Mark: The need for runway end safety areas that meet international benchmarks is one of the nine issues on the Board’s Watchlist. Every year millions of aircraft land at Canada’s airports and every year about 2 aircraft a year run off the end of a Canadian runway. We need to know they will always safely come to a stop.

The Globe and Mail: 

How does Canada stack up compared to other countries when it comes to runway length?

Mark: 

The issue is not really runway length. The issue is what lies at the end of Canada's runways. This is known as RESA (Runway End Safety Area).

Wendy: 

Nobody died when Air France ran out the runway in Toronto, but this accident has taught us hard lessons and those lessons should not be forgotten. So when we have another large aircraft overrun, and we will, the plane will stop safely. That is why this issue is on our Watchlist.

The Globe and Mail: 

Thanks for the clarification, Mark. So to rephrase, do many other countries have stricter requirements for RESAs?

Mark: 

The current international standard set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requires a Runway End Safety Area of 150 metres in length from the end of the runway. For comparison, the United States Federal Aviation Administration requires a Runway End Safety Area of 300 metres from the end of the runway.

[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 

Mark and Wendy, how many aircraft that are involved in overrun situations go beyond the 60m, 150m and 300m proposed safety areas?

Mark: 

Thank you for your question. According to a 12-year study from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 90% of all overruns occur at exit speeds of 70 knots or less and most come to rest within a 1000 feet off the end of the runway.

The Globe and Mail: 

For those who (like me) aren't great with conversion, 1000 feet = about 300 m

Wendy: 

Let's put this in perspective. In Canada, there are about 2 runway overruns every year. Worldwide, there are at least one a month.

The Globe and Mail: 

A commenter has asked in the article comments about how much of a difference a 300m RESA would have made in the Air France crash in 2005.

He writes "given the weather conditions and where the Air France actually did touch down (roughly halfway down the runway), the plane had virtually no chance at all of stopping by the end of the runway even with the 300 metre safety zone."

What are your thoughts, Wendy and Mark?

Wendy: 

We at the Transportation Safety Board of Canada are disappointed that Canada is playing catch up on this issue. As the world moves to a new benchmark of 300 metres, we are still only consulting on the lower standard of 150 metres.

[Comment From CBCB: ] 

You use the Air France accident at Pearson as justification. The runway is around 9000 ft long. The plane landed in a tail wind and set down halfway down the runway. Being a pilot myself, this seems to be not about runway length, but pilot error first and where the runway is situated .. second. Or are you really talking about airports that were orginally designed for a older generation of aircraft. The identified risks here don't seem to jive with reality.

Mark: 

We cannot speculate about what would have happened had the conditions off the end of 24L been different. When we make the recommendations, we look at the system as a whole.

[Comment From guestguest: ] 

Wouldn't it be more advantageous to lengthen specific runways by 300m?

Wendy: 

In response to CB's question, it's important to ensure there will be fewer overruns and that is the point of the other recommendations in the Air France investigation report. However, overruns continue to happen and that is why we need to ensure that aircraft will always stop safely.

Mark: 

In response to guest, no matter how long a runway is, you will still need a runway end safety area or another means of safely stopping aircraft like engineered material arresting system (EMAS).

[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 

I haven't read your report yet - I just stumbled across this live chat, but I was wondering if there are any recommendations for plane slowing substances (like foam blocks or whatever) as used in some airports in the US where they don't have the space to extend the RESA?

Mark: 

In response to guest, one of the key recommendations coming out of the Air France investigation report is "the Department of Transport require all Code 4 runways to have a 300 m runway end safety area (RESA) or a means of stopping aircraft that provides an equivalent level of safety." These systems have been installed in airports worldwide and they have been credited with 6 overrun "saves" in the United States. I hope that clarifies.

[Comment From LTLT: ] 

Not an airport expert, but how do airports around the world that handle/have handled large aircraft on shorter runways without issue (i.e. the old Hong Kong airport - Kai Tak, LaGuardia doesn't look terribly long)? Are we overstating the issue given the amount of traffic that Canadian airports handle in comparison to other true metropolises? Finally, what about airport design (Pearson is immense - you can spend 30 minutes just taxing) - can we better utlize the space we have?

Wendy: 

Jennifer, in fact, your readers might be interested to know that, according to the latest worldwide figures from the Flight Safety Foundation 30% of accidents between 1995 and 2008 were runway overruns.

Mark: 

Thank you for the question LT. Millions of aircraft land at airports every year. However, it just takes one to go off the end of the runway. In 2008 alone, there were 28 runway excursions worldwide. The problem is real and needs to be addressed.

[Comment From halhal: ] 

what major canadian airports need upgrades in your opinion?

Mark: 

Hello hal. At the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, we think that all of Canada's Code 4 runways should move to the International Civil Aviation Organization benchmark of 300 metres. There are 63 airports in Canada with Code 4 runways. All of these runways are required to meet the 60 m and many meet the 150 m.

The Globe and Mail: 

Mark, could you give us a bit more detail on what sort of runways qualify as Code 4?

Wendy: 

The bottom line is, when this happens – and it will happen again – Canadians need to know that passengers will be safe. It's time for airports and governments to step up and tackle this issue.

Mark: 

Sure Jennifer. Code 4 runways, as defined in Transport Canada publication 312E, are those whose length is in excess of 1800 m. 63 Canadian cities have Code 4 runways, including Moncton, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, to name a few.

[Comment From Dan CDan C: ] 

If a pilot was disoriented in bad weather and landed 3/4 the way down the runway, even 500m extention would not be enough. Is anybody looking into automated warning systems that could give a pilot immediate feedback that there is risk of excursion?

Mark: 

Hi Dan. Actually, Airbus, Boeing and Honeywell are currently designing and testing runway overrun warning protections. These are all tools to reduce the risk of runway excursions. However, there are more than Boeing and Airbus aircraft landing at Canadian airports. We need to look at all kinds of solutions to keep people safe.