In the aftermath of the cargo plane crash at Miami International Airport on Sunday, where five people were killed and five others injured, renewed scrutiny is being directed at runway safety measures, particularly the use of engineered materials arresting systems (EMAS). The Boeing 767-300 cargo aircraft overran the runway and crashed beyond its endpoint, sparking debate about whether airports like Miami should be required to install EMAS, which consists of crushable concrete designed to decelerate planes that overrun runways.

EMAS has been implemented at more than 70 U.S. airports since the 1990s and is credited by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with preventing 26 aircraft overruns carrying nearly 500 passengers. The FAA has long recommended the technology, citing its success in stopping planes with no fatalities and limited damage. Despite these endorsements, EMAS is not mandatory at all airports. The FAA maintains that paved runway safety areas of at least 1,000 feet in length and 500 feet in width are sufficient to reduce overrun risks. Miami International currently meets these specifications but does not have an EMAS installed at its runways.

Jennifer Homendy, chair of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), indicated that the agency’s investigation will consider whether EMAS should be universally required. The question arises particularly because the Miami accident has raised doubts about the adequacy of the 1,000-foot runway safety area standard. Michael O’Donnell, a former FAA official and aviation consultant, pointed out that no U.S. airport currently combines a full 1,000-foot safety area with an EMAS bed, prompting reconsideration of existing regulations.

EMAS works by collapsing under an aircraft’s weight, dissipating energy and bringing the plane to a controlled stop. The technology requires less space than traditional runway safety areas and typically extends about 600 feet beyond the runway end. The FAA has compared EMAS to runaway truck ramps on steep highways. Federal programs have helped airports, especially those with limited available land, fund their EMAS installations. For instance, New York’s JFK and LaGuardia airports have installed EMAS systems due to constraints imposed by their urban locations. The technology was credited with preventing a severe accident earlier this year at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey.

Miami International, a more expansive facility with room for conventional safety areas, has not prioritized EMAS, viewing it as an alternative rather than a supplemental measure. A Miami-Dade Aviation Department spokesperson noted that the airport undergoes routine FAA safety inspections and consistently complies with federal standards. Experts like Michael McCormick, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and former FAA air traffic leader, argue that EMAS installations should focus on airports with high-risk profiles, which Miami is not considered to be.

Assessments of the crash’s dynamics have led to varied opinions on whether EMAS would have altered the outcome. The cargo jet reportedly exited the runway at nearly 129 miles per hour, significantly exceeding the maximum speed—approximately 80 miles per hour—that EMAS is designed to manage. NTSB veteran Scott Dunham expressed skepticism, noting the plane’s speed was “way beyond” typical scenarios for EMAS effectiveness. Nevertheless, some experts believe that EMAS could have at least slowed the aircraft, potentially reducing the impact of the collision with vehicles and the airport perimeter fence. McCormick suggested that even limited deceleration could have mitigated the severity of the crash.

The accident has intensified discussions about runway safety regulations and whether the FAA should revise current standards or mandate more widespread EMAS deployment to prevent future tragedies.