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

Post by gazchop » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 9:42 AM UTC

K0balt wrote: post #39

gazchop wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Post by echoangle » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 9:43 AM UTC

vasco wrote: post #43

Jabrov wrote: post #35

Runway’s gotta end somewhere

Technically it could loop around the earth.

Post by weweersdfsd » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 9:44 AM UTC

Towaway69 wrote: post #12

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.

This: > no idea he had to make the approach in the opposite direction. So the wall is actually at the beginning of the runway. That wall was never never meant to be at the end of a landing but at the start of landing. I don't understand why this isn't made clear. Basically the runway was used against the design specifications.

Post by csomar » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 9:46 AM UTC

psychoslave wrote: post #42

csomar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing beyond the embankment. Airports are generally made in the middle of nowhere. And no, they are not "skidding" into the surrounding city, he probably needed a few hundred meters at most.

Maybe not all completely aligned straight forward with the landing, but it looks like yes there are some inhabited zones over there surrounded by wooded parcels, well before the landscape change for some sea. https://maps.app.goo.gl/BN15aSQ1pW6vJkzb7

Post by Towaway69 » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 10:00 AM UTC

fl7305 wrote: post #31

Towaway69 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?