Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mvynnxzzmo

by vinni2 • 2 years ago

135 322 2 years ago

hilux• 2 years ago

So many things went wrong, and yet the pilots brought the plane down safely – and then this!? Just infuriating.

They did not bring the plane down safely! The pilot failed to lower the landing gear, or extend the flaps, both of which, for all intensive purposes were technologically possible. Multiple redundant systems for these. I think they completely lost situational awareness, and panicked.

K0balt5• 2 years ago

When an engine blows up, it’s hard to say what still worked and what didn’t. They aren’t supposed to, but when turbines come apart, there is often a lot of shrapnel that has a history of taking out multiple systems.

But, it is possible that it was a case of poor crew performance.

In any case, the concrete blockhouse at the end of the runway was unhelpful, and it is also outside of the standard guidance for runway aligned obstructions. In most cases, those antennas would have been on frangible towers, and the crew, at fault or not, as well as the passengers, would have had a decent chance of walking away unharmed.

f1shy5• 2 years ago

They were with gear down, the retracted it, as part of the go around…

kiririn• 2 years ago

for all intensive purposes

Always a funny one, it's for all intents and purposes

f1shy5• 2 years ago

Absolutely no. There is the suspicion that they even shut down the good engine after the bird strike.

mmooss6• 2 years ago

Absolutely
suspicion

"suspicion" seems like fragile grounds for "Absolutely".

wat100002• 2 years ago

Bringing a plane down safely involves doing it in a way that lets you come to a stop before you crash into something that’s going to kill everyone. You don’t get points for touching a runway at a point where there isn’t enough of it left for you.

No commentary on the pilots’ role here, we don’t know nearly enough to judge. Could be they did a great job and they were just doomed. But the end result is that they didn’t get it down safely.

mcflubbins• 2 years ago

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.

Towaway694• 2 years 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.

notimetorelax2• 2 years ago

Runways are approached from both ends depending on the wind.

ra• 2 years 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.

K0balt5• 2 years 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.

ajmurmann• 2 years 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.

weweersdfsd• 2 years 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).

lutusp2• 2 years 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.

gazchop8• 2 years 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.

fl73052• 2 years ago

What should ATC have done differently?

K0balt5• 2 years ago

If there were significant winds it would have compounded those factors.

It is curious that the gear was retracted. I can only think that this was due to some kind of system failure? Perhaps that same failure explains the decision to double back instead of going around?

Lots of questions, hopefully there will be answers.

Still, the structure does not seem to meet the standard for frangibility that is indicated for objects in the approach path within 300m, although it’s not like it was at the very end of the runway.

Runway over/undershoots are actually quite common, and the building of a nonfrangible structure on an otherwise safe skid zone is a significant error in design principles that is not common or conformal to industry standards.

If those antennas had been placed on property designed towers instead of a concrete bunker, the passengers and crew very well may have walked away without a scratch, despite any errors on the part of the crew or procedures of the airline.

whycome3• 2 years ago

Botched how?

Mistletoe2• 2 years ago

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.

looseyesterday• 2 years ago

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

iso8859-13• 2 years 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• 2 years 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.

cm21872• 2 years 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.

Towaway694• 2 years 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 [2]: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/9090/live/ab9db...

khuey3• 2 years 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• 2 years ago

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

csomar2• 2 years 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.

Mistletoe2• 2 years 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.

psychoslave2• 2 years 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

whycome3• 2 years 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.

boodleboodle2• 2 years 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.

gazchop8• 2 years ago

I think this is disingenuous reporting.

It’s too early to actually draw a conclusion. We should wait for the full investigation.

There are a large number of compounding problems here. That was just the last one.

copperx• 2 years ago

Even with all of the compounded problems, the flight could have been non fatal in most world airports.

gazchop8• 2 years ago

I wouldn’t state that with any certainty. They touched down 1500m down the runway with little to no braking or reverse thrust. The ending may have been less violent but the outcome may have been the same. I’d rather go from blunt force than being burned alive if a wing ditched and it rolled.

Let’s wait for the investigators. It’s not good to fixate on this outcome.

thekevan3• 2 years ago

"... the significance of the concrete wall's location about 250m (820ft) off the end of the runway."

"...the runway design "absolutely (did) not" meet industry best practices, which preclude any hard structure within at least 300m (984ft) of the end of the runway."

"it emerged that remarks in Muan International Airport's operating manual, uploaded early in 2024, said the concrete embankment was too close to the end of the runway."

I mean that was a pretty obvious design flaw that went against common standards. I agree it isn't cut and dry yet but an investigation isn't going to change the above info.

gazchop8• 2 years ago

I don’t disagree with that. It is a compounding issue but I am much more interested in what happened up to that point. Many many small things or one big thing went wrong for it to even get to that point.

rich_sasha2• 2 years ago

So it would appear that this structure would be fully compliant if placed 50m further. That's less than a second's difference. The plane would crash into it at the same speed, just a tiny bit later.

OP is 100% right that many, many things must have gone wrong for the position of this structure to remotely matter (human or mechanical errors).

mmooss6• 2 years ago

Your comments on this page offer many opinions sans investigation or facts.

tedunangst• 2 years ago

How much difference would an additional 50m have made?

baq2• 2 years ago

To be brutally honest, the plane would crash about a second later, so approximately none whatsoever.

