Connect with us

Regulations & Safety

Philadelphia Airport Installs EMAS to Enhance Runway Safety

Philadelphia International Airport installs EMAS on runway 8-26, improving safety and meeting FAA standards within limited space.

Published

on

Philadelphia International Airport’s Pioneering EMAS Installation: A Comprehensive Analysis of Runway Safety Technology and Its Industry Impact

Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) has marked a significant advancement in aviation safety with the completion of its first Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) on runway 8-26. This $8.5 million investment, primarily funded by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Infrastructure Grant, brings the latest overrun protection technology to one of the busiest Airports in the United States. EMAS, composed of crushable concrete blocks, is designed to safely decelerate aircraft that overrun runway ends, thereby preventing catastrophic accidents. With this installation, Philadelphia joins a network of over 120 EMAS deployments worldwide, which have collectively arrested more than 20 aircraft without significant injuries to passengers or crew. This article explores the technical, economic, regulatory, and operational aspects of EMAS at PHL, situating the project within broader industry trends and future developments.

The installation of EMAS at PHL addresses longstanding deficiencies in runway safety areas, which are often difficult to upgrade at older or space-constrained airports. By leveraging engineered materials, EMAS provides a cost-effective alternative to traditional safety area expansions, offering both immediate and long-term safety and financial benefits. Industry analysis estimates that the first 11 EMAS arrestments worldwide have saved approximately $1.9 billion, compared to a total global investment of about $600 million in the technology’s development, installation, and maintenance. This underscores the system’s value as both a safety enhancement and a sound economic investment.

This comprehensive analysis examines the evolution of EMAS technology, details the specifics of Philadelphia’s implementation, and discusses the broader implications for airport safety standards and operational protocols.

Background and Technical Foundation of EMAS Technology

The concept of Engineered Material Arresting Systems arose from the need to improve runway safety at airports where traditional safety areas could not be built due to physical or economic constraints. Developed in the 1990s through collaboration between the FAA, academic institutions, and industry partners, EMAS technology is based on controlled energy absorption: the system is designed to crush predictably under the weight of an aircraft, arresting its motion safely and efficiently.

FAA Advisory Circular No 150/5220-22B defines EMAS as “high energy absorbing materials of selected strength, which will reliably and predictably crush under the weight of an aircraft.” Most modern EMAS installations use lightweight, crushable concrete blocks, though other materials meeting FAA standards may also be used. When an aircraft overruns the runway, its landing gear compresses the blocks, which collapse and absorb the aircraft’s kinetic energy, slowing it to a stop within a short distance.

EMAS design is tailored to each runway, accounting for the types of aircraft using the airport, operational parameters, and site-specific constraints. The modular blocks are manufactured to precise specifications, tested for strength, and installed in a grid pattern at the runway end. Recent innovations include alternative materials such as greenEMAS, which uses foamed silica from recycled glass, highlighting the industry’s move toward sustainable safety solutions.

Evolution of EMAS Material Technology

EMAS technology has evolved through four generations, with current systems like EMASMAX using cellular concrete blocks produced in specialized facilities. These blocks come in several strength configurations, allowing for custom installation based on the airport’s needs. Each block is individually tested for quality assurance, and the system is designed for durability and ease of maintenance.

The greenEMAS alternative employs foamed silica within mesh containment, offering an environmentally friendly option that maintains the essential safety performance of traditional EMAS. This approach underscores the industry’s commitment to innovation and Sustainability in safety-critical infrastructure.

Testing and validation of EMAS materials are rigorous, involving full-scale trials with actual aircraft to ensure reliable performance under real-world conditions. This ensures that each installation meets the safety requirements for the specific aircraft and operational scenarios at a given airport.

“Engineered materials are defined as high energy absorbing materials of selected strength, which will reliably and predictably crush under the weight of an aircraft.” – FAA Advisory Circular 150/5220-22B

Philadelphia International Airport’s EMAS Implementation

PHL’s EMAS project specifically addresses a safety area deficiency at the eastern end of runway 8-26, where only 680 feet of safety area existed, 320 feet short of the FAA’s 1,000-foot standard. Physical constraints made traditional expansion impractical, prompting a comprehensive analysis of alternatives. EMAS was determined to be the most feasible solution, allowing the airport to meet safety standards within existing spatial limitations.

