There is nothing beyond the embankment. Airports are generally made in the middle of nowhere. And no, they are not "skidding" into the surrounding city, he probably needed a few hundred meters at most.
He’s going extremely fast, a few hundred meters would do nothing. I think the estimates I saw were over 150 knots. That’s about 77 meters per second.
I found this comment helpful from a Reddit thread.
>The embankment is there to protect the road from the jetblast of departing aircraft in oposite runway direction. Thats why it is allowed directly in the safety area.
> a few hundred meters would do nothing. I think the estimates I saw were over 150 knots
Show you working. Not feelings because people don't have intuition for such unusual motion. You could equally have said "a few hundred meters would be enough."
Thanks for the link. Nowhere it seems to indicate that the friction of the breaking would be greater than the friction of the hull, since the pages related to non-destructive braking.
Airplanes use disc brakes. These can provide pretty much unlimited friction and are very destructive to the brake pads. They are effectively limited by the static friction of the tire and how much waste heat they can dissipate without blowing the tire.
Look it feels like you want to win an argument. You can only win it for people who do not understand the difference between static friction of a tire on tarmac and kinetic friction of a hull on tarmac. I couldn't tell you off-hand which has more friction, but I'm ready to believe by example that the hull has bad properties when it comes to braking. It's made for low friction after all.
Maybe not all completely aligned straight forward with the landing, but it looks like yes there are some inhabited zones over there surrounded by wooded parcels, well before the landscape change for some sea.
