- CAASL DG claims ICAO would flag any safety issue; removal of wall a security consideration to be made by MOD
Despite renewed public debate on the impact of the Colombo International Airport (Ratmalana Airport) Galle Road boundary wall on aviation safety, prompting fresh scrutiny of safety, security, and compliance with international aviation standards, Deputy Minister of Ports and Civil Aviation Janitha Ruwan Kodithuwakku says that an audit has found the removal of the wall is not needed.
The debate escalated when veteran aviator and former accident investigator at the Civil Aviation Authority of Sri Lanka (CAASL) Capt. G.A. Fernando wrote an appeal to the President last year.
The appeal stated: “I write to Your Excellency with the utmost respect, but also with deep concern, to appeal against the refusal by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to permit the removal of the wall at the Galle Road end of Colombo International Airport, Ratmalana. After the Jeju Air crash in South Korea on 29 December 2024, when it hit a manmade structure, causing destruction and death to 175 passengers, since a similar dangerous concrete wall was present at the Ratmalana Airport, the Civil Aviation Authority of Sri Lanka issued a report.
“Based on this report, both the CAASL and Airport and Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Ltd. (AASL) have issued their no-objection to the removal of this structure, acknowledging that it poses a direct and unnecessary risk to aircraft operations and airport safety.”
State’s response to concerns
Responding to a question about the concerns raised about the wall, Deputy Minister Kodithuwakku said that the Government’s position on the controversial boundary wall was grounded in technical assessments and direct consultations with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), rather than reactions to incidents elsewhere in the world.
“According to the report and after reviewing the ICAO requirements for boundary walls, including height specifications, we held a meeting with ICAO representatives in Sri Lanka together with the CAASL. It was determined that there is no violation of ICAO standards,” the Deputy Minister said.
ICAO consultations and audit findings
The Deputy Minister argued that concerns regarding the wall had resurfaced following aircraft accidents in other countries, which had led to questions about whether rigid structures near runways should be removed as a precautionary measure. However, Kodithuwakku stressed that while removal was technically possible, it was neither mandatory nor straightforward.
“The report acknowledged that removal was technically permissible, but doing so would require major modifications to the surrounding infrastructure to fully mitigate any new risks introduced,” he said, describing such an exercise as a “major undertaking”.
As a result, the Government opted to reevaluate the wall’s impact through formal channels rather than act on speculative comparisons. “We evaluated the wall’s impact on aviation safety and security and held further discussions with the ICAO, which conducted a safety audit. That audit concluded there was no violation, so removal is not required. The wall is situated outside the designated hazard zone,” Kodithuwakku said.
CAASL safety review and risk assessment
The Deputy Minister’s remarks follow a safety review released by the CAASL on 15 January 2025, which recommended replacing the reinforced concrete perimeter wall at the Galle Road end of Ratmalana Airport with frangible fencing in line with modern aviation safety philosophy.
The CAASL report, prepared by a committee appointed by the Director General of Civil Aviation, examined conditions at the Runway 4 approach area and concluded that while the probability of an aircraft colliding with the wall was improbable, the severity of such an event would be catastrophic. This assessment resulted in a Risk Index rating of 2A, categorised as high priority under safety risk management principles.
The wall in question was constructed by the Sri Lanka Air Force in the 1990s during the ethnic conflict to strengthen perimeter security at the dual-use airport. It stands approximately 2.74 metres high from its bottom concrete beam and is located about 602 metres from the current Runway 4 threshold. Although it does not penetrate ICAO-mandated Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS), the CAASL noted that it lay within the sensitive approach surface area.
Based on this analysis, the CAASL committee recommended replacing the rigid concrete structure with non-metallic frangible fencing or so-called living fences, such as thorny vegetation, which would maintain security while yielding on impact in the event of an aircraft undershoot or overrun.
However, the report also emphasised that removing the wall alone would be insufficient to reduce risk and outlined a series of complementary infrastructure changes. These include covering the adjacent monsoon drain, which is 1.524 metres deep, with high-strength concrete slabs; filling the roughly 0.8-metre elevation gap between Galle Road and the airside to create a smooth transition surface; and installing a traffic light system on Galle Road to temporarily halt vehicles during international flight operations.
Additional obstacles identified for parallel removal include a circular concrete pit with a diameter of about 2.1 metres and a height of 0.91 metres above ground level, as well as a brick-built shed standing approximately 2.13 metres high.
The CAASL review was prompted amid heightened global focus on runway-end safety following an aircraft accident involving Jeju Air at Muan International Airport in South Korea on 29 December 2024. The authority said the incident underscored the dangers posed by rigid structures near runways and reinforced the need for states to periodically reassess airport infrastructure against evolving global best practices.
Yet both the aviation regulator and the Sri Lanka Air Force have stressed that the Ratmalana wall has already been examined by international auditors and found compliant.
‘An old, addressed matter’
CAASL Director General and CEO Captain Daminda Rambukwella described the issue as a longstanding matter that had been repeatedly revisited. “This is an old, longstanding matter that has already been addressed. The ICAO audits every country. It has audited us twice, and by measuring the wall, it confirmed there was no issue,” he said.
