Hacker News Reader

Comment by notimetorelax | Hacker News Reader

You’re right. Looking at the charts, it appears that both 01 and 19 can be used - https://aim.koca.go.kr/eaipPub/Package/2020-07-30/html/eAIP/...

What’s noteworthy, there’s a note to use extreme caution due to this wall if landing or taking off towards it.

View on HN

Strangely, the only snapshots on the internet archive are on Dec 29 2024 (date of the accident) and the day after...

https://web.archive.org/web/20241215000000*/https://aim.koca...

Are we expected to believe these pages never got crawled before?

Can we learn a forensic lesson for this and automatically snapshot similar pages for all runways worldwide?

FYI, the 01 and 19 names are short for 10 and 190 degrees -- so it's always going to be the case that the opposite runway direction is 18 mod 36 from the other direction.

I don't see that note. There's one "extreme caution" note but it's about some other obstacle 2.1NM from the threshold of runway 1.

> 1.3 Pilot shall use extreme caution during carrying out final approach into RWY 01 or missed approach or departure for RWY 19 due to obstacle located east of extended RWY at approximately 2.1 NM from threshold of RWY 01.

it seems this is the same structure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Air_Flight_2216#Non-stand...

No. The ILS localizer was 260 meters from the threshold, not 2.1 NM (3800m).

Why would there be a warning for an "obstacle" 4km away from the end of the runway?

3800 - 2800 = 1km.

Did the plane skid for 1km before crashing into the obstacle?

Because the system is bureaucratic and stupid. Notices warning pilots about irrelevant obstacles are, literally, a meme. Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/wzsvru/the_notam_sy...

Almost anything that is 500m causes an obstacle notice to exist. There are tons of them and most mean nothing unless you’re flying an overweight small plane in the dark desert heat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com