[timewizard]

> 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.

[FabHK]

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.

[timewizard]

Many runways have an ILS antenna installation inside the protected area. They just follow code guidelines that the mounts can only be so high above grade and must be frangible. This installation is different because of local conditions. They used a common local solution in an inappropriate area.

There are dozens of ways to solve this problem. From the short term of better structure engineering to the long term of better ILS antenna installations that don't require such large structures in such commonly dangerous positions in the first place. We could even get into better run off engineering to handle the somewhat unusual case of a fully gear up landing.

It's just insane to me to say "it's a red herring" as if this were a mystery novel and not an emergent failure of several safety mechanisms.

[scripturial]

Your suggestion is absurd and impractical. You’re not contributing anything useful. Of course accidents happen. Knowing accidents happen, People are asking why a large solid concrete structure is at the end of the runway. Especially given that it was known to be a bad idea.