Campaigners take to street to stop airport growing west
Monday 24th January 2011, 2:29PM GMT.
Out to save La Mare Road and prevent the compulsory purchase of agricultural land are, from the left, Steve Fell, Deputy David De Lisle and Martyn Dorey (Picture by Steve Sarre, 1080857)
CAMPAIGNERS hoping to stop the airport boundary moving 120 metres west are asking islanders to tell their deputies they object.
Between 10am and noon on Saturday protesters with leaflets and signs took up position on La Mare Road to hand out information to passing drivers.
On Wednesday the States will decide whether to allow the permanent closure of the road, along with the compulsory purchase of a field owned by the Le Messurier family; both are needed for the extension of the runway end safety areas.
But West deputy David De Lisle hoped the project would not be given the go-ahead as the area was sacrosanct as was La Mare Road.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
It’s time for an extension, people shouldn’t stand in the way of progressive movement.
All I can say is that I hope the States at least pay a fair price for the field, otherwise there will be no point in owning a house or land if the States can just pay a quid for it and you lose it forever.
Report abuse
It is not time for an extension. There is no justification.
Yes the safety measures should be improved, all of this can be met within the existing Airport boundaries.
Report abuse
Here here SB.
Lets get on with it. Everytime I land at the aiport I look at the runway and wonder how much more can it take.
Lets hope the States vote wisely, purchase the land and do the work.
Do these people grasp what the island would be like if the CAA condemd our runway as inadequate. The longer it’s delayed the more its going to cost.
Report abuse
What the States is doing is regressive.
Report abuse
You’re talking nonsense Guern aborad and I’m afraid you’re wrong too SB. There are no plans for a runway extension. However, with people like De Lisle trying to manipulate the facts to make it seem like an extension it’s little wonder that people are being misled on this subject.
Report abuse
If the runway was falling apart it would be condemed now. Pilot unions recognise EMAS as superior to grass safety runoffs.
If you want progress vote EMAS.
Report abuse
@SB. There is nothing ‘progressive’ about destroying yet another piece of Guernseys limited agricultural land. ‘Progressive’ is protecting and maintaining the beauty and potential agricultural use of that land when the world is running short of food, and of protecting and maintaining Guernseys dwindling green space and pleasant way of life. Indeed, ‘progressive’ more often than not these days means ‘destructive’.
@MIKE. Guernsey and the CAA would never get to the position of condemming the runway. But what, in your opinion, would the island really be like -really and truly be like – if the CAA did condemn the runway as being ‘inadequate’. It would be most interesting to know. And you seem to know the answers. So please, don’t simply make sweeping statements that lack substance, explain yourself.
Report abuse
Progress is EMAS, EMAS stops an aircraft without writing it off, hence insurance companies love that when compared with grass run off.
Spare EMAS blocks can be kept incase several are damaged when an aircraft crashes. This is somebody’s land that has been in their ownership for generations, and the States should not be allowed to compulsory purchase it, they shouldn’t be allowed anyway, we pay a high price for our property here in Guernsey.
Report abuse
Only the uniformed could possibly support the Airport’s current plans.
The people fighting against the Airport’s current plans are NOT in any doubt or against the upgrade of the runway!
What they are trying to prevent is the States of Guensey making yet another complete cock-up of our beautiful Island. Agricultural land is in great shortage and there are other alternatives that will prevent losing this land but whereby the runway can be upgraded and approved by the CAA.
The land is required for a safety run off area – not an extension of the runway! It will be buried under thousands of tons of hardcore (lost forever) And have you thought about how they plan to bring in this infill/hardcore? There is not enough locally – and at one point the Airport were considering building a port at L’Eree for boats to be able to ship it in! There will be thousands of lorry loads on our local roads causing further problems!
And why on earth would anyone think Guernsey requires a longer runway – to bring in bigger planes? Who will fill these planes? Surely this would mean less frequant flights to fill up larger planes! With fuel prices going through the roof and Air companies going out of business can we really believe it would be of any benefit to the Island to have a longer runway.
Report abuse
Martino -
I would love to know who told you the runway wasn’t being extended, or how you have got to that conclusion?
Report abuse
SB, Martino, If we could have a safer airport, new runway and jets and all for a comparable cost to the PSD proposal, wouldn’t that be great? Well we can. EMAS contains the airport within current boundaries, retains agricultural land and offers enhanced saftey features. Restoring the runway surface to the required standard does not require another 120m to be added to it.
