Regarding the Korean aeroplane crash, why the hell was there a concrete barrier at the end of the runway? Did understand this from the first report. I thought modern airports have arrestor pits and it seems insane to me a heavy concrete barrier would be authorised at the end of the runway.
[#]aerospace
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kelpana@mastodon.ie
@kelpana that's exactly what I thought too.
Did you ever think about why runways are the length they are? As far as I know, no runway in the world is long enough to allow the pilots of a modern jet to reach V2 ("The speed at which the aircraft may safely take off and climb with one engine inoperative") but then choose to abort takeoff, apply full brakes and come to a stop, still on concrete.
That's an economic decision. The one-off cost of buying the land, paving and maintaining such runways is offset against the low but catastrophic chance of any aircraft needing that extra length. God I hate capitalism.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fluidlogic@oldbytes.space
@fluidlogic I guess it depends on the size of the jet. I am very surprised a concrete barrier was erected in the path of the aircraft though, it looks like a survivable incident without that concrete barrier which is what I understand actually destroyed the aeroplane and caused the fire. I realise there is a low chance of a crash overall, but not having some sort of arrestor pit seems like a massive oversight.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kelpana@mastodon.ie
@kelpana 100%. I watched the video on the Grauniad. I was stunned to see the wall where it was. With a runout area, that would have been survivable, assuming the aircraft didn't spin on hitting grassy soil.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fluidlogic@oldbytes.space
@fluidlogic Even with a spin I assume it is likely more people would have survived. My understanding is that injuries or death in an aircraft going into a spin as it is coming to a halt are because of torque forces (sorry to be grim) causing broken necks. It's the reason for the brace position IIRC. There's also been similar incidents in London with a much larger jet where all aboard survived (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kelpana@mastodon.ie
@kelpana yep, without question that wall shouldn't have been there. I find it odd that none of the reporting I've seen asks "what was that wall doing there?"
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fluidlogic@oldbytes.space
@fluidlogic It was mentioned on The Journal here.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kelpana@mastodon.ie
@kelpana Thanks - I don't normally look at the Journal. I saw the article. It's in the Grauniad today.
Perhaps like yourself, I'm interested in plane crashes because they're rare but catastrophic, and the culture in aviation has been ground-breaking (oops) in analysing and addressing failure modes. Folks like Sidney Dekker, Dietrich Dörner and James R. Chiles are interesting on this topic.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fluidlogic@oldbytes.space
@fluidlogic yes. Something a lot of computer programmers need to learn about, especially ones who write software for aeroplanes.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kelpana@mastodon.ie
@kelpana yep. My background is in software testing, so I'm interested in the failure modes of sociotechnical systems.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fluidlogic@oldbytes.space This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini