South Korea Jeju air plane crash

Cold Fusion · Monday at 19:47

Personally think all the talk about the Isolator and how it was mounted is fairly irrelevant, at the speed it was travelling it would have ploughed through the perimeter wall, crossed the highway and may have ended up in the sea, not sure it would have been more survivable.

beachBOYken · Monday at 20:27

Cold Fusion said:
Personally think all the talk about the Isolator and how it was mounted is fairly irrelevant, at the speed it was travelling it would have ploughed through the perimeter wall, crossed the highway and may have ended up in the sea, not sure it would have been more survivable.

Highly unlikely it would have reached anywhere near the sea as the terrain would have dramatically slowed it down, but yeah sadly the outcome might not have been different, only needs the fuel tanks to rupture with any contact.

Minusorange · Monday at 20:30

Cold Fusion said:
not sure it would have been more survivable.

Depends if the passengers died from blunt force trauma from the impact or they died from the fire, if they all died on impact then it may have been better odds, if they died from fire then not as much

dlockers · Monday at 20:38

Cold Fusion said:
Personally think all the talk about the Isolator and how it was mounted is fairly irrelevant, at the speed it was travelling it would have ploughed through the perimeter wall, crossed the highway and may have ended up in the sea, not sure it would have been more survivable.

Careful, this is an incorrect opinion in this thread. We shall ignore the facts and focus on the pad. lol.

In summary -
* No landing gear
* No thrust reversers
* No flaps
* Landing on the wrong runway (lols Dis86)
* Touching down over halfway down the runway
* Ignoring correct bird strike protocol (should have continued approach on runway 01)
* Ignoring all emergency procedures (panicked and tried to j-turn the plane and land)
* The 2m high concrete pad was 150m from the end of the absolute end of the tarmac, and a plane should never be anywhere near that zone. The plane cleared the 150m in 2 seconds because it was still travelling 150mph.
* Just 50m past the concrete pad was a concrete wall with barbed wire, and then a main road. I.e. under a second later if the pad wasn't there, it would have still nailed a concrete wall.

Minusorange said:
Depends if the passengers died from blunt force trauma from the impact or they died from the fire, if they all died on impact then it may have been better odds, if they died from fire then not as much

Zero procedure was followed and the engines/wings probably still had a decent chunk of jet fuel in them. Hitting anything at 150mph would have led to an explosion/fire.

Jokester · Monday at 20:40

If they're ever looking for somebody to dig a hole to put below ground foundations in for that antenna, I know a guy.

dlockers · Monday at 21:04

Jokester said:
If they're ever looking for somebody to dig a hole to put below ground foundations in for that antenna, I know a guy.

*tips fedora*

Bounce · Monday at 21:11

Never seen concrete walls at the end of runways before , seems unusual

dlockers · Monday at 21:19

Bounce said:
Never seen concrete walls at the end of runways before , seems unusual

You haven't seen enough airports. Here is London City Airport. It is just over half the size of the one in question and has a freakin river at either end (given or take the marina).

dlockers said:

Travelling at 150mph the plane was clearing any logical airport boundary in seconds. A pad there or not, that thing was hurtling at breakneck speed and most airports around the world have no chance (unless they had another KM or two).

(p.s. the end of the runway assuming normal landing was ~900m away from concrete, or almost a kilometre).

Jono8 · Monday at 21:31

dlockers said:
You haven't seen enough airports. Here is London City Airport. It is just over half the size of the one in question and has a freakin river at either end (given or take the marina).

Travelling at 150mph the plane was clearing any logical airport boundary in seconds. A pad there or not, that thing was hurtling at breakneck speed and most airports around the world have no chance (unless they had another KM or two).

(p.s. the end of the runway assuming normal landing was ~900m away from concrete, or almost a kilometre).

Exactly.

I mean, you can only go so far with contingencies. Sure, in a perfect world there would be miles and miles of cear run off on every runway in every airport....but that isn't likely to ever be practical.

Scuzi · Monday at 21:39

Unless my knowledge is out of date, ICAO standards require a 90m Runway End Safety Area (RESA), and recommend 240m for a code 4 runway which the one in question would be. No objects should be present in a RESA which could endanger an aircraft that may enter it. Some airports install EMAS with arresting materials in their RESA to justify a reduction in the length of it.

