May 7, 2009
Contact: Marcia Adams
Phone: (202) 267-3488
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that commercial airports, regulated under Part 139 safety rules, have a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) where possible. At most commercial airports the RSA is 500 feet wide and extends 1,000 feet beyond each end of the runway. The FAA has this requirement in the event that an aircraft overruns, undershoots, or veers off the side of the runway. The most dangerous of these incidents are overruns, but since many airports were built before the 1,000-foot RSA length was adopted some 20 years ago, the area beyond the end of the runway is where many airports cannot achieve the full standard RSA. This is due to obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain.
The FAA has a high-priority program to enhance safety by upgrading the RSAs at commercial airports and provide federal funding to support those upgrades. However, it still may not be practical for some airports to achieve the standard RSA. The FAA, knowing that it would be difficult to achieve a standard RSA at every airport, began conducting research in the 1990s to determine how to ensure maximum safety at airports where the full RSA cannot be obtained. Working in concert with the University of Dayton, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation (ESCO) of Logan Township, NJ, a new technology emerged to provide an added measure of safety. An Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) uses materials of closely controlled strength and density placed at the end of a runway to stop or greatly slow an aircraft that overruns the runway. The best material found to date is a lightweight, crushable concrete. When an aircraft rolls into an EMAS arrestor bed, the tires of the aircraft sink into the lightweight concrete and the aircraft is decelerated by having to roll through the material.
The EMAS technology provides safety benefits in cases where land is not available, where it would be very expensive for the airport sponsor to buy the land off the end of the runway, or where it is otherwise not possible to have the standard 1,000-foot overrun. A standard EMAS installation extends 600 feet from the end of the runway. An EMAS arrestor bed can still be installed to help slow or stop an aircraft that overruns the runway, even if less than 600 feet of land is available.
The Office of Airports prepared an RSA improvement plan for the runways at approximately 575 commercial airports in 2005. This plan allows the agency to track the progress and to direct federal funds for making all practicable improvements, including the use of EMAS technology.
Presently, the EMAS system developed by ESCO using crushable concrete is the only system that meets the FAA standard. However, FAA is conducting research through the Airport Cooperative Research Program (project number 07-03) that will examine alternatives to the existing approved system. The results of this effort are expected in 2009. More information on the project can be found at the Transportation Research Board web site at http://www.trb.org/CRP/ACRP/ACRP.asp.
Many of the EMAS beds installed prior to 2006 need periodic re-painting to maintain the integrity and functionality of the bed. FAA is working with ESCO to develop a retrofit of the older beds with plastic lids that are used on newer installations. The lid should eliminate the need for the periodic re-painting.
To date, there have been four incidents where the technology has worked successfully to arrest aircraft which overrun the runway and in several cases has prevented injury to passengers and damage to the aircraft.
Currently, EMAS is installed at 41 runway ends at 28 airports in the United Stated, with plans to install 17 EMAS systems at 12 additional U.S. airports.
Airport | Location | No. of Systems | Installation Date |
---|---|---|---|
JFK International | Jamaica, NY | 2 | 1996/2007 |
Minneapolis St. Paul | Minneapolis, MN | 1 | 1999 |
Little Rock | Little Rock, AR | 2 | 2000/2003 |
Rochester International | Rochester, NY | 1 | 2001 |
Burbank | Burbank, CA | 1 | 2002* |
Baton Rouge Metropolitan | Baton Rouge, LA | 1 | 2002 |
Greater Binghamton | Binghamton, NY | 2 | 2002 |
Greenville Downtown | Greensville, SC | 1 | 2003** |
Barnstable Municipal | Hyannis, MA | 1 | 2003 |
Roanoke Regional | Roanoke, VA | 1 | 2004 |
Fort Lauderdale International | Fort Lauderdale, FL | 2 | 2004 |
Dutchess County | Poughkeepsie, NY | 1 | 2004 |
LaGuardia | Flushing, NY | 2 | 2005 |
Boston Logan | Boston, MA | 2 | 2005/2006 |
Laredo International | Laredo, TX | 1 | 2006 |
San Diego International | San Diego, CA | 1 | 2006 |
Teterboro | Teterboro , NJ | 1 | 2006 |
Chicago Midway | Chicago, IL | 4 | 2006/2007 |
Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith | Cordova, AK | 1 | 2007 |
Charleston Yeager | Charleston , WV | 1 | 2007 |
Manchester | Manchester, NH | 1 | 2007 |
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Intl. | Wilkes-Barre, PA | 2 | 2008 |
San Luis Obispo | San Luis Obispo, CA | 2 | 2008 |
Chicago-O'Hare | Chicago, IL | 2 | 2008 |
Newark Liberty International | Newark, NJ | 1 | 2008 |
Charlotte Douglas Intl | Charlotte, NC | 1 | 2008 |
St. Paul Downtown | St. Paul, MN | 2 | 2008 |
Worcester Regional | Worcester, MA | 1 | 2008 |
*Widened in 2008
** General aviation airport
Location | No. of Systems | Expected Installation Date |
---|---|---|
Worcester, MA | 1 | 2009 |
Arcata, CA | 1 | 2009 |
Winston-Salem, NC | 1 | 2009 |
Wilmington, DE | 1 | 2009 |
Reading, PA | 1 | 2009 |
Key West, FL | 1 | 2009 |
Kansas City, MO | 2 | 2010 |
Farmingdale, NY | 1 | 2010 |
Lafayette , LA | 2 | 2010 |
Groton-New London, CT | 2 | 2011 |
Augusta, ME | 2 | 2011 |
Telluride, CO | 2 | 2012 |