A story carried by this newspaper earlier this week raised questions about issues connected to air safety in this country. It is a critical matter, since our interior is not criss-crossed by a vast network of roads, for the most part it is often accessible only by air. As the variety of activities in Guyana’s more remote locations mushroom, then so do the number of aircraft servicing these areas. And as was noted by Mr Gerry Gouveia Jr in a letter to Public Works Minister Juan Edghill, the country’s unique aviation environment has been characterised as one of the most hostile in the world.
Mr Gouveia Jr is President of the Aircraft Owners’ Association of Guyana which sent a letter to Minister Edghill on March 10 expressing concern about the operations of the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority Board. That Board, the letter said, appeared confused about its role. The correspondence was leaked on social media, and it included a request to meet Mr Edghill to discuss the issues it had itemised.
The Minister was anything but complaisant when contacted: “I did not receive a letter from the Aircraft Owners’ Association,” he said, “and I have no comments about that. If the Aircraft Owners’ Association wants to engage me then they cannot do so by posting on Facebook.” Perfectly true, except that Mr Gouveia Jr told this newspaper that the letter was sent last week and received by the Ministry, although he could not say who received it. It might be remarked that when dealing with bureaucracies the golden rule is always to ensure a letter is signed for.
Despite the crucial role GCAA plays in keeping Guyanese in all the inaccessible corners of this land connected, the public knows very little about its functions, let alone its structure.
The letter clarifies that the GCAA regulates civil aviation under the Civil Aviation Act. Like other public entities, however, it has a Board which directs the business of the Authority on the one hand, as well as formulates policies according to the directions of the Minister on the other.
The Association’s concern about the Board’s confusion of roles was being raised with Mr Edghill, since the GCCA’s Director General reports directly to the Minister. In addition the Board itself was subject to “any general or special policy directives of the Minister which are not inconsistent with the functions of the Authority under the provisions of the Act and the Board is bound … to follow those directives,” stated the letter.
Clearly there are some decisions which have been made by the Board that the Association of Aircraft Owners does not think are in tandem with the requirements of the Act. Even if these decisions were not taken at the behest of the Minister, one would have thought he would have had to approve them. Mr Gouveia Jr alluded in particular to the direction of the aviation industry’s Safety Programme and Flight Operations, as well as the staffing of the GCAA and the level of experience of its members. It might be noted that these issues are of concern not just to those who own and/or operate aircraft, but also to the members of the public who fly in them.
More specifically, the Association expressed its particular disquiet over the failure to renew the contract of Col (ret’d) Cargill Kyte, the Head of the Safety Programme, and the only Senior Avionics Engineer within the Authority. Significantly, this was done against the wishes of the Director General, leaving it open to the Minister to offer some rationale for this decision. The consequence has been to leave the Authority in a position where it is unable to certify Avionics Modifications, causing significantly delayed authorizations, particularly on matters of safety.
Then Mr Gouveia Jr raised the matter of Flight Operations and Airworthiness Inspectors, whose numbers needed to be augmented. The problem was, he wrote, that the Association was “not impressed” by the shortlist of names the members had seen. “The ICAO Operations Manual … effectively defines the requirements for Flight Operations and Airworthiness Inspectors,” he said, “and we urge that these are strictly adhered to through rigorous background checks of respective candidates before their employment.” He went on to emphasize that these were not positions for “learning on the job”, and that an Inspector should come with extensive experience and be highly trained in addition to being very respected by professionals in the industry. No one seriously committed to air safety would quibble with that.
It was a matter of considerable concern, Mr Gouveia Jr went on to say, that there was an absence of technical ability in the GCAA to provide effective airworthiness oversight for the rapidly expanding aviation industry.
In the letter it was made clear, however, that the Association had confidence in the leadership of Director General of the GCAA Egbert Field, who was described as “an exemplary example of the type of professional required in the regulation of the Industry …” It was under his leadership that Guyana had moved up from 44% to 75% in terms of International Civil Aviation Organization compliance in the aviation industry, said Mr Gouveia Jr.
Aviation safety is everyone’s business, and now that we have moved up the international rankings where that is concerned, we certainly cannot afford to move down again for reasons which hardly need explication. In addition in a situation where Guyana is trying to promote its industrial potential, there can be no justification for bypassing requirements of technical ability and expertise in relation to staff functioning in specialised fields.
Air safety is a very specialised field, and it cannot be treated as though it were just another department where loyalty is the first qualification sought for. One hopes that Minister Edghill will meet the Aircraft Owners Association, even if the letter has got lost in his Ministry, and take on board their concerns. Safety is a matter of fundamental interest to the travelling public.