According to the eAIP for RKJB, runway 01 has a RESA of 202x150m and runway 19's is 199x150m.

I'm not offering any opinions on the incident as it is inappropriate to do so. Just offering some information for those who may be interested. Although I'll gracefully bow to our recent influx of ICAO Annex 14 and Doc 9157 experts.

ubersonic · Tuesday at 00:02

David Learmount (highly regarded crash investigator and regular on ACI and Mayday documentary's) has put pretty much 100% of the blame for the deaths on the criminally negligent design of the airport.

Minusorange · Tuesday at 00:09

Bounce said:
Never seen concrete walls at the end of runways before , seems unusual

dlockers said:
has a freakin river at either end

A river isn't a concrete wall though but what do I know :cry:

aardvark · Tuesday at 00:51

dlockers said:
* Just 50m past the concrete pad was a concrete wall with barbed wire, and then a main road. I.e. under a second later if the pad wasn't there, it would have still nailed a concrete wall.

looks like a breeze block wall - a car would go through that very easily. it wont stop a plane.

aardvark · Tuesday at 00:54

Cold Fusion said:
Personally think all the talk about the Isolator and how it was mounted is fairly irrelevant, at the speed it was travelling it would have ploughed through the perimeter wall, crossed the highway and may have ended up in the sea, not sure it would have been more survivable.

its another 860 meters to the sea - there is no way its getting anywhere near it.

Mr Badger · Tuesday at 01:50

aardvark said:
looks like a breeze block wall - a car would go through that very easily. it wont stop a plane.

So the plane could have taken out some traffic on the main road as well?

inferno · Tuesday at 02:27

Have a work colleague who flew for Korean. He said full full Koreans, particularly ex airforce make some crazy decisions as pilots which completely defy logic. No idea what the situation was here. It’s horrific.

The Funktopus · Tuesday at 04:23

One of the issues Korean carriers have is that in Korean culture, the eldest is expected to lead, and things like qualification and experience can be seen as secondary to age. One of the causes of the San Francisco Asiana 777 crash a few years was that the pilot flying, a newly qualified airline pilot but a retired Korean Air Force Colonel was much older than the Captain, who as a career airline pilot with vast experience and rank, still didn’t feel that he could question his elder First Officer as he butchered the approach, nearly stalled the aircraft and then clipped a sea wall at the end of the runway.

IIRC, there was talk a few years ago of Korean Airlines even being banned from European airspace if they didn’t improve.

dlockers · Tuesday at 08:57

Minusorange said:
A river isn't a concrete wall though but what do I know

Neither is it a safe place for an aircraft doing 150mph.

aardvark said:
its another 860 meters to the sea - there is no way its getting anywhere near it.

It cleared 150m in 2 seconds. It was doing 150mph! But you're right, it probably would have exploded and caught fire way before it got to the sea.

ubersonic said:
David Learmount (highly regarded crash investigator and regular on ACI and Mayday documentary's) has put pretty much 100% of the blame for the deaths on the criminally negligent design of the airport.

*Journalist.

danlightbulb · Tuesday at 10:05

ubersonic said:
David Learmount (highly regarded crash investigator and regular on ACI and Mayday documentary's) has put pretty much 100% of the blame for the deaths on the criminally negligent design of the airport.

The airport (a major one for international flights by the way, not some two bit local airstrip) has probably been this way for years. So who is supposed to regulate this and risk assess the airport? Why was this huge concrete structure never spotted before? A simple hazop review, done properly, would have picked up this risk.

dlockers · Tuesday at 10:11

danlightbulb said:
The airport (a major one for international flights by the way, not some two bit local airstrip) has probably been this way for years. So who is supposed to regulate this and risk assess the airport? Why was this huge concrete structure never spotted before? A simple hazop review, done properly, would have picked up this risk.

It would have never been flagged as a risk, because inherently and factually (the things risks would have been noted against), it isn't. This is a "once in a lifetime" event caused by who-knows-what, but probably significantly pilot error.

The journalist in the video on the mouth frother network probably (lols not watching it) failed to mention it was perfectly within the regulations. The concrete is 900m away from where planes typically come to a stop; 150m away from where the runway tarmac ends, and meets the regs for the emergency run off zone.