The project involved extensive coordination with the FAA, airport operations, air traffic control, and airline stakeholders. The planning process included detailed simulation and modeling to ensure the arrestor bed would effectively stop the range of aircraft using the runway. The system spans the full width of the runway and is designed to provide optimal stopping capability within the available space, using EMASMAX blocks tailored to PHL’s operational needs.

Installation required significant site preparation, including removal of existing materials, new base layers, and precise placement of the EMAS blocks. The system is finished with a jet blast-resistant coating and includes features for emergency access and maintenance. The modular design enables targeted repairs, minimizing downtime and operational disruption after an arrestment event.

Project Development and Stakeholder Coordination

PHL’s EMAS installation was the result of a multi-year planning and development process. Stakeholders analyzed various solutions, ultimately selecting EMAS due to its proven track record and ability to fit within the airport’s spatial constraints. The project was coordinated with ongoing airfield operations to minimize disruption, and contractors with specialized experience in airfield construction were engaged to ensure successful delivery.

Operational input from air traffic control and airport users was critical in shaping the final design. The system not only addresses safety deficiencies but also enhances operational efficiency by reducing restrictions related to runway safety area conflicts.

The project is part of a broader $85 million infrastructure improvement program at PHL, reflecting the airport’s commitment to maintaining the highest safety standards amidst increasing operational demands.

“The EMAS solution offers the critical advantage of reducing the required runway safety area length… providing substantial spatial savings while maintaining equivalent safety performance.” – PHL Planning Documents

Financial Investment and Economic Analysis

The $8.5 million EMAS project at PHL was predominantly funded by the FAA, with local matching contributions. This aligns with federal priorities to enhance runway safety at airports where traditional safety area improvements are unfeasible. The favorable cost-sharing arrangement illustrates the importance placed on safety investments at the national level.

Industry research has shown that EMAS is highly cost-effective: the first 11 EMAS arrestments worldwide are estimated to have saved $1.9 billion in potential accident costs, far exceeding the $600 million invested globally in the technology. These savings stem from the prevention of aircraft damage, injury, and operational disruption during overrun incidents, events that, while rare, can have severe consequences.

FAA data provides standardized cost metrics for EMAS installations, enabling airports to compare the technology with other safety area improvement options. The long-term benefits, including reduced insurance costs and liability exposure, further strengthen the economic case for EMAS deployment.

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Funding Mechanisms

The cost-benefit analysis for EMAS considers both direct and indirect savings. Direct savings include the avoided costs of aircraft repairs and emergency response, while indirect benefits come from improved operational reliability and reduced legal exposure. The FAA’s Airport Improvement Program provides critical funding support, recognizing that runway safety enhancements benefit the entire aviation system, not just individual airports.

By enabling airports to meet safety standards without costly land acquisition or runway relocation, EMAS represents a strategic investment in risk mitigation. The positive economic impact is reflected in lower insurance premiums and improved airport reputations, which can attract more carriers and passengers.

As more airports face spatial and financial constraints, the EMAS funding model may serve as a template for future safety infrastructure investments, both in the U.S. and internationally.

“Money saved through the first 11 global arrestments has reached a calculated total of $1.9 billion, substantially exceeding the estimated total global investment in EMAS technology.” – FAA/Industry Cost-Benefit Analysis

Safety Performance and Global Implementation

EMAS has a strong safety record, with more than 20 successful aircraft arrestments worldwide and no significant injuries reported in these incidents. The system is designed to stop most Commercial-Aircraft overrunning the runway at speeds up to 70 knots, providing a robust safety margin for typical overrun scenarios. The technology is less effective for very light aircraft, but is optimized for the commercial fleet that constitutes the majority of airport operations.

Documented EMAS activations at airports like John F. Kennedy International have demonstrated the system’s ability to safely stop aircraft with minimal damage, even in challenging conditions such as wet runways or mechanical failures. These successes have led to widespread adoption in the U.S. and growing interest internationally, with regulatory harmonization efforts underway through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

EMAS performance is not significantly affected by environmental conditions, and systems are engineered for durability in both hot and cold climates. Maintenance requirements are manageable, particularly with the modular design that allows for targeted repairs after an arrestment event.

Operational and Maintenance Considerations

Maintaining EMAS installations involves regular inspections, surface repairs, and periodic replacement of damaged blocks. The FAA requires airport operators to implement approved maintenance programs and keep detailed records of all activities. Snow removal and deicing procedures must be compatible with EMAS materials to avoid damage during winter operations.

