5 ms·

I don’t know why people keep fixating on this. Airplanes can’t skid out of the airport into the surrounding city. Mistakes were made, but this isn’t one of th

I don’t know why people keep fixating on this. Airplanes can’t skid out of the airport into the surrounding city. Mistakes were made, but this isn’t one of them. I suspect it is people trying to deflect blame from pilot error, which seems by far the most likely issue. They did none of the things you should do to stop a plane.

csomar 2y ago
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.
- Mistletoe 2y ago
  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.
  - foxglacier 2y ago
    > 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."
    - snypher 2y ago
      150 knots is like 77 meters a second, a 747 can do like 2m/s^2 braking giving 35 seconds to stop, 1500 meters required. Stopping time: t=v/a, t=77/2. Stopping distance: d=v^2/2a, d=77^2/2*2
      - loeg 2y ago
        (That's with brakes and flaps.)
      - khuey 2y ago
        Now account for the fact that the plane had no brakes since the landing gear were not deployed ...
        LtWorf 2y ago
        A hull rolls better than a wheel? Has humanity been doing vehicles wrong this entire time?
        lolc 2y ago
        Snarky and ignorant, the two often come together. Because you seem unaware: Airplane wheels have very powerful brakes!
        LtWorf 2y ago
        Even if they lock completely, they'll skid more than the entire hull's skidding no?
        lolc 2y ago
        The trick is not to lock and use static friction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiction Hm, the stiction page on Wikipedia does not explain how it relates to braking. Maybe check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_braking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_braking
        LtWorf 2y ago
        Thanks for the link. Nowhere it seems to indicate that the friction of the breaking would be greater than the friction of the hull, since the pages related to non-destructive braking.
- psychoslave 2y ago
  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 https://maps.app.goo.gl/BN15aSQ1pW6vJkzb7
  - csomar 2y ago
    740m before hitting the next structure.
looseyesterday 2y ago
You are probably right on pilot error, dont forget Boeing probably want this to be the story as well!
- iso8859-1 2y ago
  The 737 is one of the most popular aircraft in the world. It's had hundreds of incidents. There is no reason to think that there is any conspiracy going on, and there is not sufficient information to even think that any Boeing specific details were a factor in the incident.
cenamus 2y ago
But it wasn't there for this reason, and if it was, I'm sure they would have had more than 250m of space to put it at the far ends of the airport.
cm2187 2y ago
Like doing what things? What I read so far is that they suspect the pilot had control issues. I don't think people who say that it's a bad idea to have a concrete wall at the end of the runway argue the plane should make its way to a nearby motorway. I think most refer to using EMAS, ie a crushable concrete floor in which the plane sinks and stops.
- Towaway69 2y ago
  > 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 located behind the point where planes begin their take-off (and I assume their landing) - but I'm no aviation expert. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzprprlyeo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzprprlyeo [2]: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/9090/live/ab9db7d0-c761-11ef-9fd6-0be88a764111.png.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/9090/live/ab9db...
  - fl7305 2y ago
    > 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?
    - Towaway69 2y ago
      Yep mea culpa, I now understand a little more about aviation!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- khuey 2y ago
  EMAS is designed to crush under the pressure of all of the aircraft's weight pushing down on the relatively narrow contact area of the tires. There were no tires in this case. I am unaware of an EMAS that has been designed or tested for the far more broadly distributed weight of a belly landing.
HPsquared 2y ago
Looking at the map, there isn't much beyond the runway.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
s5300 2y ago
[dead]
whycome 2y ago
“keep fixating” may just be what’s rising to the surface in your algorithm. My own sense has been that the questions are pretty spread out.
- boodleboodle 2y ago
  South Korean communities are fixated on this wall issue to an abnormal degree. Discussion of this wall has become a congregation of people who 1. See this tragedy as an opportunity to deride province the airport is located in. 2. Want to be contrarian to those who tell them to wait until official results are out. 3. Feel like the society is "forcing them to mourn" (whatever that means) and would like to look at the cold hard "FACTS". It's a mess.

csomar 2y ago

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.

Mistletoe 2y ago
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.
- foxglacier 2y ago
  > 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."
  - snypher 2y ago
    150 knots is like 77 meters a second, a 747 can do like 2m/s^2 braking giving 35 seconds to stop, 1500 meters required. Stopping time: t=v/a, t=77/2. Stopping distance: d=v^2/2a, d=77^2/2*2
    - loeg 2y ago
      (That's with brakes and flaps.)
    - khuey 2y ago
      Now account for the fact that the plane had no brakes since the landing gear were not deployed ...
      - LtWorf 2y ago
        A hull rolls better than a wheel? Has humanity been doing vehicles wrong this entire time?
        lolc 2y ago
        Snarky and ignorant, the two often come together. Because you seem unaware: Airplane wheels have very powerful brakes!
        LtWorf 2y ago
        Even if they lock completely, they'll skid more than the entire hull's skidding no?
        lolc 2y ago
        The trick is not to lock and use static friction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiction Hm, the stiction page on Wikipedia does not explain how it relates to braking. Maybe check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_braking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_braking
        LtWorf 2y ago
        Thanks for the link. Nowhere it seems to indicate that the friction of the breaking would be greater than the friction of the hull, since the pages related to non-destructive braking.
psychoslave 2y ago
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 https://maps.app.goo.gl/BN15aSQ1pW6vJkzb7
- csomar 2y ago
  740m before hitting the next structure.

looseyesterday 2y ago

You are probably right on pilot error, dont forget Boeing probably want this to be the story as well!

iso8859-1 2y ago
The 737 is one of the most popular aircraft in the world. It's had hundreds of incidents. There is no reason to think that there is any conspiracy going on, and there is not sufficient information to even think that any Boeing specific details were a factor in the incident.

cenamus 2y ago

But it wasn't there for this reason, and if it was, I'm sure they would have had more than 250m of space to put it at the far ends of the airport.

cm2187 2y ago

Like doing what things? What I read so far is that they suspect the pilot had control issues. I don't think people who say that it's a bad idea to have a concrete wall at the end of the runway argue the plane should make its way to a nearby motorway. I think most refer to using EMAS, ie a crushable concrete floor in which the plane sinks and stops.

Towaway69 2y ago
> 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 located behind the point where planes begin their take-off (and I assume their landing) - but I'm no aviation expert. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzprprlyeo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzprprlyeo [2]: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/9090/live/ab9db7d0-c761-11ef-9fd6-0be88a764111.png.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/9090/live/ab9db...
- fl7305 2y ago
  > 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?
  - Towaway69 2y ago
    Yep mea culpa, I now understand a little more about aviation!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
khuey 2y ago
EMAS is designed to crush under the pressure of all of the aircraft's weight pushing down on the relatively narrow contact area of the tires. There were no tires in this case. I am unaware of an EMAS that has been designed or tested for the far more broadly distributed weight of a belly landing.

HPsquared 2y ago

Looking at the map, there isn't much beyond the runway.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

s5300 2y ago

[dead]

whycome 2y ago

“keep fixating” may just be what’s rising to the surface in your algorithm. My own sense has been that the questions are pretty spread out.

boodleboodle 2y ago
South Korean communities are fixated on this wall issue to an abnormal degree. Discussion of this wall has become a congregation of people who 1. See this tragedy as an opportunity to deride province the airport is located in. 2. Want to be contrarian to those who tell them to wait until official results are out. 3. Feel like the society is "forcing them to mourn" (whatever that means) and would like to look at the cold hard "FACTS". It's a mess.