> no idea he had to make the approach in the opposite direction.
So the wall is actually at the beginning of the runway. That wall was never never meant to be at the end of a landing but at the start of landing.
I don't understand why this isn't made clear. Basically the runway was used against the design specifications.
You always want to land with a headwind and never a tailwind, so ATC will use whichever end is favorable for the current conditions.
In this case, if they attempted to land with a tailwind then the on-heading vector component of wind velocity must be added to the airspeed to get the ground speed... whilst this was a contributing factor to the accident, it's not something to focus on.
There will be a thorough investigation but it will take some time to get answers.
It should perhaps be pointed in news coverage since I equated "opposite direction" with "wrong direction" - hence my scepticisms about the wall.
If that's right then OP would be correct in saying, this direction wasn't meant to be used.
Sure, but so is a highway, or a river. Doesn't mean those should be built to runway standards.
Part of preflight is investigating those so you know what are options at what are not - entirely closed runways will be indicated if they’re actually broken up or just marked closed.
Do you mean at Muan?
We don’t know why the pilot elected to double back instead of go around. There may have been indications of a progressive failure that indicated that course of action, but it does seem hasty. That haste may have caused them to not be able to set up a stabilized, minimum speed approach, and may have contributed to the long touchdown, which certainly was a contributing factor.
Still, a 14 ft high concrete structure within 300M of a runway end is unusual, and does not fit the standard for frangable structures which is the guidance for runway aligned equipment.
There are airports in which approaches always or very nearly always follow the same profiles given local conditions. SFO, SJC, and SAN would be three examples off the top of my head.
SFO's major approaches are over the bay, opposite approaches would involve rapid descents dictated by mountains near the airport.
SJO and SAN are both limited by proximate downtowns with tall towers. Nominal approach glide paths cut below the rooflines of several structures, and make for some interesting experiences for arriving travellers.
What’s noteworthy, there’s a note to use extreme caution due to this wall if landing or taking off towards it.
it seems this is the same structure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Air_Flight_2216#Non-stand...
3800 - 2800 = 1km.
Did the plane skid for 1km before crashing into the obstacle?
https://web.archive.org/web/20241215000000*/https://aim.koca...
Are we expected to believe these pages never got crawled before?
Can we learn a forensic lesson for this and automatically snapshot similar pages for all runways worldwide?
Airports like this are designed to have two approach directions -- in this case, 10 and 190 degrees. Either approach direction would have been acceptable depending on the prevailing wind.