Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "Jeju Air crash: ‘Unusual elements’ of plane crash confuse aviation experts" video.

  1. Indeed. The plane was intact when it touched down on the runway. It was the violent impact with a cement wall that made it fatal.
    3
  2.  @ukmaxi  A birdstrike started it, but it was a cement wall that made it fatal.
    3
  3. @reeva5735 WRONG. The plane touched down in the MIDDLE of the runway. There is no "right way" to land as it is WIND that determines takeoff-and landing direction. Also, if the plane went into the bay, it would have been like the Miracle on the Hudson River. Stop making excuses for a dangerously designed airport.
    2
  4. If not for the wall, they could have slid 1.08KM on the ground before the vehicle would have ended up in the bay. At that point it would have been like the Miracle on the Hudson.
    2
  5.  @DandyE44A  NO, it did not. That hotel you mentioned is 700 meters from the end of the runway while that wall was a mere 150 meters. Further, that hotel isn't even on the slide path of the plane as it is off to the side. From the centerline of the runway, there was a clear 1.08KM line to the bay. At that point, the water would have resulted in a situation similar to the miracle on the Hudson River.
    2
  6. I believe the birdstrike started the series of events. But that cement wall at the end of the runway was what brought it to a fatal conclusion.
    2
  7. Deliberate attempt at suicide? If the hydraulics were damaged, that would prevent proper deployment, and it lost of power meant time was a limiting factor, they might not have had enough time to manually deploy.
    2
  8.  @frankblangeard8865  Stop making excuses for criminally incompetent airport design. There is no "right direction" when it comes to landing as planes will ALWAYS trying to fly INTO THE WIND, even if that happens to be towards the wall.
    1
  9.  @frankblangeard8865  There is no "right direction" to land. It is WIND that determines direction as planes want to take off facing into it. Which means this idea that the wall is at the start of the runway is DEAD wrong.
    1
  10.  @alanstevens1296  I guess you haven't looked at the airport on google. After the wall, it is another 1.07KM before the plane would have entered the bay. Also, the antennas at the end of the runway are SUPPOSED to break away, as does a chain-link fence used at most American airports. Indeed, in the US, it is a minimum of 610 meters of clearance free of ANY obstruction.
    1
  11.  @NonsenseFabricator  Several in fact. Just take a look at the wikipedia page for runway excursions.
    1
  12.  @NonsenseFabricator  Then you are not looking hard enough.
    1
  13. That landing aside from not having landing gear was practically perfect. It was the cement wall a mere 150 meters from the end of the runway that turned it into a deadly crash.
    1
  14. Yeah, and we are just going to ignore the cement wall a mere 150 meters from the end of the runway? Had that not been there, the plane could have slid another 1.08KM until it entered the Bay.
    1
  15.  @skincareforme  You don't know that. There is discussion that the nose landing gear WAS deployed but fell off before they touched down. But that has not been confirmed.
    1
  16.  @brianwebb191  Do you have anything better to do than lob insults at a dead man? It is easy to attack someone who can no longer defend themselves.
    1