Airport personnel, air traffic controllers, and emergency responders receive Training on EMAS operation and response protocols. Pilots are also educated on the importance of maintaining directional control and rolling straight into the EMAS bed during an overrun, rather than attempting to avoid it.

Overall, the operational integration of EMAS has proven effective, with minimal disruption to regular airport activities and rapid restoration of runway functionality following an arrestment event.

“EMAS systems have been successfully deployed at 121 runway ends across 71 airports in the United States, with international installations expanding the global network to over 120 systems worldwide.” – FAA Safety Performance Data

Conclusion

Philadelphia International Airport’s EMAS installation marks a major step forward in runway safety, providing a practical and effective solution to longstanding safety area deficiencies. The project exemplifies how innovative engineering, sound financial planning, and regulatory support can converge to deliver significant safety enhancements, even in challenging operational environments.

As the aviation industry continues to grow and evolve, the lessons learned from PHL’s EMAS project will inform future deployments at airports facing similar constraints. With a proven track record of preventing catastrophic accidents and delivering strong economic returns, EMAS stands as a model for consequence-mitigation technologies in modern aviation safety management.

FAQ

What is EMAS and how does it work?
EMAS (Engineered Material Arresting System) is a bed of crushable material, typically concrete blocks, installed at the end of a runway. If an aircraft overruns the runway, the blocks collapse under the aircraft’s weight, safely decelerating it and preventing more serious accidents.

Why did Philadelphia International Airport install EMAS?
PHL installed EMAS on runway 8-26 to address a safety area deficiency at the runway’s eastern end, where space constraints made traditional safety area expansion impossible. EMAS allows the airport to meet FAA safety standards within the available space.

How effective is EMAS in real-world incidents?
EMAS has successfully arrested more than 20 overrunning aircraft worldwide, preventing injuries and minimizing aircraft damage. The technology is considered highly effective for most commercial aircraft types and operational scenarios.

Who funded the EMAS installation at PHL?
The $8.5 million project was primarily funded by a Federal Aviation Administration Airport Infrastructure Grant, with additional local matching funds.

Does EMAS require special maintenance?
Yes, EMAS installations require regular inspections and maintenance. Damaged blocks are replaced as needed, and special procedures are followed for snow removal and deicing to protect the system’s integrity.

Sources:
CBS News Philadelphia,
FAA,
Wikipedia: EMAS,
Runway Safe Technical Specifications,
PHL Airport

Photo Credit: Runway Safe

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Regulations & Safety

Air India Flight AI2651 Grounded After Tailstrike at Bengaluru Airport

Air India Flight AI2651 experienced a tailstrike during landing in Bengaluru; aircraft grounded, return flight canceled, no injuries reported.

Published

on

This article summarizes reporting by The Times of India.

Air India Flight AI2651 Grounded in Bengaluru Following Tailstrike Incident

On Thursday, May 21, 2026, Air India Flight AI2651 experienced a tailstrike while touching down at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru. According to reporting by The Times of India, the domestic flight originating from New Delhi landed safely, and there were no injuries reported among the passengers or crew members on board.

Following the runway incident, the Airlines immediately removed the aircraft from service to conduct a comprehensive structural evaluation. The Times of India notes that the subsequent return leg to Delhi, operating as Flight AI2652, was called off. Airline ground teams were deployed at the airport to assist affected travelers with alternative flight arrangements.

Supplementary industry research indicates that the aircraft involved was an Airbus A321 carrying 181 passengers. The event highlights the rigorous safety protocols governing modern commercial aviation, particularly concerning airspace management and the prevention of long-term structural fatigue.

The Incident and Immediate Response

Navigating Wake Turbulence

The tailstrike reportedly occurred during a highly complex phase of the landing sequence. According to industry research reports, the flight crew had to initiate a tactical “go-around”, an aborted landing maneuver, to safely navigate wake turbulence. This invisible aerodynamic disturbance was reportedly generated by a preceding wide-body aircraft, identified in research data as a Boeing 747, which had recently departed the runway.

Wake turbulence consists of powerful air vortices trailing behind large, heavy aircraft as they generate lift. When a narrower commercial jet like the Airbus A321 encounters these vortices, it can experience sudden aerodynamic instability, requiring rapid and decisive pilot intervention to maintain control.

