BigBurd
"I agree a ravine between two runways is a bit extreme but how far out do you make everything flat? If this happened at LHR on 27L then you would end up in T5!"
I would say that you make everying flat as far as you can given the physical restraints imposed upon you. I appreciate that other airports have similar hazards too, and rather than that serve as an excuse for this accident, why can't this accident serve as a pointer to all those hazardous situations? If that means fixing Leeds-Bradford or the Bath Road, so be it (I'd like to see BAA's risk assesment for that).
The wording you find in many Airworthiness Directives "a hazardous situation has been found to that is likely to exist on similar types of aircraft . . ." generally goes on to mandate the spending of a lot of money by the airlines. Does a similar system apply to airports? - it should, they make enough money out of the airlines. How much money do you think airlines have spent on TCAS or 8.33 KHz FM separation or FM immunity or lockable flight deck doors or any number of other safety features addressing scenarios that are far less likely, or lethal, than a runway excursion?
The point is that this ravine is a risk to all other aircraft taking off or landing on both runways - should a future aircraft depart either runway, and we have to assume that one day one will, then the result will be similarly tragic. Avoidably tragic. The authorities, rightly, do not accept that sort of thing for technical faults on aircraft and issue ADs in response. Substituting this ravine with suitable drainage, infill and grading is a no brainer.