If the plane hadn't been going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet after the end of the runway all those people could have walked away from that plane. At that speed it would go another 800+ feet and almost certainly crash into something else along the way. Building, wall, storage tanks, embankment, ditch, waterway, highway, tractor-trailer, train, retaining wall, are some of the possibilities at airports. Nearly all of them would buy the farm.
@@vincecarlo The landing over speed could be the result on why that plane deviated away from the runway, passing the dirt, then tragically hit that barrier.
the concrete wall 5 feet at end of runway is to kill people and blow up a plane, cause over extending the landing is common for plane accidents, and this is the 1st time a plane over extended the landing, therefore there won't be a second time.
Theres also a big road ahead of the wall, Even if the wall wasn't built, The plane would still crash since there would be VEHICLES, where it could collide with and still catch on fire, similar to the Haneda Airport disaster last year where an A350 collided with another small plane even without a wall at the end of the runway.
@@PrincipalSkinner3190 There's a phrase "attractive nuisance" to describe things that might attract children and possibly injure them. There can be liability for a property owner even if it involves children trespassing on private property. But my point is yeah - you can argue all you want about "it shouldn't get to the point" where the antenna encased in reinforced concrete is an issue. However, there was no compelling reason to use that design, especially when best practices around the world are to just build it a taller antenna if it needs to be higher.
I've seen a variety of things. Mostly chain-link fences topped with barbed or razor wire. But also fairly thin blast shields to shield whatever is on the other side from jet blast. There used to be an issue at Princess Juliana Airport in Sint Maarten where people on the beach near the airport would grab onto the chain link fence and see what happened when the planes taking off would send a big blast of jet exhaust. I don't think they had a blast shield for many years. It wasn't terribly hot, but the airflow was just crazy. One woman died after being blasted off the fence.
Theres also a big road ahead of the wall, Even if the wall wasn't built, The plane would still crash since there would be VEHICLES, where it could collide with and still catch on fire, similar to the Haneda Airport disaster last year where an A350 collided with another small plane even without a wall at the end of the runway.
@@jackb5708 The Next Generation hasn't been around that long. Closer to 25 years. Apparently the only ones still being made are for military customers who have them customized, like the US Navy's P-8 Poseidon.
In my opinion, this Muan International Airport is at an unsafe location and having unsafe design. It should be boycotted until the authority replace it with a safer airport.
Wrong. Question should be directed to why the pilots landed the plane so hastily without even executing any safety protocols for landing. Had the pilot even call out the"crash landing" warning to the traffic controller. If not, what actually happened inside the plane? Could it be that the plane had already lost all its power or there is multiple system malfunction besides the landing gear and one broken engine issues?
A lot of people question why the pilot requested a go around when most pilots would have just landed immediately in an emergency. I suppose it could have something to do with the airline's specific training.
THE WALL IS AT FAULT HERE. THE WALL IS THE ONLY REASON WHY MULTIPLE PEOPLE DIED THAT DAY. THE WALL IS THE MAJOR REASON WHY THE EFFORTS OF PILOT VANISH.
The pilots did actually an extraordinary job, landing the plane intact without landing gear and faulty engines was a difficult feat. The plane was supposed to skid on the runway and on grass, and all the people would be safe, but there was concrete near the runway.
What a lot of media is not mentioning is the concrete wall is at the start of the runway because the airplane had to do a teardrop so it landed on opposite end of runway. EIther way, the concrete structure shouldnt be there.
Like most runways, it is operated in both directions depending on operational factors (primarily wind direction). Each concrete berm is therefore at either the start and the end of the runway, depending on takeoff/landing direction. There is a nearly identical structure at both ends of that runway. The one at the south end destroyed the aircraft, and was damaged. The one at the north end remains - for the time being.
Theres also a big road ahead of the wall, Even if the wall wasn't built, The plane would still crash since there would be VEHICLES, where it could collide with and still catch on fire, similar to the Haneda Airport disaster last year where an A350 collided with another small plane even without a wall at the end of the runway.
