Ace Rimmer
Unfortunately you've only hit the rumours spot in Rumours and News, and the subtle inaccuracies in your rumours present a picture which is not quite as it is in real life.
EMAS installed - most will contain an a/c travelling at >75kts the aircraft would have made it onto the road and young Woods' family's car
EMAS is designed to decelerate the design aircraft expected to use the runway at exit speeds of 70 knots (approach category C and D aircraft)
The FAA demands that a RESA of 1000ft be availible [sic] on runways used by airline traffic or failing that a EMAS.
Look I'm not too well up on the latest FAA but ICAO is 90m RESA required (300 ft); and the 240m RESA (790 ft) for code 3&4 aircraft is only a recommendation. I can't see the FAA as being too different.
Midway …… (from the end of the paved surface to the fence at 31C is 82ft
It was this point that made me wonder if your post was either journalistic or legalese rumour (our Texan colleagues have a pithy turn of phrase starting with 'bulls' and ending with 'hit'). The fact is that the end of the runway to the fence is 420 feet along the extended centreline. Airbubba's great links to the satellite photos show this quite clearly. There is paved area beyond the end of the runway – this is the normal paving to reduce jet blast erosion, and is not part of the declared distances. There is a jet blast attenuator fence, but this is not the 'fence' and is modestly frangible.
Given that if you take the figures for the last 15 years or so there are an average of four (that's right four) overruns a month by airline operations the quation is is [sic sic] this risk acceptable? Is it not time that the RESA/EMAS requirement be extended to apply to all airports (outside US too the FAA requirement is based on ICAO standards)? Regretably I haven't the time to go into risk nor statistics right now, so I reserve discussion for later. But I have a gut feel what the answer will be
