Amazon plane crash sparks debate over need for runway buffers

Over the past 30 years, more airports in the United States have installed erodible concrete buffer zones at the end of runways to help stop planes that overshoot the landing zone before they can hit anything.

Miami International Airport, where an Amazon cargo plane overshot the final runway on Sunday, killing five people and injuring five others, has no such buffer.

Engineered material arrest systems, called EMAS in the industry, have been installed at at least 70 U.S. airports since the 1990s and have successfully stopped 26 planes that veered off the runway, carrying a total of 497 passengers, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The FAA has recommended that airports install buffers for at least two decades, saying in a 2005 advisory circular that the system “has been demonstrated to be effective in preventing aircraft from speeding.” Last year, the agency said “EMAS operated successfully every time, causing no loss of life and minimal damage.”

However, the FAA stopped short of requiring all airports to install the technology, determining that paved areas at least 1,000 feet long and 500 feet wide at each end of runways provide sufficient space to mitigate risks.

In a statement, the FAA said Miami International meets required length and width requirements for runway safety zones.

Sunday’s accident raises new questions about whether that standard should be revised.

“Should EMAS be everywhere at every airport? That will be a key part of our investigation,” Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, told reporters Monday.

“I don’t know that I’ve seen any airport with a 1,000-foot runway safety area and an EMAS bed,” Michael O’Donnell, an aviation consultant who previously oversaw air traffic safety and airport security for the FAA and signed on to the agency’s last update to the buffer technology guidelines in 2012, said in an interview. “The immediate question now is: Was 1,000 feet enough for such an accident?”

The crushable material that makes up these buffers helps slow the aircraft by collapsing under its weight, slowing its momentum to a stop. They take up less space than traditional runway safety areas, with minimum requirements that they be the same width as the runway and, in most cases, that the portion containing the erodible material extend 600 feet from the end point of the runway.

The FAA compared the system to ramps on steep highways that help stop runaway trucks.

Federal funding initiatives have helped eligible airports cover the significant costs of installing this technology, which costs several million dollars per runway. Since the FAA began studying this technology, airports with geographic restrictions that prevent them from building long buffer zones have been prioritized for installation.

For example, in New York City, where airports are located in urban areas, buffers are common. Kennedy International Airport became the first U.S. airport to install the system in 1996, and LaGuardia Airport followed suit, completing its installation in 2015 with the help of a federal grant program.

Most recently, the system helped prevent a potentially catastrophic event this year at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, where it stopped a Learjet 60 from running off the runway.

But at some larger airports, such as Miami International Airport, where physical obstacles are located relatively far from the runways, managers do not view the technology as a necessary element to improve safety.

“No U.S. airport has an EMAS system at the end of the runway that also provides a full, unobstructed 1,000-foot security area,” Gregory Chin, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department, said in an emailed statement. “EMAS is intended as an alternative, not as an additional layer on top of one.”

He added that Miami International undergoes annual comprehensive FAA safety inspections and consistently meets federal airfield safety requirements.

“The priority for EMAS deployment will be those airports where the risks are greatest, and Miami will not be one of them,” said Michael McCormick, an Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University professor who formerly headed FAA air traffic control.

However, he noted that airports like Miami International Airport can still apply for federal Airport Improvement Program grants, which are funded by airfare and fuel taxes, to help with the installation of a buffer or simply cover costs.

Experts disagree on how the system would have worked in Sunday’s crash at Miami International.

“Looking at the speed at which the airplane flew out of control, EMAS may not have even activated,” said Scott Dunham, a former NTSB air safety investigator. He said Sunday’s disastrous landing of a cargo plane “far exceeded what would have been expected from a minor problem.”

The systems are designed to absorb the momentum of most aircraft as long as they enter the buffer zone at speeds up to 80.55 mph. But according to flight tracking website Flightradar24, the Boeing 767-300 cargo plane involved in Sunday’s crash was traveling at nearly 128.9 mph when it left the runway – significantly faster than what the buffer technology was designed to counteract.

The cargo plane ended up about 1,300 feet off the paved area after colliding with a van belonging to an airport cleaning company, crossing the airport perimeter fence and hitting a Toyota Corolla driving on a street near the airport, Ms. Homendy said. According to her, all those killed in the accident were in these cars.

But some experts said they believe if buffer technology had been applied, it could have slowed the plane enough to avoid some of the carnage.

“At a minimum, even if you have the big barrel of a 767 on the runway at over 100 knots, that will at least slow it down,” Mr McCormick said. “This way, it will minimize the risk of collision.”