[dmurray]

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.

[brookst]

I’m suspicious of decontextualization in the name of forming “either X or Y” absolutes.

Either 8 character passwords are fine and secure, or bad and should be banned? With no context between “€x8;,O{w” and “password”?

I suspect runway design has more variables than just distance to obstacles.

[hmcq6]

>and the likes of Burbank should shorten their runway to ensure there's sufficient buffer space at the end of it.

... you can't be serious with this? 300 more feet of unused runway is equivalent to if not better than 300 feet of buffer. You're fixated on following the "rules" without any understanding as to why they exist.

[dmurray]

Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. I agree with you: there shouldn't be a hard rule of "no obstacles within 300m of the runway, and the Muan airport authorities were negligent in having one".

If they'd shortened the "runway" by 300m (let's say the unused space was still tarmacked and empty, but not designated as a runway, although I understand there are better materials for arresting overruns) would all those people still have died and would people still be blaming the airport layout?

Perhaps the pilot would have made a different decision if the runway was advertised as 2500m instead of 2800m, but that also suggests people are looking at the wrong thing, and pilots looking for emergency landings should consider not only the runway length but also any buffer available.