Crazy Fucking Videos

5861 readers

5 users here now

Dive into the World of Insane Videos!

Rules

No hate speech of any kind.
Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

MutatedBass@lemmy.world

dylpickles@lemmy.world

TimeNaan@lemmy.world

148

South Korea plane crash, Boeing 737-800 from Jeju air (i.imgur.com)

submitted 5 days ago by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/crazyfuckingvideos@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 8 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Agreed, but-

Why not have something softer/gentler deceleration than a hardened barrier? A gravel trap like you see for overloaded trucks at the bottom of steeps hills for instance? It’s still going to suck and likely disintegrate the aircraft a lot, but like the Azerbaijan 8243 crash shows, you can have a hard landing off runway not end with 100% catastrophe.

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

I was incorrect, it's not a safety feature. This video shows that it's actually where the localizer antenna is mounted.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There are runways with crushable concrete at the ends, but I'm not sure that does much for something skidding across without gear down.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/engineered-material-arresting-system-emas-0

Same link addresses a lot of your questions, I think

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

To date, EMAS safely stopped 22 overrunning aircraft, carrying 432 crew and passengers aboard those flights.

Seems that this isn’t a new tech but can be hard to retrofit at airports with limited space. Cool to see a list of airports that do have it installed though

In some cases, it is not practicable to achieve the full standard RSA because there may be a lack of available land. There also may be obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain.

[–] caboose2006@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No system can be 100% safe. You either don't have the money or space or time for every system that could possibly mitigate crashes. Especially with how rare stuff like this is, it doesn't always make sense. Cost Vs efficiency Vs safety is an equation balanced by the individual all the way up to the government everyday. Everything is a trads-off.

[–] dellish@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

As a non-capitalist the very concept of "this would save a lot of lives, but it costs too much" is extremely off-putting. I know it's the world we live in, and obviously this argument can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, but building a solid wall is clearly not the answer. As soon as designers/engineers start putting a price on a life we're into pretty shitty territory.