The tragic crash of a Jeju Air flight at Muan International Airport in South Korea has raised significant questions about the role of an unusual concrete wall near the runway, contributing to the devastating loss of 179 lives. Footage of the incident shows the plane veering off the runway, colliding with the wall, and bursting into flames. Experts are now scrutinizing the wall’s location, which stands about 250 meters from the end of the runway, questioning whether its presence contributed to the high fatality rate.
The crash occurred after the pilot reported a bird strike, leading to an aborted landing and a subsequent request to land from the opposite direction. As the plane came in for the emergency landing, it appeared to touch down without using its landing gear, an unusual but not catastrophic maneuver in itself. Aviation expert David Learmount suggested that the plane’s landing was as controlled as possible under the circumstances. The primary issue, according to Learmount, was the collision with the concrete wall. He stated that if the obstruction had not been present, the aircraft likely would have come to a stop without the catastrophic consequences that followed.
The concrete structure in question holds a localiser, a navigation system that helps guide aircraft in for landings. At four meters high, the structure was raised and covered with dirt to keep the localiser level with the runway. While the South Korean transport ministry has defended the use of concrete, citing similar setups at other airports, experts like Lufthansa pilot Christian Beckert and aviation analyst Chris Kingswood have raised concerns. Beckert called the wall “unusual,” noting that airport safety standards typically require obstacles at the end of runways to be “frangible,” meaning they should break easily upon impact to minimize damage. The hard, rigid nature of the wall is now a focal point in the investigation.
Kingswood, with over four decades of flying experience, explained that airplanes are not designed to withstand high-speed belly landings and that any hard obstacle could lead to catastrophic damage. He also noted the risk of fire due to ruptured fuel tanks in the wings. While it’s unclear if the presence of the wall directly caused the high death toll, its location and structure are certainly key factors in understanding the incident’s severity.
As the investigation continues, one key question remains: Were the pilots aware of the hard barrier at the end of the runway, especially given they were landing in an unfamiliar direction? This will likely be clarified through an examination of the flight’s black box data. As authorities investigate, the incident highlights the importance of reevaluating airport infrastructure and safety standards, particularly around runways and potential hazards.