Report abuse
Totally confused here
Depending on wind etc more flights take off flying over St Peter’s than our end
So what is different between proposed safety measures for west as opposed to the current (apparently) safe ones to east?
Anyone out there got the answer?
Report abuse
Read the PSD proposals blokeinlondon. Clearly you haven’t. There are no plans to extend the length of the actual runway.
Troubled, EMAS is not the panacea to all the ills, the effect on agricultural land with the proposals as they are is minimal. Diverting to the EMAS route now will, inevitably, lead to years of delay and many millions more spent on a project that costs too much already.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon
I’m writing from memory here re the runway ‘non-extension’
If you imagine the present runway as a twelve inch ruler.You place the ruler(runway)about six inches away from the eastern edge of a table,the six inches being the run off safety zone at that end
You are then told that the rules have changed and you now need a nine inch safety zone at each end of your ruler.Unfortunately although you already have nine inches spare at the western end it would cost multi millions to fill in the eastern end (Les Blicqs)to accommodate those extra three inches
So you decide to move your twelve inch ruler three inches further away from the eastern edge of the table and to buy a field at the western end to ensure that the required extra three inches is available at that end(you have already purchased the other four or five fields required for this purpose)
The ruler(runway)has not been extended as it is still a twelve inch ruler.All that’s changed is that it has been moved away from the eastern edge of the table
That made sense to my ten year old neice.Does it make sense to you?
Report abuse
The proposals will not meet the 240 RESA guidelines for safety in the east or the west.
They are not long enough, or more importantly wide enough to meet regulations.
In the East there will be even less distance to stop.
The reason for the uproar is that EMAS at either end can keep the airport within the perimeter, and is equivalent to 300m RESA. ie Safer with less disruption to the look and feel of our island. Why wouldn’t you want that?
Please email deputies if you think there should be a rethink. Tomorrows vote is important.
Report abuse
The effect on this land will be huge, effectively creating a green desert as all of the banks/ trees/ shrubs will be levelled within the RESA zone and trees at the sides of the area will either be felled or topped and the valley will be infilled. Then a large boundary fence will run the length of the area along Plaisance road and Route de la Tourelle.
Even PSD in their roadshow described the environmental effect of Option C on certain areas as “moderate”.
Report abuse
Hi Martino the Billet has CAA definitions at the begining that says “a runway is a rectangular strip of landing for the landing and takeoff run of aircraft.” The independent report in the Billet state that declared takeoff run will be extended by 120 metres. This is also clear from an inspection of the plans which include a displaced threshold starter section of 120 metres. How did you reach your conclusion?
Report abuse
*sigh*
Here we go again.
People saying the plans dont constitute an extension, other people saying they do, circular argument, neither side taking the other views into consideration!!
I initially thought “this isnt an extension” but the closer i looked at it I definately dont feel that way now.
You can argue all day long thats its shifting the runway not extending etc etc, but to me its clear the plan is for an extension. Too many of our politicians have expressed this preference, and DDL isnt stupid (even if it is “his area”).
EMAS is clearly the way forward, but our backward thinking politicians yet again going for “bigger is better” (incinerator anyone??) when there are better alternatives available that wont have such a massive impact on the surrounding area.
Report abuse
Ray nice explanation
But when its all completed and your 12″ ruler has another 3 inches, just sat there, right next to it, you may not want a 15″ ruler, but we all know the people in charge would love one!!
This is all about motivation. Do you honestly expect the same people that have been saying for years “we need a longer ruler”, to not go for that extention when they suddenly have in their hands the perfect excuse to have the 15″ ruler they have always wanted??
Report abuse
Let’s get this clear – The Runway is not being extended in the terms of allowing in larger planes – But the Airport IS EXTENDING it’s boundaries and the length of the tarmac on the runway to the western end to create Safety Run Off’s.
So if you are thinking bigger planes – more choice – I’m afraid not.
The upsetting thing about what they wish to do is take and bury so much Agricultural land with ample wildlife within this – we have so little Agricultural land left in this Island! To me this is crazy when there are alternatives that could save this from happening and give us an uptodate safety run-off area within the existing Airport boundaries. The best of both worlds.
Report abuse
Ray thanks for asking this all important question.
Yes your ruler is being moved to the west, the landing distance, marked by the piano keys, is the same.
Where people are being confused is that they don’t realise an additional starter section of 120 metres is being added.
Planes will commence their take off using this additional starter section, and will have an additional 120 metres take off-run. The Billet itself has at the begining the CAA definition of runway as a rectangular area for “landing and take-off run” of aircraft.