@ The solid compacted soil and concrete reinforced berm - over 3 metres high and 10 metres deep - pulverised and obliterated the entire aircraft in a split second (except for the tail section). It would have a linear mass of dozens of tonnes per metre - each lateral metre section would likely exceed the mass of the entire aircraft. Impact with the lightweight concrete brick perimeter wall - and other objects would dissipate kinetic energy in a far more survivable manner, at least for the rear half of the aircraft.
@@matthewjones255 I've been following this since it happened and you wouldn't believe how many silly comments I've heard that they landed in the wrong direction, as if runways could only be directional.
This "expert" keeps making horrendous mistakes. Like failing to acknowledge that throughout the landing the plane did not slow down because at least one engine was still producing thrust ! Another question nobody addresses is whether or not the pilots, when they started their final approach, were aware of the dirt and concrete barrier at the end of the runway? If they had known this in advance, they would likely elected not to set the plane down on that particular runway to begin with.
Why is it that aviation safety still questioning the concrete wall? Why? And why only now? You didnot conduct any inspection while the construction is going on? Just asking
At that speed, you'd rather have flat ground or a super long runway so the aircraft can slowly ground its way to a halt. A sand dune or berm will direct the nose up and possible snap the plane in half, which may/will lead to more fatalities (due to fuel tanks rupturing, people caught in the fracture zone, etc)
Having been to sandy areas, no. The wind blows sand around and it gets everywhere. You really want aircraft constantly sucking in sand? It is near a beach, but I don't think it would be great having that much sand that close to the runway on purpose. A reasonable alternative is what's called an "engineered materials arrestor system". Sort of crushable concrete-like materials that absorb energy. They work best when landing gear digs into the material, but I would think the engine nacelles and the weight of the plane would have worked too.
If the plane hadn't been going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet after the end of the runway all those people could have walked away from that plane. At that speed it would go another 800+ feet and almost certainly crash into something else along the way. Building, wall, storage tanks, embankment, ditch, waterway, highway, tractor-trailer, train, retaining wall, are some of the possibilities at airports.
An Aerosucre 727 took off from Bogota in November 2024 and clipped the same kind of antennas. The antennas broke, the airplane flew. The take off speed of 727 is 184 mph. The Bogota airport antennas are flush to the surface of the runway, not on top of a solid dirt like this Muan airport. Without the embankment and the airport wall, then the airplane would crash into the beach.
@@1ndragunawan So the 727 was in the air and clipped some antennas. That is much more survivable than going 150 mph on the ground with no landing gear, when you will ultimately will hit something head-on that will tear the a/c all to flaming pieces.
@@alanstevens1296 The 727 hit the antennas at the moment it left the ground. You should take a look at the southern end of this Muan airport in Google Maps. After the berm for the localizer antenna embedded in the concrete foundation, there's another wall. After that 2300 feet of open space until it'll hit a snack bar.
@@1ndragunawan It was a long way to the beach. Maybe 1000m. But it would have gone through utility lines/poles, small trees, fields, and perhaps some small buildings.
@alanstevens1296 The sea was just nearby. The plane would just skid and hit the water, and there might be survivors, if not all. Remember the plane on the Hudson River.
WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG ISSUE HERE. Yes, the concrete wall exists, but it’s at a safe distance and within the recommended overshooting zone. The real question is: why did the pilots make such contradictory decisions? 1. The flaps were retracted, which suggests they were considering a go-around. 2. Yet, the plane was already in a landing position-proper angle of attack-and reverse thrust was engaged, showing intent to land. 3. Most importantly, why was the landing gear not deployed? The landing gear system on the Boeing 737 is foolproof, can be deployed manually in seconds, and doesn’t rely on hydraulics or electricity. Here’s the critical part: the pilot landed with 1,600 meters of runway plus 250 meters of safety zone (recommended by RESA) available. Had the landing gear been deployed, the plane could have stopped safely, avoiding this tragedy altogether. The focus should be on these actions and decisions, not just the existence of the concrete wall. This incident feels avoidable with proper execution of basic procedures.
