Communication breakdowns also played a critical role. A message sent by a ground operations supervisor to the construction team was misinterpreted. The message, intended to indicate that the runway would be “free” after the aircraft’s departure, was understood as confirmation that the runway had already been vacated. This misunderstanding led the vehicle driver to proceed onto the runway prematurely. Compounding the issue, the driver lacked the necessary training and authorisation to operate in the airport’s operational area. The individual was unfamiliar with the risks and procedures associated with such environments, and this lack of awareness further escalated the danger. Prior to the incident, other dangerous situations had been observed, including a worker being inadvertently left on the runway or rushed verbal commands from supervisors during active flight operations.

The organisational culture surrounding the construction project also contributed to the incident. The construction team, under pressure to meet deadlines after delays and interruptions, had adopted informal practices that deviated from established safety protocols. These included using mobile phones instead of radios for communication, employing unqualified drivers, and entering the runway outside the authorised time frame. The lack of proper supervision and adherence to safety procedures created an environment where such lapses, unfortunately, became routine.

The airport’s Safety Management System (SMS) and risk management procedures, while formally in place, were not effectively implemented. The approved risk mitigation measures, outlined in the airport’s safety documentation, were either ignored or inadequately enforced. For instance, daily safety briefings, which were meant to ensure that all personnel were aware of the risks and procedures, were not consistently conducted. Additionally, the absence of a formal operational agreement between the airport operator and the air traffic control tower further weakened the coordination and oversight of activities on the runway.

In the aftermath of the incident, several corrective actions were implemented to address the identified shortcomings. Access to the runway was restricted, and the use of radios for communication was made mandatory for all personnel involved in construction activities. Daily safety briefings were reinstated, and stricter supervision measures were introduced. The airport operator and the air traffic control tower also worked together to develop a formal operational agreement to ensure better coordination in the future.
The incident was classified as a Category A runway incursion, the most severe level, indicating that a collision was narrowly avoided.