Originally Posted by Rainboe
Forget, you can't seriously expect the first requirement of designing and building a run-up area enclosure is to handle a runaway plane? I think the most important requirement is sound proofing.
If you say so, but re-locating a 1940's tank-trap from the Normandie beaches to an airfield doesn't strike me as very sensible. Particularly when these are just as effective - and a helluva lot cheaper I'd guess.
You're not seriously telling us that a customised high-tech installation by a specialised company is a lot cheaper than just putting up some blunt concrete dams?
And look! Airbus agrees with me! Same company.
This facility in Toulouse was designed for Airbus Industrie specifically for full power engine testing of the A380.
Nowhere in the BDI brochure, a link to which you provided does it mention any other objective for their solutions than noise mitigation and creating suitable wind conditions. The words "safe" and "safety" are curiously absent from their sales blurb.
That does not say anything about whether or not these new installations are any more or any less safe than the old concrete walls, or how much emphasis Airbus puts on safety.
The "mosh pit" for the A380, when closed, doesn't even have an exit, so a runaway aircraft would always hit a wall. (Unlike most GRE installations of BDI's brochure, which are usually open at the aircraft front.)