*aviation expert ??? . . . the plane came from the wrong side of the runway the concretewall with the approaching lights are at the beginning of the runway not at the end !*
What? There is no wrong side of the runway. It's clearly meant to be used in both directions with markings and evidence that planes have landed in both directions.
but... but... but.... there is no structure or infrastructure beyond the airport perimeter. www.google.com/maps/place/Muan+International+Airport/@34.9764345,126.3819227,286m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x3573c6fb31b5332d:0x470efa2446f23cc4!8m2!3d34.9935753!4d126.3878557!16s%2Fm%2F03bxw30?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Looking at a map their is a thin wall around the airport to protect the perimeter. That wall/berm being there makes no sense. The landing lights and ILS antennas don't need to be mounted on 20meter berm that's 10 meter thick. Literally no other major airport in the world except for another one in Korea features a concrete wall of this size at one end of the runway
@@johntwohy8337 true but technology and technique like the arrester bed have existed since before 2017 and that's designed to stop a runaway plane from skidding outside of the airport perimeter while preventing excessive damage to the aircraft. I also find it strange that the Korean main stream media have avoided mentioning this wall at all so far
This expert should pose his question to ICAO on that berm, imo. Readers surely would like to know its function and also whether it's approved by the governing body.
The wall was not the problem! The pilot made a tragic mistake. He was approaching the runway from the WRONG end. He should have been flying in from the OPPOSITE side. There is a FENCE at THAT end of the runway.
@@Joe-sm7lm Totally wrong. The runway, like most runways, is operated in both directions. The direction for takeoffs and landings is switched based on wind and other operational factors. There is a berm at both ends, although the one at the north end is slightly shallower than the one at the south end (which destroyed the aircraft).
@@matthewjones255 I don't get all these newly minted experts on airports who don't understand the basics that runways can be used in either direction. And in this case clearly has been used in both directions.
@@liarliar3412 airport and pilot fault Jeju ran this plane 13 times in 48 hrs lol So why didn’t the pilot manually do the gears Why land so deep? Pilot error bot
"Boeing 767 Emergency Landing Warsaw 2011". The landing speed JEJU plane was at least twice as fast as the LOT plane. I also have the impression that the JEJU plane touched the runway further than the LOT plane. The pilots made a lot of mistakes and the airport was not prepared for this type of event. The critical flaw is too high a speed. With a slower speed the damage wouldn't be as drastic. The stress associated with the breakdown took its toll.
Such culture does happen in Singapore too. Sometimes the dangers are obvious to the Authorities but someone has to be injured or die for them to justify spending that money to improve things…
So why is the wall there and how many other airports have deadly surprises for compromised aircraft. Damn! We have gravel, arrester-beds on national roads, to safely bring heavy & extra heavy trucks to a safe standstill after brake-failures on long, steep down-hill stretches. Similar life-saving, safety features at airports are both low-cost and effective. If the excuse is 'no space', make the space!
Belly landing is the most difficult thing and Pilot did it in perfect way but oh God why the concrete wall destroy all of effort from crew. Who made decision to build it?😢😢😢 Hundred soul gone.
He is looking at the point of exact reasons of the crash. There are other factors. If the airplanes crash easily when hit the birds, should it be taken as the airplane? Even little knife can easily cut the birds without being broken. What was the factor of high speed? The airplane was flying unusual speed. It was definite the preparation of landing process was not done yet. Looking at the video, the plane was running through its abdominal area with further enough distance to stop it without burning. But the plane was not stopped for that much further distance because of high speed without control. If it was already prepared to landing and decreased the speed. This terrible crash wouldnt have happened. Death rate would have been less than expected with little burn without hitting the wall. I guess the crash factor was different. Did you check if the plane was broken in the air? What are the factors of increasing the gear speed without pilot control? Did they give direction to the pilots with broken plane or without checking the plane safety to control? What was the blowing gas from the plane? Which factors could bring the plane blow the gas of its own?
Birds are more dangerous than you give them credit for. At high speeds a collision can go through a window. And the likely scenario here was that many birds were ingested into an engine, and possibly both. Engines might actually be able to handle a few birds, but if it's too many they can't. And no they can't use anything to protect the intakes as that would really mess up the aerodynamics.
Yes. Focus on everything except the faulty hydraulic system and the landing gear. With paid media talking for it, there is no need for Boeing to show its face.
