Engineered Material Arresting Systems (EMAS) played an important role in the injury-free outcomes of two separate runway overruns this week.
On Wednesday, a Gulfstream G150 arriving from Baltimore/Washington International overran a rain-slicked 5,000-foot runway at Chicago Executive Airport but was stopped short of a major roadway by EMAS, according to the FAA. Hours later, a Bombardier Challenger 300 carrying four people overran the runway at Boca Raton Airport, where the arresting system again prevented the aircraft from leaving airport property.
EMAS consists of crushable material designed to decelerate an aircraft by allowing its tires to sink into the surface, absorbing momentum and bringing it to a stop. According to the FAA, a standard installation is capable of halting most overruns at speeds up to 70 knots.
Images from Chicago showed deep tracks in the arresting bed where the Gulfstream had dug in before stopping just beyond the airport fence. In both incidents, no injuries were reported.
“Yesterday’s incidents in Chicago and Boca Raton clearly demonstrate the lifesaving value of EMAS technology,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said in a statement. “These two systems did exactly what they’re designed to do—stop aircraft safely when they go off the runway. This technology is making a real difference in preventing serious accidents.”
The agency recently funded an $8.5 million EMAS installation at Philadelphia International Airport, bringing the total to 117 systems at more than 60 U.S. airports.
EMAS is clearly a good idea for stopping aircraft overrunning a runway but I hope there is an investigation in to both of these incidents because it seems the pilots didn’t do any runway length calculations and I wonder if there was pressure - potentially self imposed pressure - to complete the mission.
The aircraft at PWK wasn’t stopped by the EMAS. It was stopped by the fence.
“It was stopped by the fence.” After it went through the EMAS which slowed it down enough that it didn’t breach the fence by much.
Over running a runway suggests the thrust reversers were either not used or not used enough. So, pilot error. All turbine/jet engines have thrust reversers these days. So no excuse, unless the airline bought something it should not have purchased; without thrust reversers. This is probably a training over sight. No pilot has to use thrust reversers on a simulator? Any bets? Airlines short sited again, and not pilot error, no training, or not enough training. One would expect pilots able to use thrust reversersers in their sleep. For any passenger who has never experienced thrust reversers, it is quite startling the first time; where one gets their moneys worth.
@Terry_Welander . Please go away. Saying that “All turbine/jet engines have thrust reversers these days” is irresponsible. Even an armchair QB sym pilot would know that is not true. The pilot error was touching down 2500’ or so on a 5000’ wet runway (as I understand it). And @Terry_Welander, you should immediately have your own opinion vector in thrust reverse.
And whose insurance will pay to fill in the tire tracks in the special surface?
Aeroplane’s, pilots’ individual, or aeroport?
Or everyone because it is very expensive.
From the report in FLYING (link embedded in this article):
So after it came to a stop someone deliberately took it through the fence and on to the street?
9/6/2025
Mr. H,
I do not know where you get your opinions, but I stand by mine.
Nearly all turbine powered aircraft have thrust reversers.
And if they do not have thrust reversers, it is the airlines problem
for purchasing aircraft without thrust reversers.
Get some training, so you know what is going on.
I stand by my training and experience with aircraft.
It is not uncommon for aircraft to land on the 2nd half
of the runway. Then, thrust reversers are necessary.
Up north, where ice covers runways most of the winter,
thrust reversers are a necessity.
Training with thrust reversers on simulators is an open
question. I have never heard anyone talk about training
on aircraft thrust reversers. And it should be an integral
part of all ATP recurrent training.
No need to take my word for any of this. Correspond
with the FAA. Finding the correct FAA department is
usually the hard part.
All the best,
tdwelander@gmail.com
Well Hi Mr. Terry. I’m not here to state an opinion, I’m here to correct you with the facts. Here is a list of many popular jets that do not have thrust reversers. I expect that I have neglected to mention some.
Embraer Phenom 100
Embraer Phenom 300
Pilatus PC24
Honda Jet
Honda Jet Elite II
Honda Jet
Cessna Citation Mustang
Cessna Citation CJ 1
Cessna Citation CJ 2
Cessna Citation CJ 3
Beech Premier Jet
Eclipse 500
Eclipse 550
Hawker 800 (optional)
As I understand it, the Phenom 300 is the most popularly sold aircraft in it’s class with NetJets being the biggest operator. I’ve flown the Hawker 800 without thrust reversers as well as several different flavors of Citations jets without thrust reversers.