PSD claim that this doesn’t count as a runway. However this is not supported in aviation law or the details of the Billet, which gives the declared takeoff run as being longer. The clearest illustration of a runway and the use of a displaced threshold is here on slide 13, this is a presentation from the FAA:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/great_lakes/airports_news_events/2010_conference/Media/C-7_Declared_Distances.pdf
This is I believe definitive.
Unfortunately as PSD have been making misleading statements, this has confused the aviation sector and will have a negative impact on safety.
Please let me know how you see this differently.
Report abuse
Expat80
Isn’t it obvious what the island would be like without the airport!
Report abuse
Yes, we can argue till the cows come as to whether it is an extension or not (I share Ray’s argument to show that it is not) but the question being avoided by the EMAS evangelists is the cost in terms of time and money. There is little doubt that doing a U turn at this stage will lead to a huge delay on an already terribly long overdue project, as well as all the time and expense of a new tender process, a number of extra years (not months) before the work gets under way, and last but not least many millions of extra pounds spent. And all for what? To ‘save’ a few fields that will still be there. What a farce!
Report abuse
EMAS is by far the best solution.
Anything else is idiotic!
Tragically, this will not stop the States from voting to extend the perimeter of the airport.
Report abuse
Yes expat80
Most reasonable people, that is Guernsey people realise what it would be like without the airport.
It would be a place of serenity, and beautiful. peaceful ansd home to those who love our Island.
We don’t need these fly boys and their wondrous ways.
(you may call me what you will, I’m immune to your sneaky ways.)
Report abuse
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/01/24/emas-is-viable-says-caa-boss-its-for-the-states-to-decide/
I take it you have all read this article in full.
The Director of Civil Aviation thinks EMAS would probably need about as much extra land as a grass RESA. Pardon me if I choose to follow his wisdom and not that of all the “experts” posting here.
If one of you has drawn up detailed plans for an equivalent EMAS system, had it fully costed, and then approved by the CAA – AND it requires no more land than at present – I and many others would love to see them …..
Report abuse
@Mike. More sweeping statements without explanation from you Mike? Perhaps the following will make it easier for you to answer…what would the island be like if other than applying some high quality refurbishment and maintenance the airport was kept ‘as is’. Truth is, we all know, that if allowed, lengthening the runway would eventually mean bigger jets leading to huge jets leading to increased pollution, increased noise, more people and increased overall chaos on such a small piece of rock as beautiful Guernsey. And for what…an additional five minutes knocked off a flight time? Or no further need for that little effort in getting to the mainland or Paris to catch that huge-plane flight to a business trip or somewhere exotic?
No offense intended Mike, but it seems to me that the constant drive to make Guernsey Airport ‘bigger’ than Guernsey Island and in the process further destroy the island is ridiculous, shameful and disgusting. Is it all the ‘money’ that has now settled in Guernsey that is driving it or what? Whatvere it is, stop it right now.
Report abuse
Great to see the residents in the South of Island supporting a major part of the Island’s infrastructure.
Their poor arguments are nothing more than a classic case of ‘NIMBY-ism’.
Report abuse
@Islander. Well spoken Islander, and thank you for the very pleasant feeling I got from your words ‘serenity’ ‘beautiful’ ‘peaceful’ and ‘love our Island’ Those words explain clearly what living on Guernsey is all about and long should it remain!
But I believe I gave the wrong impression in my earlier post, the wrong impression not only to you but also to ‘@Mike’. In my earlier post I did not mean to give the impression that I felt todays island could do without an airport. Such a statement would,UNFORTUNATELY, be unthinkable. ( A wonderfully pleasant thought but sadly not possible in the world that we have created today.) No, my heartfelt belief gained through 70+ years of experience is that the current airport ‘size’ is as large as it should ever be allowed to get and no method whatsoever – absolutely no method whatsoever – of making it possible for larger jets to land on the island should ever be contemplated or permitted. In fact, after watching the Martin Clunes horrible show and it’s depiction of Guernsey only as an enclave for hot shots and their private jets and during which flash private jets were lined up on the runway I’m beginning to want a ‘cap’ placed on those darn things zipping overhead and landing on the island too! I mean, Stone de Croze have we been invaded yet again or what!!?? Most importantly, what are we going to do about it?
Report abuse
Toby, that’s utter B/S
Boston airport is huge, and runway 33L has EMAS:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/emas-1.jpg
If you look at the size of the EMAS it is tiny compared to huge fields. He’s just trying to make the states look better.
