Over the past few weeks, a rather disturbing trend has appeared in the news. At least two aircraft have overrun or departed their respective aerodromes. Fortunately, neither incident resulted in fatalities, although both aircraft sustained damage. We should perhaps resist the Guyanese tendency to measure the seriousness of an incident by whether someone died. In aviation, a near miss is not evidence that the system worked perfectly; sometimes it is simply an opportunity to identify a danger before the next encounter produces a very different ending.
In the first incident, a Cessna Grand Caravan belonging to Trans Guyana Airways (TGA), but reportedly operating under another arrangement, landed at the Mabaruma aerodrome in Region One. It was subsequently reported that an animal had been observed on the runway, requiring the pilot to take evasive action. It was reported that the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) admitted to being forewarned about animal incursion on the runway. In the second incident, involving a similar type of aircraft operated by Air Services Limited (ASL), a punctured tyre was reported to have caused the pilot to lose control during the landing roll. The circumstances are different and should not be conflated. But both incidents should focus attention on the safety environment within which domestic aviation operates.
The problem of runway intrusion is not new. Not so long ago, another TGA aircraft encountered a herd of capybaras on the runway at the Eugene F. Correia International Airport at Ogle as the aircraft landed. Again, there was no loss of life. In Lethem, meanwhile, there have been at least two recent incidents involving persons entering the runway area; according to the information before this editorial, those persons were subsequently arrested, prosecuted and convicted.
Taken together, these incidents should cause the aviation authorities to ask a question before circumstances ask it for them: how secure are Guyana’s aerodromes from people, animals and activities that have no place on an active runway? Who bears the financial risks if an incident occurs between an aircraft, human lives and wild animals on unfenced and unmanaged hinterland aerodromes?
Anyone familiar with travel into Guyana’s hinterland will understand why those questions are necessary. The level of physical security varies considerably from one aerodrome to another. Some are fenced; others are not. Some fences are broken. At some locations there is little visible security presence, while police stationed at others may principally be performing immigration or other duties. More troublingly, runways and their immediate surroundings can become incorporated into everyday community life. People use them as shortcuts. Some use them for exercise. Vehicles may criss-cross or travel along areas associated with aircraft movements. Passengers, cargo handlers, residents and vehicles can all occupy spaces remarkably close to aircraft operations.
This should not be dismissed as simply a matter of residents behaving irresponsibly. There is a larger planning problem.
Many hinterland aerodromes were constructed decades ago, including during the 1960s, when surrounding settlements were considerably smaller. Communities have since expanded. Schools, hospitals, houses, businesses, roads and other activities have gradually moved closer to infrastructure that was originally situated in a very different physical environment. The question therefore becomes one of encroachment: have communities encroached upon aerodromes, or have aerodromes that were never adequately redesigned become embedded within communities that inevitably expanded around them?
The distinction matters because fencing alone will not solve a problem created by decades of unplanned coexistence.
A comprehensive review should therefore examine each hinterland aerodrome individually: the integrity of its perimeter; pedestrian and vehicular access; wildlife intrusion; proximity of homes and commercial establishments; security arrangements during aircraft movements; designated crossing points; passenger and cargo-control areas; and whether the present location remains appropriate for the volume and type of aviation activity it now accommodates. In some communities, improved fencing and controlled access may be sufficient. In others, population growth may have made the original location increasingly incompatible with safe aviation operations.
The situation around some runways is particularly worrying. Bars and other establishments operate nearby, while crowds can sometimes gather close to aircraft as passengers and cargo are loaded or unloaded. Aircraft may shut down and restart with people in relatively close proximity. A spinning propeller at 3,000 RPM does not distinguish between a passenger, a curious spectator and someone simply taking a shortcut. Safety cannot depend indefinitely upon pilots remaining “at their wits’ end” trying to compensate for hazards that proper aerodrome management should minimise before an engine is started.
There is another lesson here that Guyana should have learnt by now: safety regulation ismost valuable before people die.
Too often, institutional urgency arrives after catastrophe. Then come investigations, commissions, emergency inspections, new rules, ministerial assurances and promises that lessons will be learnt. Aviation provides very little tolerance for that approach. A runway incursion that ends today with damaged equipment can end tomorrow with fatalities. An animal encountered by one aircraft may be avoided; the next pilot may have less runway, less visibility, less time or considerably worse luck.
The recent incidents therefore provide the Government, the GCAA, aircraft operators and affected communities with something valuable: a warning without a funeral.
That warning should not be wasted.
Guyana’s expanding economy will inevitably increase domestic aviation activity, particularly because aircraft remain indispensable to many hinterland communities. More flights, more passengers and expanding communities will place additional pressure upon infrastructure that in some cases was designed for a very different Guyana. Aviation policy must anticipate that transformation rather than wait for an accident to expose it.
The fact that these recent incidents ended without loss of life should therefore provide little comfort. It should provide urgency. Guyana has been given several reminders that people, animals, vehicles and aircraft are increasingly competing for spaces that were never intended to accommodate them simultaneously. The responsible time to review hinterland aerodrome safety is now—not after one of these warnings finally becomes the tragedy everyone will claim could not have been foreseen.
Discussion