Why was there a wall near the runway?
ReutersAviation experts have raised questions about an “unusual” concrete wall near a runway and its role in a South Korean plane crash that killed 179 people.
Video shows the Jeju Air plane overshooting the runway before hitting a wall and bursting into flames at Muan International Airport.
Authorities investigating the cause of South Korea’s worst-ever air crash are considering the importance of the location of the concrete wall about 250m (820ft) from the end of the runway.
Aviation safety expert David Learmont said that if the “obstruction” had not been present, the plane “could have come to a stop and most, possibly all, people on board would still be alive.”
The pilot reported that the aircraft had struck a bird and subsequently aborted the planned landing and requested permission to land in the opposite direction.
The aircraft descended some distance along the 2,800m runway and appeared to land without the use of wheels or any other landing gear.
Learmont said the landing was “as good as a no-flaps/no-gear landing: wings level, nose not too high to avoid breaking off the tail,” and the plane suffered no major damage as it taxied down the runway.
“The reason why so many people died was not the landing itself, but the aircraft colliding with a very hard barrier at the end of the runway,” he said.
Munich-based Lufthansa pilot Christian Beckett called the concrete structure “unusual,” telling Reuters: “Normally at an airport with a runway at the end, there are no walls.”
The concrete structure has a navigation system called a localizer that assists aircraft in landing, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported.
According to Yonhap News Agency, it is 4 m high, covered with earth, and raised to keep the positioner level with the runway to ensure its normal operation.
South Korea’s Transport Ministry said equipment with concrete structures has been installed at other airports in the country and at some overseas airports. However, officials will examine whether it should be made of lighter material as it is more likely to break on impact.
Chris Kingswood, a pilot with 48 years’ experience who flew the same type of aircraft as the crash, told BBC News: “The obstacle requirements within a certain range and distance of the runway are frangible. , which means that if the plane shocks them, they do break.
“It does look quite unusual as it is so rigid. From what I understand, the aircraft was flying very fast and landed a long way down the runway, so it would have been well beyond the end of the runway… So where do you draw the line? That’s definitely something to look into.
“Airplanes are not solid structures – they are designed to be lightweight to allow them to fly more efficiently. They are not really designed to fly at high speeds on the belly, so any type of structure can cause the fuselage to crack, And then destroyed.” Catastrophic.
“The fuel is retained in the wing, so if the wing breaks, the potential for a fire is high.
“So without the wall, the outcome wouldn’t necessarily be completely different.”
Mr Kingswood said he would be “surprised if the airport did not meet all the requirements of industry standards”.
“I suspect that if we went around the airfields at many of the major international airports … we would find a lot of obstructions that could equally be accused of posing a hazard,” he added.
Aviation analyst Sally Gethin questioned whether the pilots were aware of the obstruction, especially given that the plane was approaching from the opposite direction of its usual landing approach.
She told BBC News: “We need to know, were (the pilots) aware that there was this hard border at the end?
“If the control tower instructed them to cancel use of the runway a second time, this should have been revealed during the investigation of the black box.
“I think there are a lot of questions.”
