Medios

Planned maintenance and infrastructure renewal are essential to preserving the long-term safety and resilience of airport operations. Yet for airport operators, the challenge lies in carrying out this work while keeping runways available and ensuring safe, efficient aircraft movements. Runway and airside projects often require temporary changes to infrastructure, procedures and operating environments, creating new hazards that must be carefully managed through planning and risk assessment. Experience from multiple international projects shows that, while every airport faces unique constraints, the principles for managing safety during construction remain remarkably consistent. 

The runway strip is one of the most critical safety areas of an aerodrome, intended to reduce the risk of damage to aircraft during excursions and protect aircraft operating on the runway. Construction activities within or adjacent to this area therefore require careful consideration of both operational and safety impacts. Depending on the nature of the works, airports may need to adopt very different strategies to maintain operations.

airsight has conducted numerous projects where construction activities were carried out within the runway strip while normal runway operations continued. The primary challenge was managing the proximity of personnel, vehicles, equipment and temporary obstacles to active aircraft movements. Controls were required to prevent runway incursions, manage contractor access and ensure effective coordination between construction teams, airport operations and air traffic control. The experience highlighted a lesson familiar to many safety managers: construction sites are dynamic environments, and safety depends as much on daily coordination and oversight as on the original design of the mitigation measures.

Other projects require more significant changes to runway operations. In one major rehabilitation programme, pavement works necessitated the temporary displacement of the runway threshold and a reduction in available runway length. This allowed construction to progress while maintaining aircraft operations, but it introduced a different set of risks[JW1]  which cannot be managed solely based on compliance. Flight crews were presented with an unfamiliar runway configuration, revised declared distances and modified visual references. Enhanced markings, revised lighting, operational restrictions and comprehensive stakeholder briefings all formed part of the mitigation strategy. The experience demonstrated that success depends not only on technical compliance, but on ensuring that every stakeholder understands the temporary operating environment.

Other projects involved the implementation of a contingency runway concept to maintain operational capability [JW2] during extensive works affecting the primary runway. Such situations, while uncommon, are becoming popular with single runway airports, since they illustrate the degree of flexibility that can sometimes be achieved when supported by a robust safety assessment process. The implementation required a detailed review of aircraft performance, visual aids, air traffic control procedures, obstacle clearances, emergency response arrangements and human factors. While the operational solution itself was innovative, its viability depended on a comprehensive understanding of the risks and the development of appropriate mitigation measures.

Although these examples involved different operational solutions, several recurring themes emerged. First, effective stakeholder engagement is indispensable. Airlines, pilots, air traffic controllers, regulators, airport operators, emergency services and contractors each possess unique perspectives on how proposed changes may affect safety. Structured safety workshops and collaborative risk assessments, ideally with the participation of the local CAA, help ensure that hazards are identified early and that mitigations are both practical and effective. [JW3] 

Furthermore, clear communication plays a central role in managing construction-related risk. Temporary operating conditions must be communicated through appropriate aeronautical publications, NOTAMs, briefings and operational coordination processes. Where airport layouts or procedures differ from those normally encountered by flight crews, clear visual guidance through markings, signage and lighting becomes particularly important.

Finally, successful construction projects rely on multiple layers of protection rather than a single corrective measure. Physical barriers, operational procedures, training, monitoring, communication protocols and contingency plans work together to create a resilient safety framework. This approach is particularly important because construction environments are continuously evolving, and risks may change as projects progress through different phases.

Construction within the runway environment will always introduce additional complexity and risk. However, experience from a wide range of projects demonstrates that safety and operational continuity are not mutually exclusive objectives. Through proactive planning, rigorous safety assessments, effective stakeholder engagement and continuous oversight, airports can modernise critical infrastructure while maintaining safe aircraft operations. As airports across Latin America and the Caribbean continue investing in capacity and infrastructure improvements, these lessons provide a valuable foundation for managing future airside construction programmes safely and efficiently.