[Xixi]

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.

[pixelesque]

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.

[Xixi]

Very good point regarding international flights.

Of course, I'm making the assumption that the pilots somehow had to attempt a "a very fast landing, with no gear or flaps, spoilers". The core of the issue is probably there, hopefully the investigation will yield useful results.

But what I am fundamentally questioning is whether the pilots would have attempted that landing if they had been expecting a piece of reinforced concrete at the end of the runway.

To say it differently, it's not the existence of deadly obstacles near an airport that bothers me (after all, some runways are quite literally in the middle of cities), but the fact that the pilots could have reasonably not know about them. That, for me, is a pretty big issue.

There were plenty of concrete structures nearby when US Airways Flight 1549 ditched into the Hudson river: notice the pilot aimed for a path where there weren't any. Maybe that Jeju air pilot could have attempted something similar. Maybe not. But the absurd nature of that deadly piece of reinforced concrete probably didn't help making a good decision.

[ricardobeat]

In most airports you can expect highways, buildings, water and other structures after the runoff area.

The airport where it happened doesn’t appear to have any less clearance than usual around the runway [1], if not more when comparing to Jeju Airport for example [2].

[1] https://maps.apple.com/?ll=34.976342,126.382712&q=Marked%20L...

[2] https://maps.apple.com/?ll=33.515456,126.498733&q=Marked%20L...

[reso]

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.

[Xixi]

Indeed I'm making tons of assumptions, but you have not yet convinced me that they are wrong. A brick wall is no reinforced concrete, and how is a road at plane level fundamentally different from the runway the plane was "gliding" on?

[chii]

the 2nd wall is a brick wall, rather than reinforced concrete (which is what seems to be the first wall).

I dont think the plane would get pulverized hitting a brick wall, and the distance will also slow the speed.

And the highway is not above the plane's travel axis, so the highway is a non sequitur. Not to mention even more distance to slow down.

[inoffensivename]

> 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.

[Xixi]

I do not think speculations on HN are impacting the investigation in any way, shape or form, although I understand your perspective.

I do hope the investigation yields results that improve air travel safety.

[Dalewyn]

>I do not think speculations on HN are impacting the investigation

They are and will negatively impact the final impression of the investigation results, namely an unwarranted focus on The Wall(tm) (people here are calling it the "Murder Wall", which demonstrates my point) which helps precisely noone.

The focus should primarily be on the plane, particularly in the interests of preventing a repeat.