Owain, your post was a help, please reinstate (or PM) so that I might sort through the refs.
So called irrelevant reports provide valuable information; how many of these event might be reported erroneously as an overrun, recorded in some database or other, then statistically applied to generate safety action.
An anecdotal view of European operations suggests that the rate of overruns (and excursions) is less than other world regions, but where's the data. Are there common factors in the few adverse events with the worldly views given in the big summary reports, if so then the European policy to follow world initiatives is justified.
If not, then what specific activities have provided a defence for our industry, what have operators been doing to achieve this success. With this knowledge Europe should continue their best practices, and only add those worldly threats judged relevant to European operations - operators / overseas locations, but not unnecessarily suffer imposed ‘worldwide’ safety activities.
A recent European conference on GAs challenged some of the ‘established’ ideas about stabilised approach. Emergent views of the US FSF sponsored ‘improve the rate of GAs’ suggested other ways of addressing the issue of unstable approaches; the alternative of improving the safety of all landings, focus on flying the approach, vice knowing when to GA, might be more profitable and have benefits elsewhere.
Thanks to other posters for their efforts, we need to identify ‘the evidence’.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Dave, the EASA Safety Review #1, reflects such a search. The introduction to the Review lists the sources of information, and according to these there were no overrun accidents in Europe 2016.
The relevant accident categorisation is the all-encompassing ‘Runway Excursion’ with corresponding extensive range of safety issues, which hinders the identification of specifics for overruns.
The Review presents a rosy view of European safety, yet appropriately identifies runway excursion as the key risk, but there is no detail or explanation as to how this was achieved; and that appears to start with what's in their database and how did it get there.