Mr. Welander, your ideas are great! Can you please detail what a lesson on the proper use of reverse thrust would entail?
I know I took several years to figure out how to even deploy the thrust reversers on my 767. After landing I ask the pilot monitoring, should I do reversers? And the pilot monitoring is like “no way” and then I’m like “I’m totally gonna reverse it, man.” And the pilot monitoring is like “You’re gonna get an email if you reach up to the overhead and do the reversers.”. Then I’m all like “It’s not like you’re the guy who has to stow and re-charge them.”. So then we both consult our manuals, and my chief pilot is mad at me.
Teach me, please.
Things happen and, aside from stating the obvious, it’ll be some time before we get the useful causal and contributing factors here.
EMAS is a wonderful thing. I’d be happy to see my tax dollars deploy this stuff into every runway overrun area.
If the runway is wet or icy and the pilot lands long, thrust reversers are necessary. If the pilot lands within the first quarter of the runway, depending on if the aircraft brakes are slowing the aircraft, the thrust reversers may not be necessary. Using thrust reversers is the call of the pilot based on experience of having to stop by the end of the runway. Experience is usually gained as both 2nd in command by viewing the pilot using thrust reversers and from a simulator using thrust reversers.
I get it, sir. Telling pilots they need to use reverse thrust, like it’s some sage wisdom is akin to telling pilots they need to use the brakes to stop the plane. You’re stating the obvious.
Nobody needs to be reminded they have thrust reversers when they are landing on a contaminated runway. If they do need reminding, they don’t need a turbojet type rating. Also, you’re not touching on some really big considerations around the use of reverse on ice-covered and snow covered runways.
Here’s something that’s productive to say, Terry:
“Trained pilots went off the end of those runways. If I’m not careful I could do the same thing. I wonder what happened?”
Airports maintain their runways. I suggest you talk to the airport administration of your choice. Since most turbine/jet engines have reverse thrusters, no significant damage to runway surfaces occurs; mostly aerodynamic braking from thrust reversers. If you look closely at the ends of runways, you will see rubber on the runway from the aircraft tires. So the commercial aircraft are improving the runway, leaving their rubber from their tires on the ends of the runway. Rubber aircraft tires on rubber on the runway, quicker stopping; except when iced or with significant rain. No need to take my word for this, do some checking. Or no problem here. You are trying to create a problem where one does not exist.
All small turbine aircraft you have listed. None of them haul significant numbers of passengers. These small aircraft can land and takeoff on short runways, less than 5000 feet long. You can bet during bad weather, the pilots are sweating their landing on short runways. Except being mostly private aircraft, their management usually does not fly in bad weather. I have never included small turbine aircraft with large turbine aircraft; aircraft of over 12,500 pounds according the FAA. Why you are mixing them is foolish and makes no sense. As stated, get some training.
Nearly everyone will tell you, safety first. Making people mad for using thrust reversers is on them. Except making your boss mad may mean looking for another job. You probably should practice using thrust reversers on your simulator; assuming it has thrust reversing on the simulator. Insist the company get thrust reversers added to the simulator, if not on it. As you likely know, the thrust reversers must be operated simultaneously to insure you are not having to provide significant rudder input to counteract differential thrust from the reversers. Why just doing thrust reversers for practice is probably not a good idea; only when the runway is icy or very wet, then use the thrust reversers. On an icy or wet runway is the equivalent of flying on the ground when on the ground. All aircraft controls usually need to be used in bad weather to stay on the runway; after touch down. And as you also probably know, shooting the ILS approach is a piece of cake compared to landing on ice or a very wet surface. In the one in a million event one of a thrust reversers fails; you will end up off the runway; and probably with a bent up aircraft and a fire. Not too dissimilar from the Air Canada landing last winter; in Montreal? On that flight, everything that could go wrong, did. And the final and most important rule of flight; you and the passengers walk away from is a good flight. Ask any pilot. Meaning, safe landings are everything; as long a everyone walks away. And the pilots who run off the end of the runway without destroying the plane or the passengers made a good landing. Though, they will likely be looking for new jobs. You probably know the story of Captain Sully Sullenberger and landing on the Hudson River in January. The ferry boats picked up all the passengers off the airplanes wings. And the NSTB tried to blame Captain Sullenberger. But after running through the real scenario, Cape Sullenberger was correct. He would not have made it into Newark; and would have crashed in the city killing everyone. An inspiration for us all! Safety first.