Jeju Air 737 crash South Korea

[Zaphod58]

I am on about preventative safety measures at all levels and this requires thinking outside the box, or for manufacturers and airport design, putting people's lives first - ahead of profit.

Take 9/11 for an example, proper safety measures, which were in line with the global threat at that time, were implemented after the fact and the same will happen with this tragic crash. Why not before? Why not a 'better to be safe than sorry' attitude?

Already most aviation experts are saying there should never be any type of barrier at the end of a runway - let alone a concrete one that could stop a train.

Additionally, they are saying that pilots nowadays have less flying time/experience and are 'learning as they fly', not to mention they are expected to remain calm and be able to follow protocol to the letter during a mayday situation. Have you seen the cumbersome and time-consuming way that is required to manually release landing gear - let alone doing it under extreme stress? Odd isn't it that S. Korean officials felt it necessary to raid airline offices and cancel 60,000 flights if their safety operational standards and/or crew/pilot training/resources were not in question?

Let's talk about plane engines not being able to recover from larger bird strikes, e.g. seagulls (as was most likely the case here considering the location near water). Why are engines not designed to withstand larger bird strikes? It boggles the mind.

It's also about injuries, such as when a plane experiences turbulence or air drafts where passengers are jostled/banged around so much so that they could end up with severe injuries. Why not better harness systems on seats?

https://www.griffithinjurylaw.com/faqs/c...flight.cfm

This was a once in a million accident. You don’t design airports and runways around one in a million. The ICAO recommends a 240 meter clear zone off the end of the runway. The localizer was 250 meters out from the end of the runway.

As for 9/11, the only thing that was on those planes that was considered a threat was pepper spray, and that’s notoriously hard to see at screening.


Jet engines are extremely hard to make proof against everything, but I’ve seen one take a 20 pound Canadian goose and the pilots barely notice. The only reason it was changed was because the book required it. Most of the time it’s shut down due to smoke in the cockpit, or vibration because a fan blade is unbalanced. They’re usually producing some power afterwards, unless the bird hits just right or it takes multiple birds. Multiple birds will do quite a bit of damage.


As for turbulence injuries, 99.9% of those are passengers that aren’t wearing their seatbelt. They’re standing, or just took it off because the sign wasn’t lit. Absolutely nothing to do with harness design.