[headdie]

Just read about this stuff on http://jalopnik.com/5869933/why-did-this-airplane-landing-gear-destroy-this-concrete-runway and reading more on Wikipedia only question is why have I never heard of it before?

[Dilmah G]

A quick google of this (which ended at wikipedia, obviously ) reveals that EMAS is apparently designed for runways without space for a Runway Safety Area, which is probably why. I daresay in most other cases an RSA is probably better because the aircraft's undercarriage isn't wrecked, and my common sense tells me it's more common for newer pilots to persist in a poor approach instead of going around, bringing them into the RSA, than airliners careening down after losing throttle response.

An EFATO - Engine Failure After Take-Off is probably the worst thing that could happen that would require an RSA/EMAS, and if your plane's going to smack into the runway...well then, it's going to smack into the runway, soft concrete or not.

[Nuke]

ive seen this stuff on tv somewhere. its just really soft concrete that will break when a large aircraft rolls over it, slowing it down. to prevent overruns in places where overruns would be rather disastrous. this is the first time ive ever heard of it actually being used.

[Colonol Dekker]

Could make a nice hard shoulder too i'd hope.

[headdie]

Could make a nice hard shoulder too i'd hope.

The hard shoulder is also used by emergency vehicles trying to get round stationary traffic and by cars with a dodgy fuel pump, but as a strip beyond the hard shoulder for emergency slowing vehicles and lorries would be an interesting application.

Also for breaking run-offs on hills and stuff where you might not have a lot of room to create one might be an interesting application

[karajorma]

A quick google of this (which ended at wikipedia, obviously ) reveals that EMAS is apparently designed for runways without space for a Runway Safety Area, which is probably why. I daresay in most other cases an RSA is probably better because the aircraft's undercarriage isn't wrecked, and my common sense tells me it's more common for newer pilots to persist in a poor approach instead of going around, bringing them into the RSA, than airliners careening down after losing throttle response.

I don't think that's right at all.

The Canadian Transportation Safety Board recently suggested fitting EMAS to all Candian runways for instance. A runway safety area only needs to be 90m long in the US. That isn't going to do **** in the case of a serious overrun. An EMAS system the same length might not prevent an overshoot but it would result in the plane overshooting with a hell of a lot less velocity.

[Dilmah G]

Well I wouldn't know, I'm really just a casual observer to these things, but that I do find interesting. You'd think with the industry so focused about how much cash you can squeeze out of something that they wouldn't like that, but no, that appears to make a bit of a sense. I just would've though that area of the runway would be used 'accidentally' by pilots more often than not, which would make it less cost effective, but evidently not if we haven't found some evidence to support that.

[headdie]

I suppose imposing a fine or a fee on the operator for using it would stop abuse of it

[Nuke]

airline probably has to pay for it, as well as any damage it causes to the landing gear of their own planes. i doubt small private planes would break it at all unless they slammed directly into it, even then they dont require as much runway as the larger planes. but then you consider how much cash airports bring in, i wouldn't doubt that they could just fix it without putting a large dent in their profits. whoever foots the bill these are all large companies/organizations and its probably not that big of a deal.

you can always deal with it the old fashioned way, fire all the bad pilots.

[karajorma]

Repairing EMAS + Landing gear < Buying new ****ing plane.

[redsniper]

Cheaper than buying new passengers too.

[Nuke]

some airports have insane layouts. if youve ever been through san deigo, you might notice that the runway points right at a highway, so you'd risk plane passengers and motorists all in the same fail landing. so including this stuff would certainly help airports drop their insurance rates.