Report abuse
Shame EMAS only works if the aircraft comes off at the end of the runway,and not at any other point then isn’t it?
An EMAS system designed to stop a Boeing 747 leaving the runway at 70 knots speed needs to be 183m long (which is not much less than the 240m for the RESA (runway end safety area)
MR G, i thinky uo will find EMAS is just an interim solution at Boston;
http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/pdffiles/enfs/070809em/14442.pdf
Report abuse
Expat80+
Ah if only Islanders could stand up a bit more, we could soon sttle this affair, but alas money, being the root of all evil still turns a pretty head.
I Knew Guernsey when only the land that Young Best kept as nature reserve was the ony landing place; L’eree.
we even wrote as school school-children, about the coming airport.
But if you remember at least heard about how things were
Once again the Governing body bamboozled the people, even got the then Prince of wales to open that new road known as Les Val des Terres, oh yes, of course we , stupid as we were ( and still) thought it fine, yet it was all planned, to serve that new airport,
Now I was not against the road or airport, but I am against these secret meetings, giving permission, then monthes later—
“Oh incidently we’ll be doing or building so and so,”
‘It’s not good enough, times MUST change, there must be more openess, and we should all remember that when the voting takes part, demand they keep their promises or get out.
Remember folk, It’s mour Island, we have the right to know what is going on.
Money normally STINKS.
Report abuse
Sanguine thanks for the link.
It says that EMAS was used to protect an environmental site from runway expansion.
Also that the FAA requires only enough EMAS for 40knots for 747s. Lighter airplanes can be stopped at higher speeds with this length. The EMAS was included within the available RESA.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon – more that it is an interim solution. If it goes off in anyother place on the runway or is not on its wheels when it goes off at the end EMAS is useless, and will in fact kill if there are no wheels still attached.
Martino is right, its too late now regardless, so much has been spent, just do it, more cash and more time is not what we need, no one ever gets a perfect solution.
…and finally look at runway 33L in Boston there is no more room, look at the picture, it borders a waterway… what else could they do? Reclaim the land? Cost v Benefit people.
Report abuse
Sanguine, shame we’ll never see 747s landing here… Also, you say “Shame EMAS only works if the aircraft comes off at the end of the runway,and not at any other point then isn’t it?”
What would happen with grass? Does it build a big barrier to stop the plane heading towards the expensive new terminal? With or without EMAS it could easily hit the terminal.
EMAS saves space, and is much safer.
Report abuse
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/375/srg_asd_emaspolicy.pdf
So the CAA is following the FAA
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=11961
That would mean a forty percent space saving for EMAS over a standard RESA.
I leave it to those above with the rulers to see if that will fit in the existing boundaries…..
EMAS still looks good to me regardless ….
Report abuse
Sanguine, if an aircraft goes off any other place on the runway it can either hit a load of houses or the airport terminal, both which could kill. At runway 33L EMAS takes up very little space.
The States want this land so that they can extend the airport and sometime in the future, the island doesn’t need huge aircraft – A lot of the planes that leave do so half empty.
Report abuse
Actually, I’ve done the maths myself ( based on PSD’s figures though …. if you can beleive them )
The current boundaries have a total of 200m spare at the end of the runways.
Current CAA regulations require 240m RESAs both ends ….. so 280m extra land needed – which really has to go to the west …
Going by the FAA standards, equivalent EMAS would need total 290(ish)m – so 90(ish)m more land needed, again to the west. Looks like La Mare Road might be safe though !
Report abuse
Great link Toby. I see that alternative arrestor beds are in development too. That’s good news for future airport costs and safety.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon
Do you recommend that we should wait for this NEXT best thing, since the best thing since sliced bread, to be fully developed before we decide?
Report abuse
A message from Jersey, we have a new £9 million pound tower, We have a new baggage system £3.6 million ( old one but a few years old )we have a massive expensive building mostly empty, we have more staff and managers at the airport than passengers (almost)in a shrinking tourism arena.
Why ?
Time after time we have been told we have to comply with safety standards set by the CAA.If you speak with the CAA you will discover that smaller airports do not have to have, the same requirements as Heathrow as they would all be closed down.
Be very careful on what you base eating up extra land gone forever. In Jersey we have the most expensive landing charges and the most expensive car parking charges compared even to major airport.
There is good reason for the size and expense of Jerseys airport, its called empire building.
