Emas is viable, says CAA boss – it’s for the States to decide
Monday 24th January 2011, 1:00PM GMT.
ALTERNATIVE technology for Guernsey’s runway end safety areas is a serious option, the director of Civil Aviation has said.
But whether that means EMAS (Engineered material arrester system) it is the best option available is something for the States to decide.
Director of Civil Aviation Fergus Woods (pictured) has confirmed that the use of the artificial surface, which collapses under the weight of overshooting aircraft and brings them a halt, had been accepted by the CAA.
But he added that it was wrong to assume that a fully compliant Emas design would necessarily make the end safety areas significantly shorter.
- 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
Apparently it’s the best thing since sliced bread
….. until next year’s best thing since sliced bread
Report abuse
What the best thing BEFORE sliced bread?
Report abuse
So, EMAS will cost more, take longer, and require a massive policy u-turn …
surely all the boxes for a States project ticked there then …..
oh, and we’ll still need to buy all that land anyway ……
Report abuse
@eggy bread
Best thing before sliced bread was huge sandwiches.
Report abuse
Well said Toby. We’ve been there so many times and this saga has all the dreaded ingredients of yet another States U turn, yet more years of needless extra delay and millions more down the drain. Just get on with the damn job and kick this EMAS red herring into the long grass along with De Lisle.
Report abuse
@Martino. You’re talking thoughtless rough-shod nonsense. The answer to the airport runway is to perform a high degree of maintenance only. By doing so, Guernseys diminishing green beauty and what remains of it’s pleasant way of life of the sixties and seventies can hopefully be preserved. At the same time, put an instant cap on airport growth, put a cap on how huge an aircraft, and how many aircraft, Guernsey will allow into it’s tiny airspace without destroying it’s people and their way of life.
Without doubt, the continued appetite for ‘growth’ by various commercial entities is henious and destructive on such a tiny piece of land as Guernsey. It will destroy it, and it is destroying it. Clearly, growth in general must be halted and to allow airport growth and continous commercialisation of Guernsey by all and sundry can only result in Guernsey’s total demise as a pleasant place to live, work, and raise oines Guernsey family. I know it, you know it, so why are the States not doing what it takes to protect Guernsey?
Report abuse
Hahaha
Mr afraid of progress himself has deceided to grace another thread with his “dont understand it, we musnt be progressive, just make a decision and stick with it”-esque drivel.
Oh How i enjoyed your posting on the incinerator!!
Report abuse
@martino
Actually, I’ve got nothing against EMAS – even if it costs more, it appears to be safer and thats what should count.
But most of the pro EMAS lobby seem to only support it because they think it might save a road and a couple of fields. IF ( because like just about everybody else I havent done the required in depth analysys) it turns out it doesn’t I think many of them may start to think with their wallets and decide there’s nothing wrong with a grass RESA after all ….
and if the States HAD done the appropriate research we could have had a proper balanced reasoned debate in the States over some alternative solutions, rather than just a rubber stamp exercise ……. ( excuse me whilst I laugh myself to tears imagining that that could ever happen …. )
Report abuse
Your post sums it up very well Toby. Like you I have nothing against EMAS, or progress in general. I consistently argue in favour of progress on these threads, whether in modern architecture (which I like) or the Sunday trading laws (which I don’t like), but what I do have a problem with is spending millions more on a system that probably won’t end up making much of a difference – either in terms of land use or safety.
Report abuse
I support EMAS because it appears to provide a much safer aircraft arresting system and enables the Airport to become operational much quicker, which has a cost implication in favour of the solution.
However my understanding is the States proposal is not only about extending the grass runoff but also sliding in a runway extension, this I do not believe is necessary for the Island and both main airlines have said they don’t need it.
Report abuse
Rubbish!
Look at runway 33L with EMAS, it’s tiny!
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/emas-1.jpg
Report abuse