Except an A320 crashed under very similar circumstances just a few years ago. But you don’t wanna talk about that I suppose. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303
Who directed that plane to that wall? The pilots won’t be so dumb to choose that runway to land especially if it’s gears all malfunctioning. ATC is the one who cause this tragedy
Another idea like the inside wings to have bombs anyway. It's supposed to be empty if a toy, spring like important also to reach around(area size) the bomb, like drop and such small fire then it opens to spring alot away
After reading some of the comments, I do have to say that the comment section here is full of some of the most unknowledgeable, illogical people. It's mind-blowing how some people, with so little understanding of aviation, are so sure of themselves about this accident.
Sure. So far I've found from this incident that (for reasons) runways only operate in one direction, the proper way to raise an antenna array is to place it on top of concrete and a dirt mound, and that they have to put something in the way of a plane to protect buildings and roads, even at the cost of the lives of people on the planes.
What happened to the China Eastern flight MU5735 with 132 onboard? The black boxes are sent to Beijing 🇨🇳 for *"decoding" 2 years ago,* and nothing has been heard from the Chinese regime.
The wall does not prevent accident but create accident....
If the plane hadn't been going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet after the end of the runway all those people could have walked away from that plane.
At that speed it would go another 800+ feet and almost certainly crash into something else along the way.
Building, wall, storage tanks, embankment, ditch, waterway, highway, tractor-trailer, train, retaining wall, are some of the possibilities at airports.
Nearly all of them would buy the farm.
RUNWAY is 2800m Long and Half of it wasn't Used, no ?
@@vincecarlo The landing over speed could be the result on why that plane deviated away from the runway, passing the dirt, then tragically hit that barrier.
@@vincecarlo
2/3 unused!
Walls at the runway?? must be stupid!!😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
I do not understand why u need to create a concrete wall at the end of a runway?
So u can make a youtube comment!
the concrete wall 5 feet at end of runway is to kill people and blow up a plane, cause over extending the landing is common for plane accidents, and this is the 1st time a plane over extended the landing, therefore there won't be a second time.
*the plane came from the wrong side of the runway the concretewall with the approaching lights are at the beginning of the runway not at the end !*
Theres also a big road ahead of the wall, Even if the wall wasn't built, The plane would still crash since there would be VEHICLES, where it could collide with and still catch on fire, similar to the Haneda Airport disaster last year where an A350 collided with another small plane even without a wall at the end of the runway.
Regardless no don't put a wall in any end of a runway Even the airport voted the worst in the world don't have a wall in their runway@@landi76
It`s like dumping broken glass in a playground for children and then saying "but children are not supposed to play with broken glass"
It's more like dumping it just outside the playground and saying "Well they shouldn't have left the playground area"
@@PrincipalSkinner3190
There's a phrase "attractive nuisance" to describe things that might attract children and possibly injure them. There can be liability for a property owner even if it involves children trespassing on private property. But my point is yeah - you can argue all you want about "it shouldn't get to the point" where the antenna encased in reinforced concrete is an issue. However, there was no compelling reason to use that design, especially when best practices around the world are to just build it a taller antenna if it needs to be higher.
Most airport has a mesh fence at the end of run way
I've seen a variety of things. Mostly chain-link fences topped with barbed or razor wire. But also fairly thin blast shields to shield whatever is on the other side from jet blast.
There used to be an issue at Princess Juliana Airport in Sint Maarten where people on the beach near the airport would grab onto the chain link fence and see what happened when the planes taking off would send a big blast of jet exhaust. I don't think they had a blast shield for many years. It wasn't terribly hot, but the airflow was just crazy. One woman died after being blasted off the fence.
Why does it seemed like this runway was used for the first time??
Like no one knew there was a wall??
Theres also a big road ahead of the wall, Even if the wall wasn't built, The plane would still crash since there would be VEHICLES, where it could collide with and still catch on fire, similar to the Haneda Airport disaster last year where an A350 collided with another small plane even without a wall at the end of the runway.
Not sure why people are blaming boeing
he's right, ppl should not blame Boeing just cuz the plane's made by Boeing and is a 737
@@djibicisse i know, its a 737-800
All expect paid by someone, means he work for someone.
