EMAS requires a certain pressure to break through the surface. It’s designed for gear down overruns, not belly landings. I don’t think it’d do much if it were installed in this case.
the surface area leading to the EMAS bed has poor braking characteristics
there is minimal or no structural damage to the landing gear
there is no aircraft braking or use of reverse thrust / reverse pitch once an aircraft enters the EMAS
That penultimate point is key. It’s not designed for a no gear landing, or even damaged gear landing. It adds friction by the gear sinking into the materials.
Typically yeah, but I think there was likely enough weight on the engine cowls to make the engines dig in to EMAS. I wonder if it has ever been tested.
EMAS requires a certain pressure to break through the surface. It’s designed for gear down overruns, not belly landings. I don’t think it’d do much if it were installed in this case.
From skybrary.aero:
That penultimate point is key. It’s not designed for a no gear landing, or even damaged gear landing. It adds friction by the gear sinking into the materials.
Typically yeah, but I think there was likely enough weight on the engine cowls to make the engines dig in to EMAS. I wonder if it has ever been tested.
Certainly wouldn’t have hurt, but I don’t think it would have done that much.
From skybrary:
…and thats with gear down. I believe the Jeju plane was doing something like 130+ kts off the end of the runway.