But this isn’t the right question to ask, as it isn’t the right question to ask why the wall was there. Why did the pilot and ATC decide it’s a good idea to attempt a gear up landing in the wrong direction is a good start.

EliRivers• 2 years ago

I recall back in 2020, when Pakistan International flight 8303 belly landed at Karachi, slid down the runway, and then took off again and had a go at going around, the investigation showed that between them, the pilots just screwed up on having the landing gear down and had a go at landing without it for no other reason than they fumbled it.

__m2• 2 years ago

Compared to running into a concrete wall probably a lot

SideburnsOfDoom• 2 years ago

50m of runway? Not much difference

50m of arrestor bed? Some difference, probably meaningful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestor_bed

jeffbee• 2 years ago

Would an EMAS even work for a gear-up aircraft? EMAS is designed to crush under the pressure of the gear. With all of that load distributed the the engines and along the centerline of the fuselage, would the pressure breach the material?

loeg20• 2 years ago

They'd probably have another 1000m of relatively clear ground without the localizer mound. The brick fence probably wouldn't significantly slow the aircraft, then you have a relatively clear easement (with ILS approach towers, hopefully frangible) until a parking lot and trees on the south coast.

baq2• 2 years ago

The title question is like the 20th in order of importance why this crash happened…

blitzar3• 2 years ago

Cause of death was impacting a concrete barrier.

ynniv3• 2 years ago

Cause of death was landing halfway down a runway at high speed with no gear. Why were they cleared to land if they hadn't set flaps and locked gear? There was ocean in front of them both before and after their turn: landing there would have been more survivable than landing fast and hard with no gear. They were below minimum turnback altitude, and wouldn't have been able to complete the planned turn without the same power that could have been used to stay aloft and sort out their problems.

Nothing about this crash was normal, and talking about a thing past the end of the runway is misdirection.

Jabrov• 2 years ago

Runway’s gotta end somewhere

vasco• 2 years ago

Technically it could loop around the earth.

echoangle• 2 years ago

You don’t even have to make it that long, you can just make a large circle of runway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_runway

ge96• 2 years ago

I was wondering what if they tried to turn whether by rudder or thrust differential would the outcome have been different/worse. Maybe you can't do much at that speed and so little room.

lutusp2• 2 years ago

I'm a pilot. The airplane was sliding on the ground and the landing gear was not deployed. Too fast to stop but not fast enough to use the rudder for directional control. There was no realistic chance to change direction.

If there had been enough engine power to control direction on the ground, there might also have been enough power to remain airborne, but based on limited information, that wasn't so. Under the circumstances the pilots would have wanted to stay airborne to buy time for a more controlled descent, were that possible.

All these speculations are preliminary and may completely change once the black box information is released.

rogerrogerr• 2 years ago

not fast enough to use the rudder for directional control.

Sure about that? 160kt (how fast someone calculated it went off the end of the runway) is way above Vs1 for a 737, there should be plenty of rudder authority. Heck, Vapp is usually in the 130-150kt range.

gsf_emergency• 2 years ago

Korean police have raided the airport offices

https://youtu.be/3D9BDIH553U

psychoslave2• 2 years ago

Just a message thinking for anyone reading who might have had some relative in this plane: sincere condolences.

Yeul• 2 years ago

I have been to airports whose runway end in the ocean, a swamp, a mountain and a 5 lane highway.

Aeolun• 2 years ago

I’m worried about the ocean all the time, so it’s weird to think that’s actually the best kind of scenario.

WeylandYutani2• 2 years ago

Well depends on the weather conditions. All the successful plane ditches happened when there weren't any waves.

dominicrose• 2 years ago

A plane usually crashes because of multiple reasons. The fact that runway design was one of them is a big deal because it was a concern for all airplanes landing there not just one of them.

kelsolaar• 2 years ago

Ate Chuet made a quick analysis about the crash: https://youtu.be/xUllPqirRTI. The wall is there because that area is regularly flooded, it serves for the ILS system, and it is unfortunately over the minimum legal distance for such an object.

harshreality• 2 years ago

It doesn't make sense, though, that it would have to be concrete-reinforced above ground, and non-frangible, just because the area floods.

Maybe it's the cheapest way to engineer the ILS localizer to be flood-resistant? I don't know.

blueflow3• 2 years ago

I'll recite an avherald comment:

  If you look at "Video of aircraft after touchdown sliding along the runway and impacting the fence:", you will find out that it took them ~1.7 sec from leaving the tarmac until they hit the construction. If you measure the distance on Google earth you come up with ~140m. That means they hit the construction with roughly 296km/h or 160 knots. If it wasn't the construction it would have been the treeline or something else. That plane was doomed, concrete construction or not.

loeg20• 2 years ago

Maybe. But maybe another 1000m of dirt would have been enough to slow them before the treeline. The area south of the runway is mostly an easement for the ILS approach equipment, then a parking lot and finally some trees.

It's also definitely the case that the cement-reinforced dirt mound is not best practice for a locator array.

TylerE• 2 years ago

Yes, but in basically every single circumstance if you have room for 1000m of dirt, you have room for another 1000m of runway, which is even safer.

mmooss6• 2 years ago

it took them ~1.7 sec from leaving the tarmac until they hit the construction. If you measure the distance on Google earth you come up with ~140m. That means they hit the construction with roughly 296km/h or 160 knots.

