Here's the latest on tthe aftermath:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/14/national/main1124294.shtmlI'm surprised no mention is made of a barrier as opposed to, or in addition to, a crushable-concrete strip. Hitting a wall in an airplane at over 100kts would be bad, but at least others beyond the airport fence would be bettter-protected.
Are they really thinking "well, since we have no room for a proper overrun, and less people would likely be hurt if aircraft are allowed to occasionally run out onto the road tthan if they were stopped cold by a heavy barrier, we reserve the right to use passing vehicles as more aircraft-friendly energy-absorbing devices" ? Sure, Midway is important to the city, but if you (meaning anyone reading this) drove by there every day, or lived or worked across the street, would you find that logic acceptable? I am as pro-aviation a guy as you'd ever meet, but I don't think it's acceptable.
Some mishaps we can't do much about, but overruns don't fit into that category, IMHO.
There's a lot to be said for figuring it based on potential casualty numbers (a barrier capable of stopping an airliner in such a scenario would be harsh indeed), but suppose next time it's a fuel tanker truck, or some other large vehicle that could do catastrophic damage to the aircraft? Or suppose the plane crosses the road altogether and plows into a building?
In light of those possibilities, a different sort of logic needs to be applied... and all this reminds me of how I still am amazed that no mfr. has had the guts to put rear-facing seats in their aircraft, despite the very obvious benefits of that.
But that's a whole 'nother deal...
Pages: 
