Expanded Runway End Safety Areas

Summary#

This is a proposed rule called Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, III and VI — RESA) that would require bigger safety areas at the ends of some runways. The proposal was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on March 7, 2020, and people had 30 days to send comments. It is a proposal, not final law.

What it does#

• Requires a minimum runway end safety area (RESA) of 150 m (the current regulated runway safety area is 60 m, so this adds 90 m) at both ends of runways that serve scheduled commercial passenger flights.
• Applies to Canadian-certified airports that meet an annual passenger threshold of at least 325,000 passengers.
  • Based on the proposal, that would initially cover about 28 airports and could cover up to 37 over the next 20 years.
• Gives airport operators several ways to comply:
  • prepare/extend the land beyond the runway to create the 150 m RESA;
  • reduce declared runway distances (ASDA/LDA/TORA) by up to 90 m at each end so the protected area is equivalent;
  • install an engineered arresting system outside the runway; or
  • use a mix of the above.
• Timing and exceptions:
  • Affected airports would have a two‑year implementation period once required by the rule.
  • Military airports and runways that do not serve scheduled commercial passenger flights are excluded.
  • In some cases (instrument approaches with approved vertical guidance or PAPI/APAPI), a RESA is not required before the landing distance.
• Enforcement and penalties:
  • The Minister could require an airport to reduce declared runway distances if it fails to meet the RESA requirement.
  • Administrative penalties listed in the proposal include up to $3,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation for specific contraventions.

Who's affected#

• Airport operators at Canada’s busiest airports (those at or above 325,000 annual passengers) would have to make changes or choose an alternative compliance method.
• Air carriers and pilots could be affected if an airport reduces declared runway distances (this can change take-off/landing calculations, and in some cases affect allowable payload).
• Travellers would benefit from added protection, but might see indirect costs if airports pass some costs to airlines and ultimately to fares.
  • The proposal estimates a maximum per‑movement cost of about $0.61 (if airports passed all costs to operators) or about $0.01 per affected passenger over 20 years (if passed entirely to passengers).
• The regulatory analysis shows costs are uneven: roughly 82% of the construction cost burden was estimated to fall on a single airport (about $26,203,162 of the project cost).

Why it matters#

• RESAs are intended to reduce the severity of runway undershoots and overruns — accidents where an aircraft fails to stop on the runway and goes beyond the end, or touches down short of the runway.
• The proposal estimates these expanded RESAs would reduce the severity of about 10 such events over 20 years, with monetized benefits of about $7,358,555 and monetized costs of about $32,203,985, producing a net monetized cost of about $24,845,430 (benefit‑cost ratio 0.23). Non‑monetized safety and emergency‑response benefits are also expected.
• The change moves Canada closer to international practice (the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard and common practice in countries like the United States) and responds to safety concerns raised by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB).
• In short: the rule aims to make passenger flights safer at Canada’s busiest airports, but it would require substantial up‑front construction or operational changes at some airports, with costs concentrated at a few sites.