(Assuming the math is correct:) That's the average speed over that distance. The plane would have been slowing down the whole time.

formerly_proven2• 2 years ago

I'm not a pilot.

In the video it looked like the plane was only running on the rear landing gears, I assume with no brakes applied, since that would've caused it to violently pitch down I assume. Only in the last bit did it pitch down and started scraping along the runway. It certainly doesn't look like it was efficiently shedding speed (but looks can be deceiving).

KallDrexx• 2 years ago

It might not have been slowing down much in that time due to a thing called Ground Effect. Since the wheels weren't down, the flat body of the bottom of the aircraft + wings would have actually reduced drag and cushioned the plane for a bit, causing it to not slow down as much as you would assume.

dredmorbius17• 2 years ago

Physics hack: The average velocity at constant deceleration is halfway between the initial and terminal velocities.

So if we know the landing speed (which should come out of the flight data recorder), we'll know the terminal velocity given the average speed (distance/time) which is determinable from the video.

No doubt Jeju 2216 was moving hot, but a longer run could have bled off far more speed, and kinetic energy is based on velocity squared, so every bit helps a lot.

drdrey• 2 years ago

just because that aircraft was doomed (maybe?), that doesn't make it a good idea to have the concrete wall there

hu3• 2 years ago

160 knots?

Google tells me: "Modern jets land between 120–150 kt. This depends on weight, weather conditions and several other factors."

So even after scratching asphalt for 2/3 of the runway it was still faster than the normal landing speed.

My uneducated gut feeling says pilot was trying to abort the landing.

sio8ohPi4• 2 years ago

Normally they land with flaps down, which reduces landing speed.

loeg20• 2 years ago

Yes, it was a very fast landing.

mianos2• 2 years ago

There were no flaps deployed. Without flaps it's going to be a lot faster than a normal landing.

MoreMoore2• 2 years ago

So you'd rather them have a certain 100% chance of death instead of more leeway and a chance against much less robust trees? Honestly, if I crash land, I think I prefer 150 more meters and a tree as the obstacle over the concrete block.

What is going on here and what's with this crazy ass logic?

blueflow3• 2 years ago

Do you believe the plane would have stayed in one piece if it wasn't for obstacles?

hypeatei• 2 years ago

What is going on here and what's with this crazy ass logic?

Nothing is crazy about it. Many people in this thread (like you) are in a tizzy over a concrete wall for a plane landing with no gear at high speeds. Your argument is basically "having no wall would make me feel better" which has no logic and very obtuse.

The ground is also a hard obstacle and this plane would've hit uneven ground shortly after the runway regardless. It's going to disintegrate either way.

inoffensivename3• 2 years ago

Lots of airports have obstacles not far from the end of the runway. Burbank, Midway, Orange County are a few that come to mind.

Why did they need to land when they did?

Why did they need to land so soon after the mayday call? (only 8 minutes from mayday to crash, as I understand it)

Why couldn't they land on a longer runway?

Why did they land so far down the runway?

What forced them to land in a clean configuration?

As an airline pilot, these are some of the questions I have. The flight data and cockpit voice recorders should be able to answer these questions.

pfannkuchen• 2 years ago

Were those obstacles installed by the airport though? I thought it was like stuff on land outside of the airport for those other examples.

iso8859-13• 2 years ago

The localizer antenna mount (the concrete) was inside the airport perimeter. See diagram:

https://multimedia.scmp.com/embeds/2024/world/skorea-crash/i...

dmurray2• 2 years ago

Does it matter? Either it's safe to have obstacles within 300m of the end of the runway, and this was a reasonable location for the Korean airport to put their localizer in, or it's not, and the likes of Burbank should shorten their runway to ensure there's sufficient buffer space at the end of it.

cameronh902• 2 years ago

The obstacle obviously didn't cause the crash, but it's still probable that fewer people would have died if it wasn't there, and it seems to have been put there for no valid reason, quite recently, and against standard practice. Along with the reports that their bird control devices had not been implemented and that only 1 of the required 4 staff to repel birds were on duty. All these factors together may suggest an issue with their safety culture.

Though, I am a little sceptical of the claims that it would have hugely reduced fatalities either way. Runway excursions into unmanaged terrain at that speed don't usually work out well for the passengers, even when the terrain appears relatively flat.

I'm not an airline pilot, but I'm still curious to see what caused such an unusual crash, since there doesn't seem to be any single issue that could have caused what happened. So far, my best uninformed guess is a combination of pilot error and bad luck: the approach wasn't stabilised, so they started executing a go-around, and THEN a multiple bird strike caused catastrophic damage to the right engine. This may have led to smoke in the cabin/cockpit which they interpreted as a fire (or some other issue, vibrations etc.) that made them decide to shut down the engine, but they shut down the wrong (left) engine. So now they think they have a dual engine failure. At this stage they obviously don't have time to run through paper procedures, and they put the plane into clean configuration to maximise glide and attempt a 180 to try and land back on the runway. Then they either couldn't or forgot to deploy the gear, and floated down the runway partly due to ground effect from being at an unusually high speed, thus landing at high speed almost halfway down the runway. Thoughts?

