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

91–100 of 365 posts

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

#91

Post by ckw »

gazchop wrote: post #15
copperx wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with all of the compounded problems, the flight could have been non fatal in most world airports.

I wouldn’t state that with any certainty. They touched down 1500m down the runway with little to no braking or reverse thrust. The ending may have been less violent but the outcome may have been the same. I’d rather go from blunt force than being burned alive if a wing ditched and it rolled. Let’s wait for the investigators. It’s not good to fixate on this outcome.

This is the landing of United Airlines Flight 232 in Sioux City, Iowa in 1989. It hit the runway very hard, tumbled, broke, left the runway, and burned, but encountered no significant non-frangible obstacle. Of 296 passengers and crew on board, 184 (62%) survived. It is reasonable to assume that given the absence of other significant non-frangible obstacles beyond the ILS mound that loss of life would have been low and potentially zero.

https://youtu.be/sWkU6HRcOY0

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

#92

Post by inoffensivename »

Lots of airports have obstacles not far from the end of the runway. Burbank, Midway, Orange County are a few that come to mind.

Why did they need to land when they did?

Why did they need to land so soon after the mayday call? (only 8 minutes from mayday to crash, as I understand it)

Why couldn't they land on a longer runway?

Why did they land so far down the runway?

What forced them to land in a clean configuration?

As an airline pilot, these are some of the questions I have. The flight data and cockpit voice recorders should be able to answer these questions.

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

#93

Post by sio8ohPi »

notimetorelax wrote: post #63
dredmorbius wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends strongly on the airport, terrain, and variability of winds. There are airports in which approaches always or very nearly always follow the same profiles given local conditions. SFO, SJC, and SAN would be three examples off the top of my head. SFO's major approaches are over the bay, opposite approaches would involve rapid descents dictated by mountains near the airport. SJO and SAN are both limited by pr…

You’re right. Looking at the charts, it appears that both 01 and 19 can be used - https://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2020-07-30/html/eAIP/... What’s noteworthy, there’s a note to use extreme caution due to this wall if landing or taking off towards it.

I don't see that note. There's one "extreme caution" note but it's about some other obstacle 2.1NM from the threshold of runway 1.

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

#94

Post by mmooss »

gazchop wrote: post #7

I think this is disingenuous reporting. It’s too early to actually draw a conclusion. We should wait for the full investigation. There are a large number of compounding problems here. That was just the last one.

Your comments on this page offer many opinions sans investigation or facts.

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

#95

Post by foxglacier »

Mistletoe wrote: post #18
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.

He’s going extremely fast, a few hundred meters would do nothing. I think the estimates I saw were over 150 knots. That’s about 77 meters per second. I found this comment helpful from a Reddit thread. >The embankment is there to protect the road from the jetblast of departing aircraft in oposite runway direction. Thats why it is allowed directly in the safety area.

> a few hundred meters would do nothing. I think the estimates I saw were over 150 knots

Show you working. Not feelings because people don't have intuition for such unusual motion. You could equally have said "a few hundred meters would be enough."

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

#96

Post by mmooss »

f1shy wrote: post #70
hilux wrote: post #2

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

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".

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

#97

Post by earnestinger »

loeg wrote: post #82
K0balt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They declared mayday and then were on the ground in like 3 minutes. I think they probably just forgot gear given how rushed the landing was. We'll find out from the investigation.

Youtuber’s Denys Davydov (ex pilot of same plane), pet theory: bird got into the engine, pilot by mistake shut off wrong engine, due to no engine - hydraulic pump was non-functional, which resulted in landing gear problems. (also something about ground effect)

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

#98

Post by [deleted] »

K0balt wrote: post #24
Towaway69 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Idk about this particular airport but it is nearly universal that runways are used from both ends. The idea is to land into the wind. 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,…

[deleted]

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

#99

Post by neom »

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.

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

#100

Post by ptsneves »

K0balt wrote: post #46
fl7305 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should ATC have done differently?

lol. People often have an idea that ATC actually controls what happens. They just give advisory guidance to pilots, who ultimately decide what to do. A clearance to land or the lack of one does not absolve the pilots from making their own judgments and decisions about how to conduct the navigation of the aircraft, and where and when to land. Usually, it’s a bad idea to not follow ATC guidance, but in the case of emer…

Don’t know why you are downvoted. I was even taught that if after reporting an emergency you are overwhelmed by information requests you should just mute the radio and focus on solving the emergency . ATCs job is to get everybody out of the way including themselves.
Post reply on HN