• JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Is it just me or does it feel that 2024 has not been a very good year in aviation safety? It seems that almost every month there’s news about some major crash or incident and then of course there was the whole fiasco with Boeing

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The wall is there to prevent an overrunning aircraft from ramming into whatever’s behind the wall. It’s obviously not meant to stop a heavy jet at that speed, but for a smaller or slower aircraft, it could mean the difference between arresting the plane as softly as possible under the circumstances, and crashing the airplane anyways into trees, the localizer antennas, or public roads with cars and people on them, in a place that airport rescue and firefighters can’t easily reach.

      I was completely incorrect about that specific airport. The mound is part of the localizer antenna, which was not visible on the video. More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzmptA6s-1g

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed, but-

        Why not have something softer/gentler deceleration than a hardened barrier? A gravel trap like you see for overloaded trucks at the bottom of steeps hills for instance? It’s still going to suck and likely disintegrate the aircraft a lot, but like the Azerbaijan 8243 crash shows, you can have a hard landing off runway not end with 100% catastrophe.

        • rtxn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was incorrect, it’s not a safety feature. This video shows that it’s actually where the localizer antenna is mounted.

        • caboose2006@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No system can be 100% safe. You either don’t have the money or space or time for every system that could possibly mitigate crashes. Especially with how rare stuff like this is, it doesn’t always make sense. Cost Vs efficiency Vs safety is an equation balanced by the individual all the way up to the government everyday. Everything is a trads-off.

          • dellish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            As a non-capitalist the very concept of “this would save a lot of lives, but it costs too much” is extremely off-putting. I know it’s the world we live in, and obviously this argument can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, but building a solid wall is clearly not the answer. As soon as designers/engineers start putting a price on a life we’re into pretty shitty territory.

          • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            To date, EMAS safely stopped 22 overrunning aircraft, carrying 432 crew and passengers aboard those flights.

            Seems that this isn’t a new tech but can be hard to retrofit at airports with limited space. Cool to see a list of airports that do have it installed though

            In some cases, it is not practicable to achieve the full standard RSA because there may be a lack of available land. There also may be obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain.

    • Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sorry, I misclicked in the asset placer… 😭

      Won’t happen again. - Respectfully, GOD.

      Edit: Oh fuck, didn’t realise that it wasn’t a test site.

  • MelonYellow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Quoting from: https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/east-asia/south-korea-plane-crash-jeju-air-cause-what-happened-b2671091.html

    Transport Ministry officials have said their early assessment of communications records show the airport control tower issued a bird strike warning to the plane shortly before it intended to land. The flight had reportedly attempted one landing before being forced to “go around” when the landing gear failed to lower normally.

    8.57am local time: Muan International Airport’s control tower issued a warning over possible bird strikes.

    8.58am: The pilot sent a “Mayday” distress signal.

    9am: The plane attempted to land on the runway but failed to deploy its landing gear.

    9.03am: The aircraft crash-landed on its fuselage, collided with the airport fence, and erupted into flames.

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      8:58 they declare mayday because of no landing gear and two minutes later they’re attempting the riskiest landing of their lives? I bet „no landing gear” checklist is a bit longer than two minutes.

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        8:58 they declare mayday because of no landing gear and two minutes later they’re attempting the riskiest landing of their lives? I bet „no landing gear” checklist is a bit longer than two minutes.

        You’re right, if the mayday were due to the landing gear not being down they wouldn’t have attempted to land so quickly. There are many things they would try first, and the final failsafe simply drops the landing gear with gravity. If the gear were up, it’s because the crew left the gear up.

        The mayday wasn’t about the landing gear.

        The mayday was due to a bird strike. They initiated a go-around after the bird strike, and they may have also lost the second engine during the go-around. Perhaps a second bird strike. This would explain the lack of flaps and landing gear: the crew may have been trying to minimize drag to reach the runway without power. Unfortunately they ran out of runway after floating too long due to ground effect and traveling far too quickly.

        The incident would likely have been survivable at many airports. That berm with the localizer antena on it is a terrible safety hazard that shouldn’t exist at a major airport.

    • UristMcHolland@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a pilot or an expert by any means but I think I would have landed in water if possible. Maybe it wasn’t possible… Idk

  • Dima@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    This will definitely be the topic of a mentour pilot video at some point I think

  • LordGimp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’d think they wouldn’t let Wi Tu Lo fly again after the SFO debacle