tolciho• 2 years ago

"Normal Accidents" is a term for when things, well, normally go sideways in complex systems, and there's a whole book on it. Otherwise, it's pretty typical in disasters for there to be a laundry list of root causes and contributing factors: the Titanic was going too fast, there was hubris, and icebergs, and it was sad when the great boat went down. Could the disaster have been missed or been less bad if one or several factors had rolled up some other result? Maybe! That's what a full investigation is for, to suss out what went wrong and what things are most fixable.

ak217• 2 years ago

I don't know why the pilots landed the way they did but the structure was there for a valid reason. It's the runway localizer antenna. It was elevated off the ground to protect it from flooding. Should it have been frangible, yes, but it's not at all out of the ordinary as far as structures near runways go, and I think the focus on it is sensationalist and misguided.

jmward01• 2 years ago

These were my thoughts exactly. Even if they lost all engines/power/hydraulics they would have had 8 mins to start up the APU so gear and flaps wouldn't have been an issue and clearly they still had some control. Did they try to go around and lose all power on the go? Gear up landings do happen in GA but I can't think of the last commercial aviation gear up landing. There will probably be a lot of useful things coming out of this. Changing design and placement of structures at the end of runways probably isn't a big one though.

darkhorn• 2 years ago

Nice questions. But it doesn't give them right to build a concrete obstacle for lights, when it is possible to make it without hard obstacle.

neom6• 2 years ago

My wife is South Korean (from andong). I asked her and she looked at me like I'd grown a second head "because it's South Korea? We're a young country and that is tiny airport in the south, half of Korea is a safety hazard and you know that fine well, some freaking idiot put a wall there, oh well, it's korea" and walked off pretty angry I'd even asked.

bombcar9• 2 years ago

To be fair to her, check out some of the other things that have happened.

Compared to that mall collapse, a berm that far off the end of the runway won’t even be notable.

neom6• 2 years ago

Oh I'm fully aware, I take no issue with her ire, just didn't expect that answer, tho I should have. To her point, the South of South Korea, especially in the country area, has loads of stuff like this, there are disasters waiting to happen everywhere, much of the infrastructure should be gone through with a fine tooth comb really, like this still both boggles my mind and boils my blood: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/fire-south-korean...

They used a HIGHLY flammable material to completely cover a raised highway.

(All of that said, I read from so many people now that the plane would have disintegrated once it did finally start to drag given the speed, and there is another parameter wall shortly after the berm.)

boodleboodle2• 2 years ago

Safety hazards and disregard for accesibility as well

Waterluvian• 2 years ago

Feels like a “pieces of flair” issue.

The runway should be as long as it’s required to be. If after (and before) the paved runway they need a length of open space, that should be however long it is required to be, too. Beyond that there could be a minefield, a pillow warehouse, an ocean, a mountain, etc. It shouldn’t matter.

bombcar9• 2 years ago

After the arrestorbed will be a massive magnetic sled that will accelerate to the speed of the plane and then decelerate the whole thing!

Only infinity billions of dollars for each airport and likely cause other issues, but, progress!

ropable• 2 years ago

This is probably only the tenth or eleventh most-important question to answer about why this disaster happened, unfortunately.

reso3• 2 years ago

The wall is a red herring. The plane landed halfway down the runway at high speed. Something bad is going to happen if you do that at any runway on earth. In SFO you'll end up in the bay or hit the terminal depending on the orientation. In Toronto you'll crash into a highway. Stop looking at the wall and look at the minutes before the crash.

chuckwfinley• 2 years ago

This exactly. The biggest problem was that it came down with no gear or flaps (as far as I'm aware at least).

MoreMoore2• 2 years ago

People keep saying that, but I don't see how it's excusable for there to be a massive concrete block against which planes disintegrate at the end of any runway. Maybe everybody would've died some other way, maybe only 10 people would have survived, who knows. But we won't know because somebody put a massive concrete block in the way.

We aren't talking about any of your examples in this crash. And it isn't relevant for many other places either. If you have an open field behind a runway and you put a concrete block directly at the end of it, you can't defend your decision with "well, in this other city it doesn't matter because you'll hit the terminal". It's some weird form of whataboutism that I simply don't understand.

It's inexcusable and it's tiring seeing people defend it as if it's okay.

Affric• 2 years ago

Exactly.

Causality isn’t an equivalence relation with blame. A moral aspect has to be established.

kijin2• 2 years ago

Yes, especially because the concrete block is against regulations.

A terminal beside the runway at roughly the same distance is not against regulations.

Almost every rule in aviation is written in blood, so if there's a rule about something, there's probably a damn good reason why.

bonestamp2• 2 years ago

Apparently it is a structure that holds antennas to keep an aircraft centered on the runway. The antennas have to be there, but experts are saying that the structure supporting the antennas is way over engineered and even internal airport documents had raised concerns about it:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/south-korean-officials-wer...

