So far, bird strike and weather conditions have been suggested as causes, although the maintenance record is also being checked. Suggestions welcome on resolution, otherwise I'll resolve to the causes identified in an AP or FT article after the investigation is complete. I'll extend resolution if investigation is ongoing. I won't trade this question.
In particular, for "design issue" I'd expect this to be identified as a class of bird strike that should normally be survivable.
Update 2024-29-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Not a single option market: Resolve YES for options that are significant factors.
Unknown: Resolve as NO across the board.
Update 2025-02-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Design Issue Clarification
Design issue only applies to the design of the plane, not the airport.
If a report specifically highlights an airport design problem (for example, using language that refers to the airport layout or inadequate airport standards), then it may be considered separately.
In the absence of such specific language regarding the airport, any issues related to design should be resolved only as they pertain to the plane.
1,000
3.00@Marnix I have a comment below that says:
Unless traders disagree I'd say that "design issue" applies to the plane and not the airport
So at this point I doubt that would count, unless perhaps the report highlights "airport design" specifically, as opposed to language like "inadequate standards" to refer to the plane overshooting the 250m region after the runway.
It seems possible that the structure at the end of the clearway had a decisive role: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/31/final-tragedy-experts-debate-role-of-concrete-barriers-and-runway-design-in-south-korean-plane-crash
Unless traders disagree I'd say that "design issue" applies to the plane and not the airport, but I can see a case for the alternative interpretation.
@fwbt I read the issue [may have been] landing gear malfunction. Would you consider this a design issue if bird strike, weather and maintenance problems are ruled out?
@BlueDragon I'm happy to add an answer if it's not covered by the above, but I guess the malfunction would be attributed to a maintenance issue, or possibly a design issue if the landing gear was not properly activated. Tangentially, one thing that's not covered in the current options is pilot error, since I didn't see a suggestion that it was to blame. What do you think would best fit the phrasing of the question?
@fwbt good point! Pilot error is not covered. It makes sense to add this option.
You may also need an “other” and/or “unknown” category. The problem with attributing the landing gear malfunction to maintenance is that there may not be conclusive evidence for that—even if they figure out where and how and even why it failed, it may or may not be possible to attribute it to inadequate maintenance.
In addition, and maybe you already thought about this, bird strike may not fully explain the crash, so you may need to resolve to partial if that ends up being a part of the story. Ditto for weather.
@BlueDragon Since it's not a single option market, my intent is to resolve YES for options that are significant factors. "Unknown" would be NO across the board.