Like if they were forced to come from opposite side instead of did the full go around or if it was pilots choice.
They may have been losing power or thrust, or had another problem that basically told them “get on the ground ASAP”. And this change in status could have happened after the go-around was initiated. Also if there is not a significant tailwind a plane can land from either direction. It was likely a number of factors that lead to this decision
Is that normal?
Yes
Why are they so angry about the concrete barrier,
Runway overruns happen from time to time. A concrete barrier in the overrun area is the equivalent of have a 90° curve on a motorway/highway with a reinforced wall beyond the curve. Bad design and destined for a fatal accident
To build on Dima’s excellent reply, the majority of runways are designed to be approached from either direction. Runway numbers are assigned based on a clockwise 360° radial, dropping the first number [edit: from the right] . An airport with a runway oriented at 10° East of North would be Runway 1. This airport will have Runways 1 and 19, but they’re be the same runway approached from the north or the south.
There’s a few things that are weird about this particular incident. Even if there was a full loss of power (indicated by the CVR losing power) the landing gear can be deployed by gravity drop. If there was a full loss of thrust from the get-go, they wouldn’t have attempted a go-around. Here’s my armchair hypothesis:
Bird strike. Loss of thrust on an engine, possible warnings to shut down the engine. Mayday mayday mayday. Attempted landing (full of fuel, likely overweight) comes in too fast or too high, or both. Go-around initiated. During climb, loss of power in second engine, but still some thrust. Announce intention to land on opposite runway. Decide to wait as long as possible to deploy landing gear in an attempt to increase glide slope. Second engine dies, total power loss. Complete task saturation means they don’t/can’t attempt a memory item dual engine failure checklist, which would include turning on the Auxiliary Power Unit or Ram Air Turbine to restore some power. (RAT should deploy automatically but perhaps it happened too fast to make a difference, also I’m guessing on the checklist, I’m not a pilot). Power loss means gear must be deployed manually. (Alternatively, with task saturation, they just forgot to deploy gear, and power loss was late and just another scoop on the shit Sunday they were served) Still coming in too high/fast, they touch down late, and overweight, and without braking action from the gear, and with no reverse thrust. They overshoot the end of the runway. For a belly landing, it was perfect. Wings level, no rolling, coming down the center line of the runway. Probably survivable for at least some. Then they hit a concrete barrier
The runway-numbers drop the LAST, not the 1st, numeral,
Runway numbers are assigned based on a clockwise 360° radial, dropping the first number.
so, as the above informative-post stated, 10-degrees is runway 1,
180-degrees is runway 18, etc…
( I make mistakes like that too, so nobody blame them, ok? : )
_ /\ _
PS: black-boxes are REQUIRED by the US’s FAA ( & the EU’s equivalent, ttbomk ) to have backup-power for themselves, & I can’t remember how many minutes of backup-power they’re required to have, but it’s something like 20-minutes? 40?
For the black-box to have lost power 4-minutes before the crash…
The runway-numbers drop the LAST, not the 1st, numeral,
Yes, thank you, i meant what you wrote, but said the opposite. A not infrequent error, sadly
I had forgotten about the battery backup. I’m not sure what the law is in S. Korea and surrounding countries. If the accident plane only flew in Asia and none of the destination countries required that equipment they may not have had backup batteries for the CVR/FDR. Dunno about any of that tho
Dima’s reply caught most of your questions.
They may have been losing power or thrust, or had another problem that basically told them “get on the ground ASAP”. And this change in status could have happened after the go-around was initiated. Also if there is not a significant tailwind a plane can land from either direction. It was likely a number of factors that lead to this decision
Yes
Runway overruns happen from time to time. A concrete barrier in the overrun area is the equivalent of have a 90° curve on a motorway/highway with a reinforced wall beyond the curve. Bad design and destined for a fatal accident
To build on Dima’s excellent reply, the majority of runways are designed to be approached from either direction. Runway numbers are assigned based on a clockwise 360° radial, dropping the first number [edit: from the right] . An airport with a runway oriented at 10° East of North would be Runway 1. This airport will have Runways 1 and 19, but they’re be the same runway approached from the north or the south.
There’s a few things that are weird about this particular incident. Even if there was a full loss of power (indicated by the CVR losing power) the landing gear can be deployed by gravity drop. If there was a full loss of thrust from the get-go, they wouldn’t have attempted a go-around. Here’s my armchair hypothesis:
Bird strike. Loss of thrust on an engine, possible warnings to shut down the engine. Mayday mayday mayday. Attempted landing (full of fuel, likely overweight) comes in too fast or too high, or both. Go-around initiated. During climb, loss of power in second engine, but still some thrust. Announce intention to land on opposite runway. Decide to wait as long as possible to deploy landing gear in an attempt to increase glide slope. Second engine dies, total power loss. Complete task saturation means they don’t/can’t attempt a memory item dual engine failure checklist, which would include turning on the Auxiliary Power Unit or Ram Air Turbine to restore some power. (RAT should deploy automatically but perhaps it happened too fast to make a difference, also I’m guessing on the checklist, I’m not a pilot). Power loss means gear must be deployed manually. (Alternatively, with task saturation, they just forgot to deploy gear, and power loss was late and just another scoop on the shit Sunday they were served) Still coming in too high/fast, they touch down late, and overweight, and without braking action from the gear, and with no reverse thrust. They overshoot the end of the runway. For a belly landing, it was perfect. Wings level, no rolling, coming down the center line of the runway. Probably survivable for at least some. Then they hit a concrete barrier
The runway-numbers drop the LAST, not the 1st, numeral,
so, as the above informative-post stated, 10-degrees is runway 1, 180-degrees is runway 18, etc…
( I make mistakes like that too, so nobody blame them, ok? : )
_ /\ _
PS: black-boxes are REQUIRED by the US’s FAA ( & the EU’s equivalent, ttbomk ) to have backup-power for themselves, & I can’t remember how many minutes of backup-power they’re required to have, but it’s something like 20-minutes? 40?
For the black-box to have lost power 4-minutes before the crash…
Something’s VERY screwy, there…
Possible sabotage, even…
_ /\ _
Yes, thank you, i meant what you wrote, but said the opposite. A not infrequent error, sadly
I had forgotten about the battery backup. I’m not sure what the law is in S. Korea and surrounding countries. If the accident plane only flew in Asia and none of the destination countries required that equipment they may not have had backup batteries for the CVR/FDR. Dunno about any of that tho
The concrete barrier (a cinderblock wall) is at both ends of the runway. It goes all the way around the airport.
Yikes.
The RESA should absolutely have engineered arrest materials at the end of the runway. And breakaway towers for the ILS antenna