SkyPuncher• 2 years ago

Most of the busiest airports in the world have some sort of dangerous obstacle roughly the same distance from many of their runways. Ravines, buildings, hills, water, trains/trams, etc, etc.

markdown3• 2 years ago

But not this one. Not this one. Without the wall, it's likely many more would be alive.

loeg20• 2 years ago

No one is discouraging investigation of the other factors or thinks they aren't significant.

khuey3• 2 years ago

Except they are and they do. The quoted "air safety expert" in the BBC article essentially says the landing was "as good as can be" and that most or all of the people onboard would have survived if the localizer berm wasn't present.

est• 2 years ago

You are missing the point. Runways are supposed to provide some room for errors. It's part of the investigation. You can't simply blame a human. Everything needs to be designed just in case

teleforce2• 2 years ago

To continue your idiom, it's not a red herring, it's the elephant in the room.

Seriously, I think the incident it's a hard lesson for airport designer and ICAO. For better civil aviation safety, the next airport runway should have ample room for safer aircraft landing without landing gears. Previously there's no real-time aircraft tracking requirement for passenger aircraft only for cargo, but after MH370 it's mandatory now and even ICAO acknowledged this very reason for the new regulations introduction.

SR2Z2• 2 years ago

Very, very few airport runways are long enough for a plane without brakes to land halfway and be fine.

It's simply not possible to build airports in useful places and guarantee three-mile runways.

reisse• 2 years ago

No amount of ample room will help if the plane touches down overshooting more than half of the runway.

Furthermore (this is pure speculation at the moment) I think chances are the crew were kind of cosplaying PIA PK-8303 - forgot about landing gears in a stress from bird strike, attempted go-around after realising it, but had not enough power from engines due to bird strike or ground hit. It's plausible final investigation report will conclude absence of localizer antennas wouldn't save them.

tooltalk• 2 years ago

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.

inoffensivename3• 2 years ago

Are you talking about Asiana 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.

yongjik2• 2 years 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.

dredmorbius17• 2 years 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>

Partially-effective runway braking and a much greater distance from runway perimeter to the nonfrangible ILS structure likely played a role.

ricardobeat4• 2 years 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.

rmccue• 2 years 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• 2 years 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.

markdown3• 2 years ago

What a lame comment. This isn't how aviation safety is managed. You expect planes to land halfway down the runway at high speed and out of control. It's an eventual certainty.

In SFO you'll end up in the bay or hit the terminal depending on the orientation. In Toronto you'll crash into a highway.

Ending up in a bay or crashing into a highway would likely have resulted in far less loss of life.

munchler2• 2 years ago

And hitting the terminal would likely have resulted in far more loss of life. Are airport designers supposed to consider this as "an eventual certainty"?

SR2Z2• 2 years ago

Crashing into a highway would have resulted in similar loss of life. Airplanes are only barely safe when they land without gear, and almost any obstruction is going to be more solid than a machine that's built to be as lightweight as possible.

There is no way to make a runway safe if a plane lands halfway down it, even if the brakes and landing gear are actually working. It's just not possible; runways are limited by geography and we tend to run aircraft as heavy as possible.

WalterBright8• 2 years ago

I recall one from long ago where there was a fuel storage tank off the end of the runway. I don't think there were any survivors.

hmcq62• 2 years ago

This is a slippery slope that leads to infinitely long runways.

Any length of runway you agree on can still fail. As you just said, it's an eventual certainty.

Rather than fixating on what didn't cause the crash how about we spend that energy on finding out why this flight unlike 99.99% of flights couldn't stop in the allotted space.

If they were gonna land halfway down the runway why didn't they just do another go-around? Did the thrust reversers not work? Doesn't the 737-800 have a backup way of dropping the landing gear?

dredmorbius17• 2 years ago

At the moment before encountering the Muan Murder Wall, there were 181 souls alive, healthy, and uninjured aboard Jeju Air Flight 2216.

At the moment after encountering the Muan Murder Wall, there were 2 souls alive, one severely injured, and 179 corpses, most mutilated beyond all recognition.

Multiple things had clearly gone wrong with the flight, and we're going to have to wait for results of investigations to determine what crew and/or ATC actions and decisions contributed. But the principle lethal mechanism was impact with the immovable object of the Muan Murder Wall, and the ensuing instantaneous deceleration, disintegration, and conflagration of the aircraft and the souls aboard.

Even with multiple contributing factors, had the Muan Murder Wall not existed at that location, the aircraft would have overrun the runway and quite possibly airport perimeter, but would have slowed far more gradually and likely encountered structures less substantial than the Muan Murder Wall.

Wikipedia has a category page listing 55 runway overruns: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_an...>

Sampling from that we find that such accidents often result in no or few fatalities, particularly on landing. E.g.:

- Sriwijaya Air Flight 062 (2008): 130 souls, 124 passengers, 6 crew, 1 fatality, 23 injuries, 130 survivors. The aircraft struck a house, 3 of the injured were occupants. The sole fatality occurred some time after the incident. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sriwijaya_Air_Flight_062>

- China Eastern Airlines Flight 5398 (1993): 80 souls, 71 passengers, 9 crew, 2 fatalities, 10 injuries, 78 survivors. The aircraft experienced a tailstrike during a go-around attempt in heavy rain / high winds, broke in three, and came to rest in a pond. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Eastern_Airlines_Flight_...>

- Philippine Airlines Flight 137 (1998): 130 souls, 124 passengers, 6 crew, 0 fatalities, 44 injuries, 130 survivors. Ground casualties: 3 dead, 25 injured, as aircraft ploughed through a residential area. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_137>

- American Airlines Flight 331 (2009): 154 souls, 148 passengers, 6 crew, 0 fatalities, 85 injuries, 154 survivors. Aircraft landed > 4,000 feet from the threshold with a tailwind in inclement weather. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_331>

- TAM Airlines Flight 3054 (2007): 187 occupants, 181 passengers, 6 crew, 187 fatalities, 0 survivors. The exception in my (random) sample, this aircraft had a nonfunctional thrust reverser on the right engine. Lack of grooving on runway, heavy rain, hydroplaning, asymmetric thrust, and a large warehouse directly beyond the runway perimeter all contributed to the fatalities.

