3 ms·
Wow, that is indeed quite strange - that’s a very high speed for having scraped along a 9000 foot runway. They either landed extremely long or it rhymes a bit
by brunohaid 2y ago
Wow, that is indeed quite strange - that’s a very high speed for having scraped along a 9000 foot runway.
They either landed extremely long or it rhymes a bit with the Pakistani Airlines accident of an attempted gear-up landing go around a couple of years back, both not implausible in the context of already dealing with a bird strike. There are also edge cases where the plane won’t yell Landing Gear at you, and it‘s really really hard to get a 737 to a point where you can’t lower the gear anymore (multiple hydraulic systems failing, gravity pins and pulleys as well, Stig Aviation did a great video on that.)
Pretty sure there was no EMAS, as the plane dips down into the dirt at the end of the runway right away, ie not that much lift, and EMAS would do orders of magnitude more arresting.
- buildsjets 2y agoI’m leaning toward no EMAS. I found a facility directory that lists the size of the runway-end safety area where EMAS would be but it has no description of any EMAS system. https://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2022-09-07-AIRAC/html/eAIP/KR-AD-2.RKJB-en-GB.html https://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2022-09-07-AIRAC/html... I’m not sure EMAS would have helped though. I believe EMAS relies on the weight of the aircraft bearing on the relatively small contact area of the tires/wheels to punch thru the unreinforced concrete. The weight of the aircraft distributed across the area of the belly may not be sufficient to break through the surface.
- throwaway48476 2y agoPlane was likely going too fast for EMAS to be effective.
- gpderetta 2y agoAnd apparently EMAS require gears down to be effective.