It's a 737 - 800 and not the max. There's a difference. The 800 has been around for over 50 years and all safety issues have been addressed.
@@jackb5708the 800 has been around 30 years, but before that the 400 was around for another 20 years
@@jackb5708
The Next Generation hasn't been around that long. Closer to 25 years. Apparently the only ones still being made are for military customers who have them customized, like the US Navy's P-8 Poseidon.
In my opinion, this Muan International Airport is at an unsafe location and having unsafe design. It should be boycotted until the authority replace it with a safer airport.
Yup, changing and building airports is really easy. Can be done in a day.
@jessicaregina1956 Depends on who is building it. If done by PRC, maybe in just a few days!
Wrong. Question should be directed to why the pilots landed the plane so hastily without even executing any safety protocols for landing. Had the pilot even call out the"crash landing" warning to the traffic controller. If not, what actually happened inside the plane? Could it be that the plane had already lost all its power or there is multiple system malfunction besides the landing gear and one broken engine issues?
And the landing gear and undecarriage mechanism failed also why pilot accelerated on the runway ?
Gud questions, we should interview the pilots for answers
@@killerpalkia Wheres the pilot now ?
@@bobafett5757 dead, so idk why OP said to ask why the pilots did this did that. Like your guess is as gud as mine.
Dude the landing gear was broken.
Why the plane aborted the original landing and requested permission to land from the opposite direction where the wall is
The embankment is not listed as an obstacle for that airport.
A lot of people question why the pilot requested a go around when most pilots would have just landed immediately in an emergency. I suppose it could have something to do with the airline's specific training.
Still, they NEED to investigate WHY the pilot did what he did. There is not only the wall fault.
THE WALL IS AT FAULT HERE.
THE WALL IS THE ONLY REASON WHY MULTIPLE PEOPLE DIED THAT DAY.
THE WALL IS THE MAJOR REASON WHY THE EFFORTS OF PILOT VANISH.
The pilots did actually an extraordinary job, landing the plane intact without landing gear and faulty engines was a difficult feat. The plane was supposed to skid on the runway and on grass, and all the people would be safe, but there was concrete near the runway.
Probably need few months for the authorities to recover data from the black box.
What a lot of media is not mentioning is the concrete wall is at the start of the runway because the airplane had to do a teardrop so it landed on opposite end of runway. EIther way, the concrete structure shouldnt be there.
Like most runways, it is operated in both directions depending on operational factors (primarily wind direction).
Each concrete berm is therefore at either the start and the end of the runway, depending on takeoff/landing direction.
There is a nearly identical structure at both ends of that runway. The one at the south end destroyed the aircraft, and was damaged. The one at the north end remains - for the time being.
Theres also a big road ahead of the wall, Even if the wall wasn't built, The plane would still crash since there would be VEHICLES, where it could collide with and still catch on fire, similar to the Haneda Airport disaster last year where an A350 collided with another small plane even without a wall at the end of the runway.
@ The solid compacted soil and concrete reinforced berm - over 3 metres high and 10 metres deep - pulverised and obliterated the entire aircraft in a split second (except for the tail section). It would have a linear mass of dozens of tonnes per metre - each lateral metre section would likely exceed the mass of the entire aircraft.
Impact with the lightweight concrete brick perimeter wall - and other objects would dissipate kinetic energy in a far more survivable manner, at least for the rear half of the aircraft.
A concrete wall should not be anywhere near a runway. Poorest design and the airport should be held liable too.
@@matthewjones255
I've been following this since it happened and you wouldn't believe how many silly comments I've heard that they landed in the wrong direction, as if runways could only be directional.
The wall was put in place by the best and most thoughtful Korean engineers. Makes you want to take a boat to Korea next time?
Why go to Korea at all? That place is really boring and crowded.
RUclipsr Swiss001 has an excellent analysis
This "expert" keeps making horrendous mistakes. Like failing to acknowledge that throughout the landing the plane did not slow down because at least one engine was still producing thrust ! Another question nobody addresses is whether or not the pilots, when they started their final approach, were aware of the dirt and concrete barrier at the end of the runway? If they had known this in advance, they would likely elected not to set the plane down on that particular runway to begin with.
