do not understand the difference between static friction of a tire on tarmac and kinetic friction of a hull on tarmac. I couldn't tell you off-hand which has more friction, but I'm ready to believe by example that the hull has bad properties when it comes to braking. It's made for low friction after all.

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

#365
post #362
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Absolutely > suspicion "suspicion" seems like fragile grounds for "Absolutely".

Those are 2 sentences. Lately I’ve seen lots of people doing such snarky comments, without reading carefully, or just writing things that are absolutely illogical… what is going on?!

> Those are 2 sentences.

Are you saying the two sentences, in sequence, are unrelated?

> snarky

I wasn't intending to be snarky. My point was serious: 'suspicion' is not grounds for 'absolutely'.

Post reply on HN