Honestly - the video barely touches on this at all, despite making it the "hook".

I was pretty disappointed that he doesn't discuss the EMAS mechanics, structure, actual stopping distance, or impact to the plane in nearly any real way.

He does show a LOT of animation of layered runways, which are mostly not that informative.

There is some decent discussion around maintenance and material choice, and some very basic discussion of infrastructure requirements outside of the runways themselves that's... ok.

Overall... I thought this was a solid C+ video. It shows planes plowing into an EMAS, then does jack all to discuss that, while bringing up a lot of less interesting discussion of runway building (which despite the claims in the video, do actually correspond very highly to how we build highways, just with different weight/maintenance requirements.)

I don’t think anything you said is wrong, but I do think you’re misreading the intent of the channel.

Practical Engineering is very deliberately framed as edutainment. The animations, pacing, and level of depth are conscious choices meant to keep non-specialists engaged rather than to maximize technical rigor.

In that sense, it belongs alongside other popular "science-y" channels like Kurzgesagt, Vsauce, and Technology Connections: content that prioritizes narrative and engagement over completeness or instruction.

The target audience is the broad middle of the technical bell curve. Animations of runway layers may make the video less appealing to you, but more accessible to a much larger, less technical audience.

Different goals imply different success criteria. If the goal is reach rather than comprehensive education, a million views in seven days looks like success.