Originally Posted by
Red Four
Thanks for the reply TCAS.
In view of the limited space to increase RESA's to the recommended 240m/2x width for a code 3 runway, I wonder if in gaining the necessary CAA approval for the runway extension project, that the airport might be aiming to use
EMAS as a major plank of their argument to the CAA. I am not aware that the CAA has yet approved an EMAS installation in the UK, although I could be wrong?
Either way, I would expect the airport would have to show an overall improvement in safety by having this extension, not just wanting the situation of longer notified and usable lengths to market to prospective airlines.
A predecessor of EMAS was installed off the south end of runway 20 by a previous airport operator. This followed an overrun by a C550 which resulted in it ending up on the adjacent M27 Motorway. The overrun apparently caused by pilot error, landing with a tailwind on a wet runway.
From memory it was only used in anger once, again by a pilot induced accident involving a PA 34, landing late in well below RVR minima during fog. Good news was that the arrestor bed worked, however the PA 34's undercarriage suffered significant damage.
The UK CAA at the time were very enthusiastic about an arrestor bed, advocating that it could indeed mitigate risks for a less than recommended length of RESA. This subsequently changed when they realised that the material used in the arrestor bed was absorbent and could accordingly greatly increase the fire hazard by subsequently fuelling a fire following a fuel spill.
I have to admit that I am not familiar with EMAS, but if it can eradicate the possibility of increased fire risk, SOU may wish to discuss it further with CAA. It could only be considered for runway 20 as most, if not all, of the 02 RESA will be paved runway surface.