This Is Guernsey

By Thom Ogier

Tim Archard poses a question at yesterday evening’s public meeting at Forest School. (0799477)

A NEW proposal for fixing the airport runway without lengthening it was a clear favourite at a public meeting last night.

It would replace runway end safety areas with special concrete designed to crumple under a runaway plane.

The engineered material arresting system, or Emas, was one of five options that Public Services presented at Forest School, but minister Bernard Flouquet warned that it was complicated, expensive and somewhat unproven.

He favoured a Deputy Jan Kuttelwascher-inspired option C, which would allow for the runway to be extended at a later date and which could cost £5m. less than originally suggested.

However, a 100-strong audience called for Emas to be investigated urgently.

‘Option A seems very appealing to me and a lot of people here,’ said Lindsay de Sausmarez of St Martin’s.

She expressed concern that Emas would not be given a sufficient chance because of time constraints.

Deputy John Gollop, who sat with the public, also noted the support.

‘This Emas is a very interesting idea that we have only known about for about a day now,’ he said.

Airport director Colin Le Ray, who said consultation on the project so far had cost about £1m., explained the pros and cons of Emas, which he said PSD had been considering for only about a month.

‘The regulators, including the Civil Aviation Authority and our director of aviation, made it clear that keeping the Resas at the current length is not acceptable, but there is a possibility that if we were to replace them with Emas, that may be acceptable,’ he said.

Mr Le Ray said the system was not used in the UK but was considered proven technology in the United States and was used in Madrid.

‘The CAA is currently considering whether it could move the regulations to make it acceptable,’ he said.

The next downside was the fact it might cost an extra £3m. per end.

‘Also, Emas may not physically work here given the types of aircraft. These things are all under consideration now.’

Material would probably need to be kept on site and replacing any damaged in an accident could put the airport out of action.

‘It also has a shelf life of 10 years, after which the material has to be replaced.’

The option was popular among airport neighbours who feared the runway could encroach more into their lives.

Dean of St Peter’s douzaine Martin Ozanne said: ‘We seem to be at the mercy of members of the CAA and our regulator, especially over the Emas option.

‘Should we not also consider that this technology is also used in mainland Europe and not just base our ideas on the UK?’

Deputy Flouquet was sympathetic, but warned against upsetting the regulators.

‘If we do anything they don’t approve of and something goes wrong, God forbid, at the cost of safety or life, the liability to us as a community could be endless,’ he said.

PSD’s preference Page 2

Article posted on 3rd July, 2009 - 2.30pm