I've omitted one link I'd selected, Air France Flight 007 (1962) as that incident occurred on takeoff, not landing, where fuel load and flight profile greatly alter conditions and likely outcome, and isn't directly comparable. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_007>.

If anyone cares to examine the 50 other listings on the Wikipedia category page, I suspect a similar patter of largely survivable overrun incidents prevails. The conspicuous lack of Muan Murder Walls seems significant.

dredmorbius17• 2 years ago

I'm going through more of the Wikipedia category entries.

AA 1420 (1999) is notable for similarities with Jeju 2216:

The aircraft continued past the end of the runway, traveling another 800 feet (240 m; 270 yd), and striking a security fence and an ILS localizer array. The aircraft then collided with a structure built to support the approach lights for Runway 22L, which extended out into the Arkansas River. Such structures are usually frangible, designed to shear off on impact, but because the approach lights were located on the unstable river bank, they were firmly anchored. The collision with the sturdy structure crushed the airplane's nose, and destroyed the left side of the plane's fuselage, from the cockpit back to the first two rows of coach seating. The impact broke the aircraft apart into large sections, which came to a rest short of the river bank.

Captain Buschmann and 8 of the plane's 139 passengers were immediately killed in the crash; another two passengers died in the hospital in the weeks that followed.

145 souls, 139 pax, 6 crew, 11 fatalities, 110 injured, 134 survivors.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420>

Even though this aircraft also hit an ILS structure, fatalities were far lower than those of Jeju 2216, likely as AA 1420 had decelerated significantly both on the runway (despite severely limited wheel and air brakes) and its subsequent 240 cross-terrain slide.

Atlantic Airways Flight 670 (2006) literally fell off a cliff. 4 fatalities of 16 souls. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Airways_Flight_670>

Bangkok Airways Flight 266 (2009) literally struck a (presumably nonfrangible) control tower. 1 fatality, 71 souls. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangkok_Airways_Flight_266>

dredmorbius17• 2 years ago

And for the details of the Muan Murder Wall itself.

Here's Google Maps view of the area south of Muan airport:

<https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9731352,126.3829389,1299m/da...>

From a road directly outside the airport, looking toward the ILS structure, we see that had the wall itself not been there the plane would have struck a cinderblock wall as it continued on. This would have damaged the aircraft, but less so than a solid concrete wall:

<https://maps.app.goo.gl/mMGqBC9PX6sEF85B9>

Switching directions we can look to the south along the path the aircraft would likely have followed. The terrain is flat and clear, save for further navigation light structures which would likely have given way readily to the aircraft:

<https://maps.app.goo.gl/Retvh9MH48ta5xPS8>

Note a hill in the distance. This could have helped slow the aircraft further, gently:

<https://maps.app.goo.gl/m1D3WrMG5QYz6cvE8> (above image zoomed in).

Vegetation is low trees and shrubs, which again could have provided a fairly gentle stopping force against the airframe:

<https://maps.app.goo.gl/aCBtY9at1Q1oCZXz6>

Approximately 300m or so from the end of the runway are a few rather unwisely-located pensions and hotels. Those would likely contribute to ground casualties if impacted.

Another few metres past those, mudlands and bay waters, which would be more emenable to a survivable overrun.

timewizard2• 2 years ago

The wall is a red herring.

This is not how safety works.

Something bad is going to happen if you do that at any runway on earth.

Then the question is can we do any sort of engineering to reduce the number of fatalities that might occur when this _inevitably_ happens.

Stop looking at the wall and look at the minutes before the crash.

The plane hit the wall and exploded. The wall seems pretty important here. I mean, yes, there are also other problems to solve, but solving them does not let you off the hook here.

FabHK2• 2 years ago

You could mandate that airports incorporate runways shaped as disks with 10 km diameter and another 5 km of empty space around them.

Accidents would still happen.

Aloisius3• 2 years ago

In SFO you'll end up in the bay or hit the terminal depending on the orientation.

The bay is survivable and I don't think you can hit the terminal. You could possibly hit the freeway though. That said, two of the runways at SFO are 1.5 km longer than the one in Korea.

In Toronto you'll crash into a highway.

That runway is 1.5 kilometers longer than the one in Korea and it's another kilometer to the highway that sits uphill.

reso3• 2 years ago

In Toronto, the 427 is ~100m from the edge of 24R.

Xixi6• 2 years ago

You are making an assumption here, that I think is unreasonable: that the pilots (who have probably landed at this airport hundreds of times, it's not like they don't know the place) were expecting a large piece of reinforced concrete to be in the path of the plane.

I'm speculating, of course, but pilots made the decision to land there (albeit in a very short amount of time). They probably made the reasonable assumption that they could "safely" (as safe as it can be, of course) overshoot the runway in that direction. They were certainly not expecting to hit a concrete structure that would pulverize their plane.

