6 ms·

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, e

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.

Towaway69 2y ago
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.
- notimetorelax 2y ago
  Runways are approached from both ends depending on the wind.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    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 proximate downtowns with tall towers. Nominal approach glide paths cut below the rooflines of several structures, and make for some interesting experiences for arriving travellers.
    - notimetorelax 2y ago
      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/KR-AD-2.RKJB-en-GB.html 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.
      - sio8ohPi 2y ago
        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.
        DoctorOetker 2y ago
        > 1.3 Pilot shall use extreme caution during carrying out final approach into RWY 01 or missed approach or departure for RWY 19 due to obstacle located east of extended RWY at approximately 2.1 NM from threshold of RWY 01. it seems this is the same structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Air_Flight_2216#Non-standard_barrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Air_Flight_2216#Non-stand...
        sio8ohPi 2y ago
        No. The ILS localizer was 260 meters from the threshold, not 2.1 NM (3800m).
        DoctorOetker 2y ago
        Why would there be a warning for an "obstacle" 4km away from the end of the runway? 3800 - 2800 = 1km. Did the plane skid for 1km before crashing into the obstacle?
        sio8ohPi 2y ago
        Because the system is bureaucratic and stupid. Notices warning pilots about irrelevant obstacles are, literally, a meme. Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/wzsvru/the_notam_system_is_severely_broken_its_still/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/wzsvru/the_notam_sy...
        bombcar 2y ago
        Almost anything that is 500m causes an obstacle notice to exist. There are tons of them and most mean nothing unless you’re flying an overweight small plane in the dark desert heat.
- ra 2y ago
  That's not correct. A runway can be used in either direction, if you look on Google maps you can see the runway at Jeju has markings at both ends including a number (denoting it's compass heading) - both ends are usable. You always want to land with a headwind and never a tailwind, so ATC will use whichever end is favorable for the current conditions. In this case, if they attempted to land with a tailwind then the on-heading vector component of wind velocity must be added to the airspeed to get the ground speed... whilst this was a contributing factor to the accident, it's not something to focus on. There will be a thorough investigation but it will take some time to get answers.
  - Towaway69 2y ago
    Thanks for the clarification :+1: It should perhaps be pointed in news coverage since I equated "opposite direction" with "wrong direction" - hence my scepticisms about the wall.
  - rich_sasha 2y ago
    I read that the opposite direction had a NOTAM exclusion, i.e. was excluded from use. From the professional pilot forum linked a few days ago in a similar thread. If that's right then OP would be correct in saying, this direction wasn't meant to be used.
    - loeg 2y ago
      Ok but in an emergency all bets are off, the opposite direction is better than a crash landing. So you can't just assume 100% of landings are in one direction.
      - lmm 2y ago
        > Ok but in an emergency all bets are off, the opposite direction is better than a crash landing. Sure, but so is a highway, or a river. Doesn't mean those should be built to runway standards.
        2y ago
- K0balt 2y ago
  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, and may have contributed to the long touchdown, which certainly was a contributing factor. Still, a 14 ft high concrete structure within 300M of a runway end is unusual, and does not fit the standard for frangable structures which is the guidance for runway aligned equipment.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- ajmurmann 2y ago
  Was the runway designed to only be used one way or was this just the it opposite direction of how it was being used at that moment? I understand that at least some airports change the direction based on wind.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- weweersdfsd 2y ago
  Even if the runway was only used from one direction (not true), it would be dumb to build a big concrete structure near its beginning. It's not unheard of for planes to come in too low and touch down before start of the runway due to pilot error (or even double engine failure on rare occasions).
- lutusp 2y ago
  > 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. Airports like this are designed to have two approach directions -- in this case, 10 and 190 degrees. Either approach direction would have been acceptable depending on the prevailing wind.
gazchop 2y ago
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.
- whycome 2y ago
  Botched how?
  - mianos 2y ago
    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.
    - whycome 2y ago
      Can’t really call it botched until we know the reason…
- fl7305 2y ago
  What should ATC have done differently?
  - K0balt 2y ago
    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 emergencies especially, pilots call the shots.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]