Passenger Safety and Grounding Protocols

Despite the physical impact of the tailstrike, the flight crew successfully managed the situation without compromising passenger safety. An official statement from the airline confirmed the secure conclusion of the flight.

“The aircraft landed safely, and all passengers and crew disembarked normally,” an Air India spokesperson stated, reiterating that passenger safety remains their highest priority.

The Times of India reports that the aircraft was grounded immediately for a detailed technical inspection. While tailstrikes are rarely catastrophic in the immediate aftermath, they require meticulous examination of the aircraft’s rear pressure bulkhead. If structural damage goes undetected, it can lead to severe metal fatigue over time, making immediate grounding a mandatory safety procedure.

Regulatory Investigation and Industry Context

Aviation Authorities Step In

A formal Investigation into the sequence of events is currently underway. The Times of India confirms that the probe will be conducted in close coordination with aviation authorities. Industry research specifies that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) will lead the regulatory inquiry.

Investigators are expected to analyze data from the aircraft’s flight data recorders, commonly known as black boxes. The investigation will likely focus on pilot inputs, prevailing weather conditions at Kempegowda International Airport, and the exact separation distance maintained by Air Traffic Control (ATC) between the Airbus A321 and the preceding Boeing 747.

AirPro News analysis

At AirPro News, we observe that this incident underscores the growing complexities of managing highly congested airspace in India’s rapidly expanding aviation sector. Major hubs like Delhi and Bengaluru handle a dense, continuous mix of narrow-body and wide-body traffic. Maintaining precise ATC separation distances to allow wake vortices to dissipate is a critical, yet challenging, aspect of daily operations.

Furthermore, the immediate grounding of the Airbus A321 and the cancellation of the return flight demonstrate the industry’s strict adherence to zero-tolerance safety policies. While such measures inevitably cause passenger inconvenience, as seen with the cancellation of Flight AI2652, they are essential safeguards. This cautious approach aligns with recent industry trends, prioritizing structural integrity checks over schedule maintenance, ensuring that potential microscopic damage is addressed before an aircraft returns to the skies.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is an aircraft tailstrike?

A tailstrike occurs when the rear section (empennage) of an airplane makes physical contact with the runway during takeoff or landing. It can be caused by a steep landing angle, strong crosswinds, or sudden maneuvers like a go-around.

Was anyone injured on Air India Flight AI2651?

No. According to The Times of India and airline statements, all 181 passengers and crew members disembarked safely without any reported injuries.

Why was the return flight, AI2652, canceled?

The return flight was canceled because the Airbus A321 involved in the tailstrike was immediately grounded. Aviation Safety protocols mandate a thorough technical inspection of the fuselage to ensure no structural damage occurred before the plane can fly again.

Sources: The Times of India

Photo Credit: X

Continue Reading

Regulations & Safety

Paris Court Finds Air France and Airbus Guilty in 2009 Flight 447 Crash

A Paris appeals court convicts Air France and Airbus of corporate manslaughter over the 2009 Flight 447 crash, imposing fines and pending appeals.

Published

on

This article summarizes reporting by Le Monde. This article summarizes publicly available elements and public remarks.

On May 21, 2026, a Paris appeals court delivered a landmark verdict, finding both Air France and Airbus guilty of corporate manslaughter in connection with the tragic 2009 crash of Flight 447. According to reporting by Le Monde, the ruling overturns a previous 2023 acquittal, holding the two aerospace giants criminally responsible for the disaster that claimed 228 lives.

The court ordered both companies to pay a fine of €225,000 ($261,720), which research notes is the maximum financial penalty allowed under French law for involuntary manslaughter. While the monetary fine is largely symbolic for multi-billion-dollar corporations, the reputational and legal implications are profound.

This verdict marks the culmination of a 17-year legal battle fought by the families of the victims. As detailed in the provided research and Le Monde’s coverage, the court determined that both the manufacturer and the airline shared responsibility for a chain of events that led to the deadliest accident in French aviation history.