And why didn`t the air traffic controllers tell them about this wall?
are u a expert?
Incompetence BONANZA in this one. It is hard to blame only the wall
Why is the plane landing gear and extended flaps not deployed, I think this is the main question..is this a pilot judgement error
Why is it that aviation safety still questioning the concrete wall? Why? And why only now? You didnot conduct any inspection while the construction is going on? Just asking
Would it be better to built a sand dune to absolve the impact.
At that speed, you'd rather have flat ground or a super long runway so the aircraft can slowly ground its way to a halt. A sand dune or berm will direct the nose up and possible snap the plane in half, which may/will lead to more fatalities (due to fuel tanks rupturing, people caught in the fracture zone, etc)
Isnt airport built near water so that planes can use it for emergencies?
@@90taetaeya I think that's one of the reasons, but another one is that open water actually absorbs sound really well
Having been to sandy areas, no. The wind blows sand around and it gets everywhere. You really want aircraft constantly sucking in sand? It is near a beach, but I don't think it would be great having that much sand that close to the runway on purpose.
A reasonable alternative is what's called an "engineered materials arrestor system". Sort of crushable concrete-like materials that absorb energy. They work best when landing gear digs into the material, but I would think the engine nacelles and the weight of the plane would have worked too.
If the plane hadn't been going 150 mph on the ground 800 feet after the end of the runway all those people could have walked away from that plane.
At that speed it would go another 800+ feet and almost certainly crash into something else along the way.
Building, wall, storage tanks, embankment, ditch, waterway, highway, tractor-trailer, train, retaining wall, are some of the possibilities at airports.
An Aerosucre 727 took off from Bogota in November 2024 and clipped the same kind of antennas. The antennas broke, the airplane flew. The take off speed of 727 is 184 mph.
The Bogota airport antennas are flush to the surface of the runway, not on top of a solid dirt like this Muan airport.
Without the embankment and the airport wall, then the airplane would crash into the beach.
@@1ndragunawan
So the 727 was in the air and clipped some antennas.
That is much more survivable than going 150 mph on the ground with no landing gear, when you will ultimately will hit something head-on that will tear the a/c all to flaming pieces.
@@alanstevens1296 The 727 hit the antennas at the moment it left the ground.
You should take a look at the southern end of this Muan airport in Google Maps. After the berm for the localizer antenna embedded in the concrete foundation, there's another wall. After that 2300 feet of open space until it'll hit a snack bar.
@@1ndragunawan
It was a long way to the beach. Maybe 1000m. But it would have gone through utility lines/poles, small trees, fields, and perhaps some small buildings.
@alanstevens1296 The sea was just nearby. The plane would just skid and hit the water, and there might be survivors, if not all. Remember the plane on the Hudson River.
I have seen this guy since the last time I watched Air Disasters. He was an FAA crash investigator.
WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG ISSUE HERE. Yes, the concrete wall exists, but it’s at a safe distance and within the recommended overshooting zone. The real question is: why did the pilots make such contradictory decisions?
1. The flaps were retracted, which suggests they were considering a go-around.
2. Yet, the plane was already in a landing position-proper angle of attack-and reverse thrust was engaged, showing intent to land.
3. Most importantly, why was the landing gear not deployed? The landing gear system on the Boeing 737 is foolproof, can be deployed manually in seconds, and doesn’t rely on hydraulics or electricity.
Here’s the critical part: the pilot landed with 1,600 meters of runway plus 250 meters of safety zone (recommended by RESA) available. Had the landing gear been deployed, the plane could have stopped safely, avoiding this tragedy altogether.
The focus should be on these actions and decisions, not just the existence of the concrete wall. This incident feels avoidable with proper execution of basic procedures.
*aviation expert ??? . . . the plane came from the wrong side of the runway the concretewall with the approaching lights are at the beginning of the runway not at the end !*
What? There is no wrong side of the runway. It's clearly meant to be used in both directions with markings and evidence that planes have landed in both directions.
A concrete berm was just so idiotic.
