6 ms·

Occam's razor: the wall is most probably the cause of the unnecessary explosion that killed 179 people. The airport built ILS, or localizer, on unnecessarily o

Occam's razor: the wall is most probably the cause of the unnecessary explosion that killed 179 people. The airport built ILS, or localizer, on unnecessarily over-engineered concrete structure where there shouldn't have been any obstruction. The ILS are supposed to be built on level surface or "frangile" structure so they can be easily destroyed when there is an overrun. There are reportedly at least 4 other airports with such obstructions in South Korea -- at Yeosu, it's 4 meters high (also concrete foundation)[1]. <strikethrough>There was a similar accident in Hiroshima, Japan several years ago: Airbus A320-200 skidded past the end of the runway at similar speed and struck down ILS. It eventually stopped -- damaged the airplane but no fatality.</strikethrough> 1. Localizer at Yeosu Airport, similar to Muan's, raises safety concerns, 2025.01.02 (23:58), KBS News.

likeabatterycar 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  The pilots on 9/11 were intentionally directing their aircraft toward specific structures to maximise destruction, casualties, and terrorist impact. That was their express intent and mission for which they had specifically trained. In all likelihood the pilot of Jeju 2216 was not specifically directing his aircraft to the nonfrangible ILS Muan Murder Wall. There is no way to charitably argue otherwise.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- sitkack 2y ago
  You are disingenuously misrepresenting their argument. Please don't.
inoffensivename 2y ago
Are you talking about Asiana 162? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_162 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_162 That one touched down short of the runway at a much lower speed and configured for landing.
yongjik 2y ago
> There was a similar accident in Hiroshima, Japan several years ago: Airbus A320-200 skidded past the end of the runway at similar speed and struck down ILS. It eventually stopped -- damaged the airplane but no fatality. Are you talking about Asiana Airlines 162? It hit localizer on its way to the runway because it came in too low. It then hit the runway, skidded on the runway, and stopped about halfway (after veering off the runway at the last moment). If the same thing happened in Muan, the plane would have hit the localizer and then touched down, stopping in the runway. The fact that the localizer's base was concrete wouldn't have mattered because that's not where the plane would hit it.
dredmorbius 2y ago
You might find AA 1420 (1999) of interest, similar situation though far fewer fatalities (11 of 145 souls): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420> Partially-effective runway braking and a much greater distance from runway perimeter to the nonfrangible ILS structure likely played a role.
ricardobeat 2y ago
If the wheels drop off my car at 100km/h and I lose control and hit a wall, is the wall the cause of the accident? The barrier was 250m away from the end of the runway, the extra 50m if following regulations wouldn’t have changed the outcome. And if the wall wasn’t there, the plane would dive right into a highway anyway. That’s the point.
- nialv7 2y ago
  bad analogy. a better one would be: a wheel fell of an F1 car, car hit perimeter wall, driver dies. should we maybe put a crash barrier in front of the wall?
  - ricardobeat 2y ago
    This airport is basically already complying with the highest possible standard [1]; so in your analogy the crash barrier already exists, the equivalent argument would be for the track to have a 200m run-off area all around. It's not feasible to plan for every possible freak occurrence, an accident like this is only possible after a long list of other safety procedures have failed (as is often the case for aviation). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area
    - xmodem 2y ago
      Perhaps the standard is flawed and needs to be updated.
      - DrFaggotMD 2y ago
        [dead]
    - wlll 2y ago
      Standards are the minimum, not the maximum. Planes sometimes overshoot the runway, building an unecessary wall at the end of it might comply with a standard, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
rmccue 2y ago
> The ILS are supposed to be built on level surface or "frangile" structure Nit: I think the word you want is “frangible”, easy to break.
parasense 2y ago
I suppose we have to get into the engineering thought process of these Asian cultures. Where did the idea of fortifying Localizer (LOC) come from, was there prior art specifying any degree of fortification (or lack) ? Perhaps these kind of radar (adjacent) installations are traditionally fortified, like maybe the civil air services were influenced from militry air services were things tend to be overengineered? Perhaps saving the LOC is more important than saving a single aircraft? Some idea like this piece of infrastructure being more important that any single aircraft's safety? The point is we might not see the reason why fortifying the LOC was obvious or straight forward to the Korean engineers. Also, I've seen no credible evidence to support the idea the LOC is supposed to be built on a level surface, or built in a destructable way. Addressing the first point, the LOC makes sense to be slightly elevated given how they operate with near field low power radio waves. That said, these kind of slightly elevated instrument might not require an earthen mound, sourounded by concreate walls. Which goes to the second point, I can think of reasons to have these kind of LOC runways homing antenas destructable, and I can see them being robustly durrable. This thing was way past the end of the runway, and as unpo0pular as it might seems... it's a very bad thing to run out of runway. Somebody else wrote that some airports have a lack of open field beyond the end of the runway, and so it's a persuasive argument stuff could be built out there.