Having large concrete structures near airports is not unreasonable, hiding them absolutely is. If instead of a hidden piece of concrete it had been a terminal like in SFO, a sea wall, or another known hazardous structure, the pilots could very well have decided to land somewhere else. Including in the very large body of water next to (or beyond) the runway.

You don't know, I don't know, and we might never know depending on what is uncovered by the investigation.

reso3• 2 years ago

You're making an assumption that the outcome would have been different if that wall wasn't there. You're wrong. 50m past that wall is another wall, 5m after that is a highway.

inoffensivename3• 2 years ago

I'm speculating, of course

People should stop doing this. Transport category airplanes are designed to suffer multiple failures and still be controllable. Why the airplane landed where it did, when it did, and how fast it did are the relevant questions.

pixelesque• 2 years ago

Firstly, this airport has only been taking international flights since the early December.

There was also construction work going on at one end of the runway (until March), and the threshold was pushed back 300 metres, shortening the runway by that much:

http://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2024-10-31-AIRAC/html/...

The runway also is not flat (which is why the localiser beams at that end need to be raised in the first place to intercept the correct glideslope angle).

As the OP mentioned, trying this (a very fast landing, with no gear or flaps, spoilers) at many airports around the world on such a short runway (albeit one which with gear and flaps down is long enough for normal landings with the required 240 m runoff areas), is not going to work well.

sinuhe69• 2 years ago

I don’t think so. Would the localizer have been made of less rigid structure and not a steel-reinforced concrete, the fatality could be much lower. Also problematic is the brick wall at the end. They could make it as fence only and not a brick wall. That will help, too. Of course, one need to investigate the whole situation, for example why did the pilot choose to land immediately, why no flaps and spoilers were released and why no attempt has been made to manually release the landing gears (using gravity if needed) are things of intense scrutiny now.

mannykannot• 2 years ago

This crash raises two separate questions: why did the airplane land the way it did, and did it make any sense to have a massive concrete barrier just off the end of the runway. The answer to either one does not render the other irrelevant. As it happens, we already know the answer to one of them.

Animats2• 2 years ago

Right. Pilot boards agree on this. It's clear that the plane landed halfway down the runway at high speed, no gear, flaps, slats, or speed brakes. A runway overrun was inevitable from that point.

Nobody knows yet why they landed in that configuration. Failed go-around? Engine out landing? Cut wrong engine after a bird strike? Loss of hydraulics? Too rushed for landing checklist in an emergency? All of those are possible. More than one may have happened. Wait for the flight data recorder data.

One article says the runway was equipped with EMAS, an Engineered Materials Arresting System.[1] This sits in the area just past the end of the runway, the part marked with painted chevrons. It's a thin layer of concrete over blocks of a material which includes foamed plastic holding pumice-like rocks. If a plane overruns the runway, the wheels break through the thin concrete layer and start pushing through the plastic/rock mixture, grinding the rocks into powder to absorb the energy. This usually damages the landing gear, but the rest of the plane survives. 22 planes saved so far.[2][3]

It didn't help here. The plane seems to have skidded over the EMAS area on its belly, instead of breaking through and getting the braking effect. The surface of the EMAS area has to be tough enough to survive jet blast on takeoffs, so it can't just be a sand pit.

[1] https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202412300010

[2] https://ops.group/blog/swerving-to-avoid-why-arent-we-using-...

[3] https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/engineered-material-arresting-s...

oefrha• 2 years ago

One article says the runway was equipped with EMAS, an Engineered Materials Arresting System.
https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202412300010

Nowhere in that article says Muan Airpot has EMAS, it says a local official confirmed that Songshan Airport in Taipei has EMAS, following local concerns that Songshan Airport has an even shorter runway (2600m vs 2800m in Muan).

A thread full of armchair experts is already bad enough, please don't make it worse with seemingly well-supported misinformation.

stouset• 2 years ago

It does seem unlikely to me that a surface designed to give under the pressure of an aircraft wheels’ contact patch would function as designed under the comparatively lower pressure of an aircraft skidding along its belly.

N19PEDL2• 2 years ago

It is clear that the main cause of the disaster was the landing in the middle of the runway and at excessive speed. However, if instead of that concrete wall there had been, for example, an extension of the runway filled with some material that could help dissipate the kinetic energy, perhaps the death toll would have been lower.

YuukiRey• 2 years ago

If you can get the same features with less risk it seems like a worthwhile thing to consider.

Meaning if we can build the same antenna array but with less risk to airplanes and all at an acceptable economical cost, it feels like something we should do. Regardless of whether or not a runway overrun at other airports and in other situations poses more or less risk.

alkonaut3• 2 years ago

If it’s possible in any way to keep the next few km after a runway clear, then it should be clear. Ocean is great. Empty fields are great. If you are lucky enough to have empty fields but put a concrete wall there, then that’s almost malicious.

The cause of any fatality in aviation is never a single thing. It’s invariably a chain of events where removing any one thing in the chain would prevent the disaster.

sho_hn2• 2 years ago

Agreed. I work on a different type of vehicle with safety-critical systems for a living, and I'm naturally also very interested in the interactions between the pilots and the machine (and among themselves) and the spiral of events in the cockpit.

