Belly landing and EMAS

[Musician]

I assume that EMAS has little effect on a gear-up landing, compared to runway surface, is that correct?
Because EMAS needs to support the fire engines, it would probably support the low ground pressure of an aircraft sliding on its fuselage.
https://skybrary.aero/articles/engin...ng-system-emas says that most EMAS is designed assuming that there is "minimal or no structural damage to the landing gear", and "most installations to date have used a maximum 70 knots bed-entry speed."

At Muan, the aircraft went off the runway at high speed, and there was no EMAS, but if there had been, it looks to me like it didn't make any difference.

They had 2,800m/9,186 ft of runway, and then 300m overrun.

For comparison, Louisville has 11,887 ft/3,623m, 8,578 ft/2,615m, and 7,251 ft/2,210m with EMAS.

Are there situations where short runway+EMAS is preferable over the long runway?

[DIBO]

Originally Posted by Musician

Because EMAS needs to support the fire engines, it would probably support the low ground pressure of an aircraft sliding on its fuselage.

I'm not so sure about the "needs to support the fire engines" part

Originally Posted by FAA AC 150/5220-22B

The EMAS must be designed to enable safe ingress and egress as well as movement of ARFF equipment (​​​​​​not necessarily without damage to the EMAS) operating during an emergency.

ARFF vehicles so equipped should be shifted into all-wheeldrive prior to entering and maneuvering upon an EMAS.