likeabatterycar 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 2y ago
The pilots on 9/11 were intentionally directing their aircraft toward specific structures to maximise destruction, casualties, and terrorist impact. That was their express intent and mission for which they had specifically trained. In all likelihood the pilot of Jeju 2216 was not specifically directing his aircraft to the nonfrangible ILS Muan Murder Wall. There is no way to charitably argue otherwise.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
sitkack 2y ago
You are disingenuously misrepresenting their argument. Please don't.

inoffensivename 2y ago

Are you talking about Asiana 162? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_162 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_162 That one touched down short of the runway at a much lower speed and configured for landing.

yongjik 2y ago

> There was a similar accident in Hiroshima, Japan several years ago: Airbus A320-200 skidded past the end of the runway at similar speed and struck down ILS. It eventually stopped -- damaged the airplane but no fatality. Are you talking about Asiana Airlines 162? It hit localizer on its way to the runway because it came in too low. It then hit the runway, skidded on the runway, and stopped about halfway (after veering off the runway at the last moment). If the same thing happened in Muan, the plane would have hit the localizer and then touched down, stopping in the runway. The fact that the localizer's base was concrete wouldn't have mattered because that's not where the plane would hit it.

dredmorbius 2y ago

You might find AA 1420 (1999) of interest, similar situation though far fewer fatalities (11 of 145 souls): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420> Partially-effective runway braking and a much greater distance from runway perimeter to the nonfrangible ILS structure likely played a role.

ricardobeat 2y ago

If the wheels drop off my car at 100km/h and I lose control and hit a wall, is the wall the cause of the accident? The barrier was 250m away from the end of the runway, the extra 50m if following regulations wouldn’t have changed the outcome. And if the wall wasn’t there, the plane would dive right into a highway anyway. That’s the point.

nialv7 2y ago
bad analogy. a better one would be: a wheel fell of an F1 car, car hit perimeter wall, driver dies. should we maybe put a crash barrier in front of the wall?
- ricardobeat 2y ago
  This airport is basically already complying with the highest possible standard [1]; so in your analogy the crash barrier already exists, the equivalent argument would be for the track to have a 200m run-off area all around. It's not feasible to plan for every possible freak occurrence, an accident like this is only possible after a long list of other safety procedures have failed (as is often the case for aviation). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area
  - xmodem 2y ago
    Perhaps the standard is flawed and needs to be updated.
    - DrFaggotMD 2y ago
      [dead]
  - wlll 2y ago
    Standards are the minimum, not the maximum. Planes sometimes overshoot the runway, building an unecessary wall at the end of it might comply with a standard, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

rmccue 2y ago

> The ILS are supposed to be built on level surface or "frangile" structure Nit: I think the word you want is “frangible”, easy to break.

parasense 2y ago

I suppose we have to get into the engineering thought process of these Asian cultures. Where did the idea of fortifying Localizer (LOC) come from, was there prior art specifying any degree of fortification (or lack) ? Perhaps these kind of radar (adjacent) installations are traditionally fortified, like maybe the civil air services were influenced from militry air services were things tend to be overengineered? Perhaps saving the LOC is more important than saving a single aircraft? Some idea like this piece of infrastructure being more important that any single aircraft's safety? The point is we might not see the reason why fortifying the LOC was obvious or straight forward to the Korean engineers. Also, I've seen no credible evidence to support the idea the LOC is supposed to be built on a level surface, or built in a destructable way. Addressing the first point, the LOC makes sense to be slightly elevated given how they operate with near field low power radio waves. That said, these kind of slightly elevated instrument might not require an earthen mound, sourounded by concreate walls. Which goes to the second point, I can think of reasons to have these kind of LOC runways homing antenas destructable, and I can see them being robustly durrable. This thing was way past the end of the runway, and as unpo0pular as it might seems... it's a very bad thing to run out of runway. Somebody else wrote that some airports have a lack of open field beyond the end of the runway, and so it's a persuasive argument stuff could be built out there.