But that doesn't mean debating whether there's a better way to engineer typhoon-resilient localizer antenna arrays isn't also a good use of time. Safety makes it imperative to discuss all of these matters exhaustively.

Re ocean, no, that isn't so great - sea rescue is a lot more difficult to perform than on land.

blitzar3• 2 years ago

If you are lucky enough to have empty fields but put a concrete wall there ...

I am fairly sure this will be one of the findings of the investigation. I hazard a guess that every sane operator of an airport in the world is walking from the end of their runway to the airfield perimeter and taking a look anyway.

m4632• 2 years ago

The wall might critical to keeping things off the runway, like animals and people.

imglorp• 2 years ago

And if you don't have the space, there's also arresting systems you can install in case an aircraft runs long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_...

PicassoCTs• 2 years ago

Nowhere else on earth is that structure a concrete wall. Its always some rather flimsy metal structure- designed to crumble.

mda2• 2 years ago

Terrible take, wall is not the red herring, wall is the reason of deaths of almost all souls in the plane. "Something bad is going to happen" usually has very different outcome than hitting a concrete wall.

Aviation accident history definitely disagrees with you.

charlieyu1• 2 years ago

Disagree from Hong Kong. You would probably land on sea but probably end up with single digit causalities

kristjansson2• 2 years ago

The graphic in the article is pretty misleading. The video of the accident shows the plane touching down with about a third of the runway left, not two thirds. All discussion of the localizer obstruction is secondary to (a) why did they touch so late and (b) why did they land so urgently.

loeg20• 2 years ago

The figure I've seen is landing 1200m into a 2800m runway, which is about 1/3.

kristjansson2• 2 years ago

In the longer video, there's clear sparks from the tail strike when the plane is in line with the northeast-most structure of the airport. Lining that up with the camera location shows almost exactly 1200m of runway _remaining_.

WalterBright8• 2 years ago

Why are we seeing random videos of this from bystanders? Why are there not video cameras constantly recording the activity on the ramp and runways?

hyperific• 2 years ago

Maybe the footage from runway cameras was sequestered for internal review.

WalterBright8• 2 years ago

I've watched nearly all the "Aviation Disasters" episodes. I don't recall any footage other than incidental amateur footage. The investigators spend a lot of time even figuring out where on the runway the various planes were, implying there was no footage.

alex989• 2 years ago

How does hiding videos help anyone? It's not like the footage magicaly disappears when you show it to the public and investigators can't use it. We live in the digital era, it takes like 7 clicks to share the footage to the entire world. Are pilots and engineers around the world gonna be better at preventing this type of disaster if we all make sure they never ever get to see it?

WalterBright8• 2 years ago

After all these years, have you ever wondered why zero footage of the SST that caught fire taking off have surfaced? Or even photos? That the only video of it was taken from a car on a nearby highway?

We all know the cockpit voice recorder exists and is essential for investigating a crash. I seriously doubt there are secret cameras recording the tarmac and it's all been hushed up. There are simply no cameras there.

WeylandYutani2• 2 years ago

Because bystanders are allowed to upload their videos while companies are not. Or is it normal for security camera footage to show up on the internet where you live?

WalterBright8• 2 years ago

It's normal for the cockpit voice recorder to exist and be a front and center part of a crash investigation. It is for this crash, too. There's no mention of any tarmac camera recording.

fontrash• 2 years ago

Trying to get the conspiracy theories started early, eh? I would say I expect better from you, Walter, but at this point, I really don't.

WalterBright8• 2 years ago

I brought this point up online over 20 years ago. The pushback I got was it was too expensive to set up such cameras. I countered with if a 7-11 could install a security camera that recorded on VHS tapes, a couple cameras could be mounted in the control tower pointed at the runway. I still got a lot of pushback.

Frankly, I'm baffled.

So why do you think such cameras don't exist?

P.S. Back then, as well as today, I'm surprised at the level of pushback on this question, but no answers.

justinl33• 2 years ago

The wall is a red herring 2. why was a commercial airliner attempting a no-gear belly landing with full fuel load on a runway that's only 2,800m, rather than divert to Incheon?

throwaway290• 2 years ago

At a news conference on Tuesday, Jeju Air's chief executive Kim Yi-bae would not be drawn when asked about the concrete wall.

I don't understand what means "would not be drawn"?

Asked by a reporter if he thought the wall was a factor in the disaster, he did not give a direct answer and instead said it was right to call the plane crash the Jeju Air disaster, rather than the Muan Air disaster.

If I get this right, I think this CEO deserves props for not trying to point blame away. Let's see what investigation shows.

concerndc1tizen2• 2 years ago

Why is it always Boeing?

concerndc1tizen2• 2 years ago

Firefighters said some bodies were scattered 100 to 200 m (330 to 660 ft) from the crash site while others were found mutilated or burnt among the wreckage.[61] Police officials said it would require over a week to identify the more than 600 human remains recovered.[62] Some family members provided officials with DNA samples at the airport to help identify the dead.[4] (Wikipedia)

Does this mean the crash was so violent that the 179 bodies disintegrated into more than 600 parts?

bamboozled• 2 years ago

The plane hit a concrete wall at something like 150 knots, so it was pretty violent.

Why was there a wall near runway at S Korea plane crash airport?

Related Stories