Unveiling the Mystery: The Purpose Behind the Runway Wall

Aviation specialists have questioned the nature of an “extraordinary” concrete wall positioned near the runway and its connection to the South Korea aircraft disaster that claimed 179 lives.

Video evidence captures the Jeju Air aircraft veering off the runway before impacting the wall and erupting in flames at Muan International Airport on Sunday.

Investigators probing the factors behind South Korea’s deadliest air accident are evaluating the importance of the wall’s placement, situated approximately 250m (820ft) beyond the runway’s end.

David Learmount, an air safety specialist, stated that had the “obstacle” been absent, the aircraft “would have come to a halt with most – if not all – individuals aboard still alive.”

The pilot noted that the aircraft had collided with a bird, leading to the cancellation of the initial landing and subsequently seeking approval to land from the opposite direction.

The aircraft descended some distance down the 2,800m runway and appeared to land without utilizing its wheels or landing apparatus.

Mr. Learmount described the landing as “the best a flapless/gearless touchdown could be: wings level, nose not elevated too high to prevent the tail from snapping,” and noted that the aircraft had not suffered significant harm while skidding along the runway.

“The reason numerous fatalities occurred was not the landing itself, but rather the fact that the aircraft impacted a very solid obstruction just beyond the runway’s end,” he remarked.

Another aviation consultant concurred. Captain Ross Aimer, CEO of Aero Consulting Experts, informed Reuters news outlet: “Regrettably, that structure was the cause of all the fatalities, as they directly struck a concrete entity. It ought not to have been there.”

Christian Beckert, a Lufthansa aviator stationed in Munich, referred to the concrete structure as “unconventional,” stating: “Typically, at an airport with a runway terminating, there shouldn’t be a wall.”

As reported by South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency, the concrete installation houses a navigation system that aids aircraft during landing, referred to as a localiser.

Standing at 4m tall, it is enveloped in earth and was elevated to maintain the localiser aligned with the runway for proper functionality, as indicated by Yonhap.

South Korea’s transportation ministry indicated that other airports domestically and some internationally feature similar equipment made with concrete structures. Nonetheless, officials will review whether it could have been constructed from lighter materials that would more readily break on impact.

Chris Kingswood, a pilot boasting 48 years of experience who has piloted the same model of aircraft involved in the crash, told BBC News: “Obstructions within a specific distance of the runway are required to be breakable, meaning if an aircraft hits them, they must fragment.

“It does appear unusual that it’s such a rigid installation. The aircraft, as per my understanding, was traveling at high speed, landed far down the runway, which means it extended well past the runway’s conclusion… so where do you establish the boundary with that? That’s undoubtedly something that will be scrutinized.

“Aircraft are not designed to be robust structures – they are intentionally lightweight to enhance in-flight efficiency. They are not truly designed to operate at high speeds on their underbelly, so any form of structure could lead to the fuselage fragmenting, which may be disastrous.”

“The fuel resides in the wings, thus when a wing breaks, the risk of fire increases substantially.

“Therefore, it’s not guaranteed that if the wall had been absent, the outcome would have been entirely different.”

Mr. Kingswood expressed that he would be “astonished if the airfield hadn’t complied with all necessary standards.in alignment with sector norms”.

“I have a suspicion that if we surveyed the airstrips at many significant global airports… there would be numerous impediments that could equally be labeled as posing a risk,” he stated.

Nevertheless, ex-pilot John Cox, CEO of Safety Operating Systems, asserted that the design of the runway “most certainly (did) not” comply with superior industry standards, which disallow any rigid structure within at least 300m (984ft) from the runway’s termination.

In the aftermath of the incident, it was revealed that comments within Muan International Airport’s operational guide, uploaded in early 2024, indicated that the concrete embankment was too near to the runway’s end.

The document, drafted by Korea Airports Corp, suggested that the placement of the infrastructure should be reassessed during a planned enlargement.

The director-general for airport policy in South Korea, Kim Hong-rak, mentioned that the government would “examine the relevant rules and their enforcement”.

Aviation expert Sally Gethin raised questions regarding whether the pilot was aware of the barrier’s existence, particularly since the aircraft was approaching from a different direction compared to the standard landing path.

She remarked to BBC News: “We must determine, were (the pilots) informed of this solid boundary at the end?

“Should they have been instructed by the control tower to revert their use of the runway on the subsequent pass, that ought to be revealed in the investigation of the black boxes.

“I believe there are numerous inquiries.”

During a press briefing on Tuesday, Jeju Air’s CEO Kim Yi-bae refrained from commenting when queried about the concrete wall.

In response to a journalist’s question about whether he believed the wall played a role in the catastrophe, he did not provide a straightforward reply and instead indicated that it was appropriate to refer to the airplane accident as the Jeju Air disaster, rather than the Muan Air disaster.