Nice broadcast of "Let's protect Boeing's reputation"
Will the ATC be okay?
What was on the other side of the concrete wall?
The wall could be there to protect the infrastructure beyond the airport perimeter.
but... but... but.... there is no structure or infrastructure beyond the airport perimeter.
www.google.com/maps/place/Muan+International+Airport/@34.9764345,126.3819227,286m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x3573c6fb31b5332d:0x470efa2446f23cc4!8m2!3d34.9935753!4d126.3878557!16s%2Fm%2F03bxw30?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Looking at a map their is a thin wall around the airport to protect the perimeter. That wall/berm being there makes no sense. The landing lights and ILS antennas don't need to be mounted on 20meter berm that's 10 meter thick. Literally no other major airport in the world except for another one in Korea features a concrete wall of this size at one end of the runway
@@lelandcheng9187 I'm only speculating. There is a highway and some properties ahead.
@@johntwohy8337 true but technology and technique like the arrester bed have existed since before 2017 and that's designed to stop a runaway plane from skidding outside of the airport perimeter while preventing excessive damage to the aircraft. I also find it strange that the Korean main stream media have avoided mentioning this wall at all so far
Position of outer marker wrongly installed
Concrete wall should not be anywhere near a runway! Whoever designed it should be held liable. Forget the birds or mechanical failure.
I didn't expect that a country like South Korea could build an airport like that! 😔🙏
All expect paid by someone, means he work for someone.
in the beginning seem like media are paid to talk about birds
My airport has concrete walls. CNX, not sure if it is all the way around. Houses on each end.
Then that’s the less of 2 evils. Whichever saves more lives.
Does changi have concrete 🧱 at either end of the runway?
Doesn't look like it. Also has some really long runways along with even more grass overshoot area.
The Runway is 2800m LONG, The BOEING plane WASTED Half of that
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303
The pilot... He already have done a go around once.
This expert should pose his question to ICAO on that berm, imo.
Readers surely would like to know its function and also whether it's approved by the governing body.
The wall was not the problem! The pilot made a tragic mistake. He was approaching the runway from the WRONG end. He should have been flying in from the OPPOSITE side. There is a FENCE at THAT end of the runway.
@@Joe-sm7lm Totally wrong.
The runway, like most runways, is operated in both directions. The direction for takeoffs and landings is switched based on wind and other operational factors.
There is a berm at both ends, although the one at the north end is slightly shallower than the one at the south end (which destroyed the aircraft).
@@matthewjones255
I don't get all these newly minted experts on airports who don't understand the basics that runways can be used in either direction. And in this case clearly has been used in both directions.
Pilots can take off and land the plane safely with the aid of automated control systems. When the plane malfunctions, they fail.
@@liarliar3412 airport and pilot fault
Jeju ran this plane 13 times in 48 hrs lol
So why didn’t the pilot manually do the gears
Why land so deep?
Pilot error bot
"Boeing 767 Emergency Landing Warsaw 2011". The landing speed JEJU plane was at least twice as fast as the LOT plane. I also have the impression that the JEJU plane touched the runway further than the LOT plane.
The pilots made a lot of mistakes and the airport was not prepared for this type of event. The critical flaw is too high a speed. With a slower speed the damage wouldn't be as drastic.
The stress associated with the breakdown took its toll.
Such culture does happen in Singapore too. Sometimes the dangers are obvious to the Authorities but someone has to be injured or die for them to justify spending that money to improve things…
Cover up begins…. Blame birds and Pilot… not the CONCRETE WALL
So why is the wall there and how many other airports have deadly surprises for compromised aircraft. Damn! We have gravel, arrester-beds on national roads, to safely bring heavy & extra heavy trucks to a safe standstill after brake-failures on long, steep down-hill stretches. Similar life-saving, safety features at airports are both low-cost and effective. If the excuse is 'no space', make the space!
Belly landing is the most difficult thing and Pilot did it in perfect way but oh God why the concrete wall destroy all of effort from crew. Who made decision to build it?😢😢😢 Hundred soul gone.
placed it there like some truck barrier in an industrial complex
That wall is the problem and then south korea no compensation and etc.