Captain Rambukwella stressed that if the wall posed a genuine hazard, the ICAO would have formally required corrective action. “If it were a real problem, the ICAO would have given recommendations. Instead, it stated clearly that the height was acceptable,” he said.
He claimed that the presence of a displaced landing threshold ensured that the wall did not interfere with aircraft operations. “It does not affect the landing threshold because a displaced threshold is already in place. Flight training continues without issue,” he said, cautioning against drawing direct parallels with accidents overseas.
Operational and technical clarifications
Obstacle clearance, the CAASL Director General said, was assessed primarily in relation to the aircraft’s approach angle. “The standard glide slope for landing is three degrees. If you are clear within that angle with a safety margin, it is sufficient,” he added.
Captain Rambukwella acknowledged that frangible barriers were used at many airports globally but warned that removing the wall without comprehensive mitigation could create new hazards.
“Even if you remove the wall, there is a large monsoon drain. An aircraft could suffer greater damage or hit vehicles on Galle Road,” he said, adding that solutions seen in cities such as Singapore or Hong Kong often involved costly infrastructure like underground roads.
He emphasised that perimeter security decisions ultimately fell under the Ministry of Defence. “If the wall is to be removed, it is a security decision that must be taken by the Ministry of Defence. Perimeter security is under the Air Force,” he said.
Security and compliance
The Air Force was firm in its stance in support of retaining the wall, arguing that it met ICAO obstruction limitation criteria and played a critical role in safeguarding both aviation operations and national security.
Air Force Spokesperson Group Captain Nalin Wewakumbura said the wall did not compromise runway usability: “The wall in question complies with the ICAO obstruction limitation criteria. This means the usable runway length is more than sufficient for the aircraft operating at this airport. In other words, aircraft can take off and land safely without harm to themselves or the surroundings. Therefore, this wall does not constitute an obstacle, a fact confirmed in the official report.”
Group Captain Wewakumbura also warned that removing the wall could expose the airport and the public to greater danger: “Currently, the outermost limit of the runway overrun safety area is the boundary wall. If the wall is removed, there is a risk that an overrunning aircraft could breach the boundary and strike the drainage canal, causing catastrophic damage.”
He added that if both the wall and the canal were compromised, an aircraft could reach Galle Road. “This would pose a tremendous risk to pedestrians, motorists, and surrounding infrastructure. The resulting damage would be far more severe,” he said.
Advertising revenue and military role
Rejecting suggestions that advertising revenue influenced the Air Force’s position, Group Captain Wewakumbura said security considerations were paramount. “The wall serves critical security purposes. Advertising revenue is certainly not a factor in retaining it. If the wall posed a genuine risk, we would consent to its removal,” he said.
He also underscored Ratmalana’s continuing military role, warning against complacency. “This airport is also a military base. Removing the wall would expose it to risks of sabotage, unauthorised entry, and attacks. We must remain constantly vigilant,” he said, recalling previous terrorist attacks on the Bandaranaike International Airport.
Compliance, not opinion, guides policy: Govt.
Deputy Minister Kodithuwakku echoed the view that technical compliance, rather than public perception, must guide policy. Responding to claims that flights crossing between the airport and the sea over the Galle Road posed inherent danger, he said: “Anyone can express an opinion, but we are bound by regulations set by the ICAO, not by us.”
He noted that Sri Lanka would undergo another ICAO safety audit this year. “If the wall were problematic, we would face difficulties. This wall has been in place for a long time, including during the war, and it was present during our last safety audit as well,” he said, adding that Sri Lanka achieved a compliance score of 92% in that audit, the highest among Asian countries.
Kodithuwakku said concerns over the wall emerged only recently. “Previously, it was not considered an issue. When concerns were raised, we measured the wall’s height, length, and other parameters and confirmed our compliance with ICAO standards,” he said.
Expanding Ratmalana’s operational capability
While firmly defending the current position on the boundary wall, the Deputy Minister said that the Government was actively working to overcome other longstanding constraints that limited the Ratmalana Airport’s growth.
He said one of the key challenges was that aircraft operations were currently restricted to a single direction, with take-offs towards the sea and landings from over the sea. “We do not have clearance for approaches from the landward side because no-fly zones have been declared over Akuregoda and Parliament,” he said.
The one-mile radius of these no-fly zones prevented the establishment of a landward approach path, he said, forcing operations to depend heavily on wind conditions. “The ideal scenario is to allow landings from both directions, which is particularly important because aircraft must adjust their approach based on wind direction,” he said.
Kodithuwakku said discussions were underway to assess whether the radius of the no-fly zones could be reduced without compromising national security. “We are not seeking to eliminate the no-fly zones. We are looking at whether their radius can be reduced sufficiently to enable a landing approach from the land side,” he said.
He added that Parliament had raised no objection so far, although the presence of the Air Force Headquarters in Akuregoda meant security assessments were ongoing.
ILS and night operations
Another major limitation, the Deputy Minister said, was the absence of an Instrument Landing System (ILS) at Ratmalana, due to which the airport could not operate at night, terming this as a significant barrier to development.
The Government is now assessing the requirements for procuring an ILS while simultaneously reviewing airspace and security constraints. “If we can meet these requirements, we will be able to commence better and more advanced flight operations, including for aircraft like the ATR 72, other domestic flights, and private jets,” Kodithuwakku said.