Why was there a wall near the runway?

Aviation experts have raised questions about an “unusual” concrete wall near the runway and its role in the South Korean airliner crash that killed 179 people.

Footage shows a Jeju Air plane taking off from the runway before crashing into a wall and bursting into flames at Muan International Airport.

Officials investigating the cause of the plane crash in South Korea are seeing the importance of a concrete block about 250m (820ft) from the end of the runway.

Aviation safety expert David Learmount said that if the “barrier” had not been in place, the plane “would have landed with most – possibly all – of those on board still alive”.

The pilot said that the plane hit a bird and then aborted the first landing and asked for permission to land in the opposite direction.

The plane descended at a distance of 2,800m from the runway and appeared to be landing without using its wheels or other landing gear.

Mr Learmount said the landing was “as good as a non-turbulent/unarmed strike can be: wingspan, nose not too high to break the tail” and the aircraft was not badly damaged as it slid down the runway.

“The reason why so many people died was not because of the landing, but because the plane collided with a very strong barrier beyond the runway limit,” he said.

Christian Beckert, a Lufthansa pilot based in Munich, called the concrete “strange”, telling Reuters: “Usually, at an airport with a runway, there is no wall.”

The concrete structure is equipped with a control system that helps the plane land – called a localiser – according to South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency.

At a height of 4m, it is covered with dirt and raised to maintain the level of the runway and the runway to ensure smooth operation, Yonhap said.

The Ministry of Transport in South Korea has said that some airports in the country and some abroad are equipped with concrete. However, officials will examine whether it was made of lightweight materials that could easily break.

Chris Kingswood, a 48-year-old pilot who has been piloting the same type of plane that was involved in the crash, told BBC News: “Obstacles at a certain distance and a certain distance from the runway should be immovable, meaning that if the plane. hits them to break them.

“It seems strange that it’s such a solid thing. The plane, from what I understand, was traveling very fast, it landed a long way down the runway, so it’s going to be a long way past the end of the runway… so where do you draw the line with that?

“Airplanes are not strong things – by design, they are light enough to fly smoothly. They are not designed to go very fast on their stomachs so any kind of design can cause the fuselage to break and then be dangerous.

“Fuel is stored in the wings so when the wings are torn, the potential for fire is high.

“So it’s not a given that if the wall hadn’t been there, it would have been a completely different outcome.”

Mr Kingswood said he would be “surprised if the airport did not meet all the requirements in line with industry standards”.

“I suspect that if we were to go around the airfields at many of the world’s major airports … we would find many obstacles that could also be said to lead to accidents,” he added.

Aviation researcher Sally Gethin questioned whether the pilot knew the barrier was there, especially since the plane was approaching in the opposite direction from where it would land.

He told BBC News: “We need to know, did (the pilots) know there was a hard limit at the end?

“If he was instructed by the control tower to change the use of the runway again, this should be reflected in the black box analysis.

“I think there are a lot of questions.”