Higher up know that the wall will cause accident
He is looking at the point of exact reasons of the crash. There are other factors. If the airplanes crash easily when hit the birds, should it be taken as the airplane?
Even little knife can easily cut the birds without being broken. What was the factor of high speed?
The airplane was flying unusual speed. It was definite the preparation of landing process was not done yet. Looking at the video, the plane was running through its abdominal area with further enough distance to stop it without burning. But the plane was not stopped for that much further distance because of high speed without control. If it was already prepared to landing and decreased the speed. This terrible crash wouldnt have happened. Death rate would have been less than expected with little burn without hitting the wall. I guess the crash factor was different. Did you check if the plane was broken in the air?
What are the factors of increasing the gear speed without pilot control?
Did they give direction to the pilots with broken plane or without checking the plane safety to control?
What was the blowing gas from the plane?
Which factors could bring the plane blow the gas of its own?
Birds are more dangerous than you give them credit for. At high speeds a collision can go through a window. And the likely scenario here was that many birds were ingested into an engine, and possibly both. Engines might actually be able to handle a few birds, but if it's too many they can't. And no they can't use anything to protect the intakes as that would really mess up the aerodynamics.
@ypw510 lets see the black box recordings and investigation report. Some people say the airport is almost located in a bird nest.
@
Some of the video of the crash investigation shows large flocks of birds in the background.
Is it too late to raise this issue ?
Yes. Focus on everything except the faulty hydraulic system and the landing gear. With paid media talking for it, there is no need for Boeing to show its face.
worst, in the beginning media are paid to talk about birds
Except an A320 crashed under very similar circumstances just a few years ago. But you don’t wanna talk about that I suppose. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303
@ oh dear
@@Liverpool4life5 not only the Chinese , more western expert talk about it.
Check the net
@@Liverpool4life5 just like during car accident , you talk about both the possibility of the driver and the car .
Not bird.
😢
kolea pilot landing in the wrong direction
What did he QUESTION how BOEING is able to Attempt Landing WITHOUT LANDING Gears Deployed ?
NO WARNING in Cockpit ?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303
The concrete wall is to protect the road users from a runaway plane?
The wall is innocence cos its the plane that ran through it so be logical
What's really unusual is, why do birds fly and why birds doesn't gave way to Boeing
@@SoBiased maybe Chinese birds
Why didnt question if plane is overloaded with fuel ?
how can an airplane overload fuel?
It wasn't overloaded. It was flying from Bangkok to Muan and used an expected amount of fuel.
😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
Who directed that plane to that wall? The pilots won’t be so dumb to choose that runway to land especially if it’s gears all malfunctioning. ATC is the one who cause this tragedy
The concrete wall same high as the plane, that how life end
This airport has one runway. They declared mayday and wanted to land as soon as possible, and possibly without much power.
Another idea like the inside wings to have bombs anyway. It's supposed to be empty if a toy, spring like important also to reach around(area size) the bomb, like drop and such small fire then it opens to spring alot away
What is really unusual is, why no K-pop artists visit the memorial altar for the victims
Because all too busy planning their comebacks!
After reading some of the comments, I do have to say that the comment section here is full of some of the most unknowledgeable, illogical people. It's mind-blowing how some people, with so little understanding of aviation, are so sure of themselves about this accident.
Its not wall or bird strike fault but its pilot and plane landing gear fault
🤣😂
Sure. So far I've found from this incident that (for reasons) runways only operate in one direction, the proper way to raise an antenna array is to place it on top of concrete and a dirt mound, and that they have to put something in the way of a plane to protect buildings and roads, even at the cost of the lives of people on the planes.
American quality airplane = american quality car. I will choose European Airbus, thank you.
Or u can crawl or walk
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303
Brick Wall? What the &%#$#%(@))\€=÷???
A U S pilot flew his plane into a river and all survived!
What happened to the China Eastern flight MU5735 with 132 onboard?
The black boxes are sent to Beijing 🇨🇳 for *"decoding" 2 years ago,* and nothing has been heard from the Chinese regime.
Hello LastChang!! Long time no see!! Where is your other bot accounts?
We may never know. Both Joshua Dean and John Barnett have died.