Report abuse
EMAS blocks have a shelf life (10 years?_, so an EMAS system fitted could be reviewed at a future point in time as to whether to replenish the blocks with new EMAS or replensish the EMAS site with what ever was the then cheaper EMAS system.
Either way it is the more flexible solution plus the existing runway repair work is not held up. I do not see why the runway can not be repaired as is anyway.
Report abuse
Good on residents of Guernsey not wanting to extend the airport runway and destroy more natural land for development and the Guernsey way of life. Interestingly, many years ago I heard a rumour that a certain states member (and maybe family members) purchased houses at the end of the airport in anticipation of making money if the airport was extended. I suggest people find out who owns the houses (if any) that would be purchased by the States in order to extend the runway. Not sure if any of this is true? But it seems like a number of States members have made plenty of money being involved in Guernsey development projects and the locals have talked about it for years. The problem with the States is that there doesen’t seem to be any laws against “conflict of interest” when it come to development. Follow the money and maybe something will come up?
Report abuse
Lets ignore the “is it a runway extension” or not for a moment (I beleive it is).
EMAS has to be better than RESA if you think about it logically.
Cast your minds back to the overshoot of the Air UK F27 a few years ago – again using logical thinking – that particular incident would have been much better served if the aircraft had been aressted as opposed to being basically out of control and skidding on grass.
Google the incident for a full analysis of what happened and then think about what an arrestor system would have done to mitigate the consequences.
The only downside that I can see for EMAS is a minor overshoot – but how often does that happen?
All of the current “larger” aircraft that use the airport are more than capable of performing a go round even at landing speeds – therefore the F27 incident is unlikely to happen again. What is more likely is a brake failiure and subsequent overshoot.
I’d be much happier knowing that there was an arrestor system to stop the aircraft than the lottery of RESA.
Report abuse
EMAS blocks are made of foam concrete with a plastic cap ontop, with drainage between and underneath the blocks. The plastic cap has improved the weathering characterics of EMAS. The blocks now have upto 20 years life, but could be longer as other retrofits are being worked out to improve lifespan.
Report abuse
+EMAS blocks nearer the threshold are thinner with less stopping force to protect undershooting aircraft that might land there.
Report abuse
Is Alderney airport required to have an extension too? The cliff face is quite dangerous, maybe the CCA should suggest some mattresses on the cliff face??
Report abuse
I reckon they should just use one of those big elastic bands like they do on the big boats that`ll stop the planes,
Report abuse
I think they’re using all those to power the Aurignies, bcb…..!
Report abuse
@ Non of the above. Excellent post, thank you, you have ‘buttonholed’ exactly what is wrong with the world today.
Report abuse
That is a very interesting post made about Jersey airport, it dfoes always look very empty when being shown on the new for various reasons.
And I agree with the emptire building comment.
From another press article I was not happy to read the following.
‘Public Services announced this week that it had chosen Lagan Construction as the preferred bidder and would now enter a three-month value engineering phase to work out detailed plans and costs for the project.’
You have to hope that this is media speak and not a States done deal before anything has actually finally been voted and decided upon.
Does this again mean we have been sold out before democracy has voted?
That is great to read that the shelf life is now 20 years for EMAS blocks, and with the prospect of getting better all the time.
Report abuse
@Gilthead.
I assume you mean this accident?
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/4_1999_g_bncy.cfm
As the image on page 10 shows, EMAS would certainly have been money well spent here. Aside from the fact the aircraft would have missed the EMAS bed itself that is.
Still, at least those who don’t read the report can establish the point that the aircraft commander would have aimed at the EMAS bed, not withstanding the fact the aircraft was out of control.
No doubt people will site the other overrun at this end, when EMAS would have prevented the aircraft from overruning more grass (than it did) and would have been undamaged although it would have required a small cost in repairing the EMAS. Missing that fact that the aircraft was undamaged without EMAS and the grass was repaired with rollers etc.
So here is a question. can an EMAS bed substitute a larger RESA? Is that substitution safer? Is EMAS cheaper than RESA? Answers backed up by facts, on a postcard to a Deputy near you please.
Report abuse
Empire builders care only about their own promotion, importance and wealth. They are far removed from what is practical, affordable and sensible.
This has always to be formost in a politicians mind, who is spending other peoples (taxpayers) money.
From what has been written it seems to me that there is a lot of nice but not needed expense to upgrade / repair the runway. But hey why not build it any way and get the Earl and Countess of Wessex to open it in an expensive VIP only ceremony ( public not invited ). Do you really want to end up like Jersey, with GST and pensioners who can not afford their heating bills, so sit covered in blankets?