The Verdict and Culpability

Reversing the 2023 Acquittal

In 2023, a lower court cleared Air France and Airbus of criminal charges. At the time, the court ruled that while negligence had occurred, a direct causal link to the crash could not be definitively proven to the standard required for criminal liability. However, following an eight-week appeal trial between September and December 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

According to the court’s findings, Airbus underestimated the severe risks associated with the failure of the aircraft’s airspeed sensors, known as Pitot tubes, and failed to adequately warn operators. Simultaneously, Air France was found culpable for not implementing sufficient pilot training to handle such sensor dysfunctions, leaving flight crews unprepared for the specific high-altitude emergency they encountered.

Background of the Flight 447 Tragedy

A Fateful Night Over the Atlantic

On June 1, 2009, Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean during a severe nighttime storm. All 216 passengers and 12 crew members perished. The victims spanned 33 nationalities, including 72 French, 58 Brazilian, and several German citizens, according to historical incident data.

It took two years to recover the aircraft’s black boxes from the ocean floor. Investigators ultimately concluded that ice crystals had blocked the aircraft’s external Pitot tubes. This obstruction caused erroneous airspeed readings, prompting the autopilot to disconnect. The pilots, lacking specific training for this scenario, failed to recognize an aerodynamic stall and made incorrect manual inputs, causing the fatal plunge.

Reactions and Appeals

Families Find Closure While Companies Push Back

For the families of the victims, the guilty verdict represents a long-awaited validation. Daniele Lamy, president of the AF447 victims’ association, expressed relief following the decision.

“Justice has absolutely been done,” Lamy stated, according to the compiled reports.

Prosecutors had been highly critical of the companies during the appeal. During the November 2025 proceedings, Prosecutor Rodolphe Juy-Birmann condemned the corporate response.

“Nothing has come of it – not a single word of sincere comfort. One word sums up this whole circus: indecency,” Juy-Birmann remarked.

Conversely, both Airbus and Air France have consistently denied criminal liability, attributing the crash primarily to pilot error. Following the verdict, Airbus released a statement expressing sympathy for the families but strongly disagreeing with the court’s conclusion. The manufacturer highlighted that the ruling contradicts both the 2023 acquittal and a 2019 dismissal order by investigating judges. Airbus has confirmed its intention to appeal to the Court of Cassation, France’s highest court, and Air France is widely expected to follow suit.

AirPro News analysis

We view this verdict as a watershed moment for the global aviation industry. The conviction of an aircraft manufacturer and a major flag carrier for corporate manslaughter establishes a heavy legal precedent regarding supply chain responsibility and training protocols. It underscores that even when human error is the final link in an accident chain, the systemic failures preceding it carry severe criminal liability.

The legacy of Flight 447 has already permanently altered aviation safety. The disaster exposed a critical industry-wide over-reliance on automation, prompting global authorities to mandate sweeping changes to pilot training. Today, there is a renewed focus on high-altitude manual flying and stall recovery. Furthermore, the crash accelerated the replacement of the specific Thales-manufactured Pitot tubes prone to icing, leading to more robust sensor designs across all commercial fleets.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

  • What was the cause of the Air France Flight 447 crash?
    Investigators found that ice crystals blocked the aircraft’s Pitot tubes, causing faulty airspeed readings and autopilot disconnection. The crew, lacking adequate training for this specific emergency, failed to recover from the resulting aerodynamic stall.
  • What penalty did the court impose on Air France and Airbus?
    Both companies were fined €225,000 ($261,720), which is the maximum statutory fine for corporate manslaughter in France.
  • Will the companies appeal the 2026 verdict?
    Yes, Airbus has confirmed it will appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation, and Air France is expected to do the same.

Sources:
Le Monde

Photo Credit: The Guardian

Continue Reading

Regulations & Safety

Sinkhole Causes Runway Closure and Delays at LaGuardia Airport

A sinkhole on LaGuardia Airport’s Runway 4/22 forced closure, causing flight cancellations and delays amid ongoing infrastructure challenges.

Published

on

This article is based on an official press release from LaGuardia Airport and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2026, operations at New York’s LaGuardia Airport (LGA) were severely disrupted after a sinkhole was discovered near an active runway. The sudden infrastructure failure forced an immediate shutdown of the affected tarmac, triggering widespread flight delays and cancellations across the region.

The incident occurred on Runway 4/22, a stretch of airfield already under intense federal scrutiny following a fatal collision between a commercial airliner and an airport fire truck just two months prior. The compounding issues of severe infrastructure concerns and recent safety failures present a significant challenge for Airports authorities.