Towaway69 2y ago

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.

notimetorelax 2y ago
Runways are approached from both ends depending on the wind.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  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 proximate downtowns with tall towers. Nominal approach glide paths cut below the rooflines of several structures, and make for some interesting experiences for arriving travellers.
  - notimetorelax 2y ago
    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/KR-AD-2.RKJB-en-GB.html 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.
    - sio8ohPi 2y ago
      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.
      - DoctorOetker 2y ago
        > 1.3 Pilot shall use extreme caution during carrying out final approach into RWY 01 or missed approach or departure for RWY 19 due to obstacle located east of extended RWY at approximately 2.1 NM from threshold of RWY 01. it seems this is the same structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Air_Flight_2216#Non-standard_barrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Air_Flight_2216#Non-stand...
        sio8ohPi 2y ago
        No. The ILS localizer was 260 meters from the threshold, not 2.1 NM (3800m).
        DoctorOetker 2y ago
        Why would there be a warning for an "obstacle" 4km away from the end of the runway? 3800 - 2800 = 1km. Did the plane skid for 1km before crashing into the obstacle?
        sio8ohPi 2y ago
        Because the system is bureaucratic and stupid. Notices warning pilots about irrelevant obstacles are, literally, a meme. Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/wzsvru/the_notam_system_is_severely_broken_its_still/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/wzsvru/the_notam_sy...
        bombcar 2y ago
        Almost anything that is 500m causes an obstacle notice to exist. There are tons of them and most mean nothing unless you’re flying an overweight small plane in the dark desert heat.
ra 2y ago
That's not correct. A runway can be used in either direction, if you look on Google maps you can see the runway at Jeju has markings at both ends including a number (denoting it's compass heading) - both ends are usable. You always want to land with a headwind and never a tailwind, so ATC will use whichever end is favorable for the current conditions. In this case, if they attempted to land with a tailwind then the on-heading vector component of wind velocity must be added to the airspeed to get the ground speed... whilst this was a contributing factor to the accident, it's not something to focus on. There will be a thorough investigation but it will take some time to get answers.
- Towaway69 2y ago
  Thanks for the clarification :+1: It should perhaps be pointed in news coverage since I equated "opposite direction" with "wrong direction" - hence my scepticisms about the wall.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  I read that the opposite direction had a NOTAM exclusion, i.e. was excluded from use. From the professional pilot forum linked a few days ago in a similar thread. If that's right then OP would be correct in saying, this direction wasn't meant to be used.
  - loeg 2y ago
    Ok but in an emergency all bets are off, the opposite direction is better than a crash landing. So you can't just assume 100% of landings are in one direction.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > Ok but in an emergency all bets are off, the opposite direction is better than a crash landing. Sure, but so is a highway, or a river. Doesn't mean those should be built to runway standards.
      - 2y ago
K0balt 2y ago
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, and may have contributed to the long touchdown, which certainly was a contributing factor. Still, a 14 ft high concrete structure within 300M of a runway end is unusual, and does not fit the standard for frangable structures which is the guidance for runway aligned equipment.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ajmurmann 2y ago
Was the runway designed to only be used one way or was this just the it opposite direction of how it was being used at that moment? I understand that at least some airports change the direction based on wind.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
weweersdfsd 2y ago
Even if the runway was only used from one direction (not true), it would be dumb to build a big concrete structure near its beginning. It's not unheard of for planes to come in too low and touch down before start of the runway due to pilot error (or even double engine failure on rare occasions).
lutusp 2y ago
> 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. Airports like this are designed to have two approach directions -- in this case, 10 and 190 degrees. Either approach direction would have been acceptable depending on the prevailing wind.

gazchop 2y ago

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.

whycome 2y ago
Botched how?
- mianos 2y ago
  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.
  - whycome 2y ago
    Can’t really call it botched until we know the reason…
fl7305 2y ago
What should ATC have done differently?
- K0balt 2y ago
  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 emergencies especially, pilots call the shots.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]