JEP 10th July
The JEP can reveal that the Island’s 24 air traffic controllers are currently being paid overtime, believed to be £500 a day, to train on a new piece of operating software – software which has failed recent acceptance tests.
That failure is one of the reasons the switchover to the new £12 million air traffic control centre – officially opened this week by the Earl and Countess of Wessex – has been delayed until the end of November.
And one member of staff is being paid an air traffic controller’s salary, believed to be £68,000 a year, despite having failed both of the exams necessary to work as an air traffic controller in Jersey. He is currently working behind a desk.
Deputy Mike Higgins has asked Economic Development Minister Alan Maclean for an explanation but said he did not get ‘satisfactory answers’
Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/07/03/new-look-airport-but-overtime-soar/#ixzz1CQjxC56u
Report abuse
Looytunes.
If a plane followed the same path as the Air Uk F27 (to which you refer) once the planned refurbishment was done, it would not end up harmlessly in a field, but on the Route de Plaisance! Unlucky for the drivers that happen to be pootling along the road at the wrong time not to mention the airplane passengers!
The pilot of the F27 in ’97 swerved because he had a choice between applying maximum breaks or maintaining directional control. If EMAS had been infront of him, he could have used the amount of breaks that would have allowed him to hold a straight line, knowing that the collapsing concrete blocks would stop him.
I agree with your comments re the over-run onto grass. I have no recollection of anyone getting hurt in an accident at Guernsey airport, caused by the runway length being inadequate. I thought that planes were meant to be getting safer. These planned ‘safety’ measures seem a total over-kill to me.
Report abuse
Ray
Your use of the 12 inch ruler was a great way to explain the situation as PSD would have us believe. The fact is that we end up with a 15 inch ruler as defined by international civil aviation bodies. Also, I hope you have a big pencil case, because ultimately it will need to fit an 18 inch ruler if this goes through. That is PSD’s view of future-proofing.
Report abuse
If you cannot safely operate a particular aircraft into Guernsey using the existing airport,
then buy a different aircraft.
Report abuse
Will it matter when the exodus is finished?
Report abuse
OK so someone trashes the Emass area, maybe a plane or a fire-engine or whatever. How long will the health and safety brigade keep the airport closed till it has been reinstated???? Could be weeks.
Keep it simple. Grass.
Report abuse
@PB Falla
If we had a better bigger runway we could bring in larger aircraft and The Exodus would be a lot quicker …
Report abuse
Hi K Dumont. Thanks for posting this.
When a plane goes into EMAS it gets pulled out backwards using normal towing gear and the runway can be open in three hours. The last overrun at Guernsey Airport the plane had to be excavated from the grass it had sunk into and the airport was closed for at least a day. EMAS is better for a lifeline airport like ours, where opening hours are everything.
In terms of operations a notice to airman is issued that EMAS is degraded, but operations continue as normal, 90% or so of the bed is still effective. The compressed blocks in the bed are replaced when they arrive, and this is paid for by insurers.
Bear in mind that if the runway was merely resurfaced there is no need to address RESA, EMAS etc. And we could save £50m or so.
Report abuse
K Dumont
Yeager Airport USA.Plane over runs onto EMAS on 9/1/10
Local Press report dated 24/2/10 ‘ Repairs likely to start next week’ i.e March 2010
Report abuse
Looney Tunes – yes the aircraft was out of control thats why it crashed.
From my understanding of how EMAS is laid the F27 would have, at least partially, been arrested. Its not just straight off the end as that would be silly.
I imagine that the purveyors of EMAS have figured out that its human nature to swerve towards apparent safety!
Point is that the airport has to be CAA compliant and to many people EMAS seems the most logical (and least expensive) way to go.
Report abuse
Gilthead.
The pilot of the F27 in ‘97 swerved because he had a choice between applying maximum breaks or maintaining directional control. If EMAS had been infront of him, he could have maintained control and a straight line because he would not have had to apply ‘maximum brakes’ knowing that the collapsing concrete blocks would stop him.
Report abuse
Under the planned runway improvements the runway will be grooved and drainage put in, so there would be no standing water. Standing water was a major factor in the F27 in Dec 97. It aquaplanned and wanted to point into the wind. Had the plane not aquaplaned because there was no standing water it would have gone straight into the EMAS bed. But it is not unusual to have a wider bed of EMAS to capture planes that clip the corner of runways.
Report abuse