The same numbers can be a Standard or a Recommendation depending on the approach type. That distinction is the whole point, so it is shown on every row.
The runway strip is the graded and cleared area around the runway. The runway end safety area starts where the strip ends, not where the runway ends. Measuring from the runway end shortens it by the strip extension, which for most code 3 and 4 aerodromes is 60 m.
Ninety metres is the minimum and it is a Standard. Two hundred and forty is recommended and it is a Recommendation. Both numbers are correct; they carry different obligations. An aerodrome with 90 m is compliant. An aerodrome with 90 m that has never documented why it does not have 240 m has a conversation coming.
EASA carries the same figures. What it does not carry is the Standard-and-Recommendation split — the certification specifications collapse both into one provision. So a figure merely recommended under ICAO can be compliance-binding on an EASA certificate holder, needing an accepted equivalent-safety finding to deviate from.
Same number, different obligation. Which is the argument for reading the instrument that binds you rather than the one everybody quotes.
Every figure on this page is cited to the paragraph it comes from. Where a value is a Recommendation rather than a Standard, the row says so. Verified against ICAO Annex 14 Volume I, with EASA CS-ADR-DSN and two national transpositions used as cross-checks.
Deciding which standard applies to your operation is the job. That is what the programme covers.
See the programmesThe full introduction to aerodrome compliance and certification — how the curriculum is structured, what certification is actually for, and how these decisions get made in practice. No card, no call.
Start Module 0