With evening thunderstorms forecasted to strike the New York metropolitan area, the Port Authority has warned travelers to expect cascading disruptions and strongly advised passengers to verify their flight statuses directly with their respective Airlines.

Immediate Operational Impact and Delays

Discovery and Emergency Response

According to an official statement released by LaGuardia Airport, the sinkhole was identified at approximately 11:00 a.m. EST during a routine daily morning inspection of the airfield conducted by Port Authority crews. Upon discovery, officials immediately halted all operations on Runway 4/22.

The Port Authority confirmed that specialized teams were quickly deployed to the site to assess the structural damage. In their public statement, the agency noted:

emergency construction and engineering crews are onsite to determine the cause and complete necessary repairs as quickly and safely as possible.

The exact cause of the sinkhole remains under active investigation by onsite engineers, and no timeline has been provided for when the runway might reopen.

Cascading Flight Cancellations

The closure of a primary runway at one of the nation’s busiest airports immediately bottlenecked air traffic. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) intervened shortly after the discovery, implementing a traffic management program that slowed incoming flights to LaGuardia. According to FAA tracking data, average arrival delays for airborne aircraft quickly reached one hour and 37 minutes.

Data from flight tracking service FlightAware showed that as of 2:45 p.m. EST, LaGuardia had registered 196 flight cancellations and 191 delays. Delta Air Lines, which operates as the largest carrier at LaGuardia and accounts for approximately 40 percent of the airport’s total flights, has been heavily impacted by the operational constraints.

A Troubled Runway and Infrastructure Concerns

The March 2026 Fatal Collision

The emergence of a sinkhole on Runway 4/22 adds another layer of crisis to a tarmac that is already the subject of an ongoing federal investigation. On March 22, 2026, the exact same runway was the site of a fatal collision between Air Canada Express Flight 8646, a Bombardier CRJ900 passenger jet, and a Port Authority fire truck.

That crash resulted in the deaths of the aircraft’s two pilots, 24-year-old Antoine Forest and 30-year-old Mackenzie Gunther, and left approximately 40 people injured. A preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) highlighted severe communication failures leading up to the 104-mph collision. The NTSB also noted that the airport’s surface monitoring system was hindered because the fire truck lacked a transponder.

Historical Geography and Sinking Runways

Beyond the recent safety incidents, LaGuardia faces long-term geographical and structural challenges. Historically, much of the airport’s footprint, stretching from Flushing Bay to Corona Park, was constructed directly over wetlands and swamps. This underlying geography makes the land inherently susceptible to shifting, settling, and the formation of sinkholes.

A recent report cited by The Guardian underscored these alarming structural issues. According to the publication’s findings, approximately 3.5 million square meters of the airport’s runway surfaces are currently experiencing “significant sinking.” Furthermore, the report identified nearly 14,000 square meters of tarmac as being at “high risk of structural damage.”

AirPro News analysis

We observe that the Port Authority is currently navigating a perfect storm of operational and public relations crises. Managing a sudden infrastructure failure on the very same stretch of tarmac that claimed two lives just eight weeks ago raises urgent questions about the long-term structural viability of LaGuardia’s airfields. The combination of historical wetland geography, documented reports of widespread runway sinking, and the immediate loss of Runway 4/22 suggests that piecemeal repairs may no longer be sufficient. Furthermore, the blend of a closed runway, a major airline hub disruption, and severe weather creates a highly volatile situation for consumers, likely resulting in cascading delays that will stretch well into the latter half of the week.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should travelers flying out of LaGuardia do?

The Port Authority strongly encourages all travelers to check directly with their airlines for the latest flight status information before heading to the airport. With forecasted thunderstorms expected to compound the existing runway closure, passengers should anticipate significant delays and potential cancellations.

Why is LaGuardia Airport prone to sinkholes?

Much of LaGuardia Airport was built on former wetlands and swamps. This geographical foundation makes the underlying soil more susceptible to shifting and settling over time, which can lead to structural issues like sinkholes, especially under the immense weight and stress of commercial aircraft operations.


Sources:

Photo Credit: Fox Weather

Continue Reading
Every coffee directly supports the work behind the headlines.

Support AirPro News!

Advertisement

Follow Us

newsletter

Latest

Categories

Tags

Every coffee directly supports the work behind the headlines.

Support AirPro News!

Popular News