Re: Air Canada Pilot’s Association call (restatement) for the need of EMAS or similar overrun protection.
These safety devices are last chance (reactive); there may be better value in proactive safety aspects which address some of the contributions to this type of incident. They are available now and apply to all runways.
Although runway grooving is part reactive, its absence should trigger crews to consider the landing performance with extra care, similarly the actual landing, – speed, height over threshold, touchdown position, and use of brakes. The type of runway surface is also important – (smooth) wet concrete is particularly poor, rubber contamination even worse. What considerations are made for crosswinds – crosswind wind can affect braking distance, particularly with poor braking technique.
How about the condition of the tyres (before flight check); an old NASA report on
Wet Runways, indicates that tread designs tend to lose their drainage capability when the tread is approximately 80 percent worn.
There are also differences in hydroplaning speed with modern tyre designs.
Hydroplaning of modern aircraft tires.
If operators require reactive safety barriers then why not reduce the landing distance available by a suitable margin, i.e. each crew provides their own RESA. At least the performance calculation might get crews to take more notice of the conditions, fly an accurate approach and landing, and use max braking.
Aircraft performance on slippery runways in crosswinds. This link may change; select "+ back to results" to see the link.
See the chart of tire-ground friction coefficient; the friction at high speed on a flooded or puddled runway, is no better than the friction on wet ice.