logo
Reform cannot wait, aviation safety is at stake

Reform cannot wait, aviation safety is at stake

The Hindu4 days ago
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's preliminary report on the Air India Boeing 787 air crash in Ahmedabad, on June 12, 2025, was released last week, on July 12. The report remains inconclusive, with critical uncertainties on whether pilot action was inadvertent or deliberate. I would argue that the lack of faith among pilots and those who track aviation like myself about the robustness of the investigation and its findings — whether correct or not — emanate from a deep lack of trust in the entire aviation system in India that often penalises its personnel, excessively, rather than holding airlines and regulators to equal scrutiny.
I would like to use this opportunity to, once again, call for a complete reform in the aviation sector. A genuine 'culture of safety' must permeate every layer of the aviation system. This includes fair employment terms and, crucially, access to mental health care without punitive consequences resulting in the automatic grounding of and loss of income for air crew at a time when the current system, ironically, jeopardises their psychological well-being.
Also read | The preliminary report on the AI 171 crash is notably brief and lacking in technical transparency, says aviation expert
The complex web of aviation safety is highly technical, but years of study with aviation professionals have helped me understand its intricate technicalities. The aviation system broadly involves multiple elements: the aircraft itself (design, airworthiness, and maintenance) and the people who operate it (maintenance engineers, technicians, pilots and cabin crew). These are, broadly, the responsibility of the airline operator, while airport infrastructure, air traffic control systems and its personnel are the responsibility of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and/or the aerodrome operator. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has regulatory control over airlines, the AAI and the airport operators. The Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) has supervisory control over the DGCA and the AAI. Aviation accidents never result from a single failure but stem from multiple failures that align together, as in the Swiss cheese model. Each safety layer has flaws (holes); when these holes align across layers, an accident occurs.
The fight for safety through courts
I have filed over 15 Public Interest Litigations (PIL) in the various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India after studying the links between aviation technicalities, regulations and data. I approached the judiciary because aviation authorities in charge of safety, became the violators. No one is held accountable for air crashes or the lives lost, in turn emboldening violations despite knowing that existing/known safety breaches can cause deaths.
Court interventions have saved lives, as seen in the case of the crash in 2018 at Ghatkopar, Mumbai, when a small plane fell into a building site. In 2016, the Bombay High Court had issued a stay that halted construction near Mumbai airport. Had it not been issued, a 13-storey building would have stood in its place at the site..
Mumbai's airspace is among the most hazardous globally — there are over 5,000 vertical obstructions within a four-kilometre radius and in violation of the Inner Horizontal Surface (IHS) criteria. Despite a pending PIL, obstacles in the no-obstacle approach and take-off funnel rose from 125 in 2010 to over 1,000 in 2025, highlighting regulatory opacity and potential misrepresentation by the DGCA, the AAI, airport operators, and the MoCA before the Bombay High Court. Had the High Court been informed about this accurately, the spread of these obstacles could have been stopped.
Regulatory loopholes that pose a threat
Until 2008, airspace around airports was strictly regulated. The Aircraft Act and Statutory Order 988 of 1988 enabled the strict control of construction of buildings around airports. In 2008, a non-statutory committee was formed, effectively bypassing the legal safeguards that once ensured obstacle-free zones. It approved 25 buildings in prime locations in Mumbai using an aeronautical study conducted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which ought not to have been a part of a move to recommend construction which was illegal and of extra height. By the time ICAO distanced itself from the misuse of aeronautical studies, the AAI had begun conducting its own assessments which were less stringent.
The appellate committee granted permission for extra height recklessly. Around the year 2015, these obstacles, in addition to being physical barriers to safe flight movements, began interfering with radar and communication signals. The appellate committee also came out with guidelines and capped the maximum height at 90 metres in the Inner Horizontal Surface (IHS) and recorded that 'any further deterioration in obstacle profile in and around airport is likely to aggravate the situation'. Despite this, the appellate committee allowed obstacles to come up with impunity jeopardising safe flight operations. Ironically, the appellate committee that had permitted the safety violations was given statutory recognition through the 2015 Rules — despite these rules not allowing height relaxation.
The panel comprised officials entrusted with aviation safety and included a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, a Joint Director General in the DGCA, and a Member (Air Navigation Services) in the AAI. Thus, any complaint about obstacles is essentially judged by the very entities that sanctioned them.
Under pressure after a PIL on obstacles, the MoCA amended the 2015 Rules to limit the no objection certificate (NOC) validity to 12 years — an admission of the issue but an evasion of responsibility. How does the MoCA justify approving 100-floor buildings when it knows that 45 floors would become illegal in 12 years? This raises critical questions. What are the mechanisms that exist to demolish floors that become illegal after the expiry of the NOC?
What began in Mumbai has now spread across India. Even greenfield airport projects such as Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) and Noida (Uttar Pradesh) have obstacles sprouting around them. Navi Mumbai Airport will start operations with a 'displaced threshold' — which means aircraft will be unable to use the full runway because of the obstacles and increasing risks to air safety, thereby turning the airport into a monument of corruption and indifference by aviation authorities.
There is widespread systemic breakdown. First, aircraft design and airworthiness. The DGCA's limited internal technical capability forces it to be over reliant on foreign regulators such as the Federal Aviation Administration (U.S.) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), as seen during the engine failure issue (Pratt & Whitney) that IndiGo experienced in 2017-18.
Second, aircraft maintenance standards. Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AMEs) work under severe stress without duty time limits. The DGCA has allowed airlines to delegate AME tasks to less-qualified, lower-paid 'technicians' — a cost-cutting move that undermines safety. Duty-time limitations recommended for AMEs by the court of inquiry following the crash in Mangaluru (May 2010) remain unimplemented.
Third, the flight crew. Airlines violate Flight Time Duty Limitations for pilots, and the DGCA grants exemptions which allow pilots who are fatigued to operate. The DGCA's unique NOC requirement restricts pilot mobility across airlines, increasing stress and enabling airlines to coerce pilots into breaching regulations. Cabin crew, whose primary role is passenger safety, are often dismissed as mere hospitality workers, which is a dangerously reductive view.
Fourth, airline operations. Airlines prioritise the goal of profit, adopting policies that consistently undermine safety. Despite the DGCA suspending personnel for safety violations, airline officials often retain high positions, controlling operations. DGCA-appointed officers in airlines, who are expected to enforce compliance, often have no real authority, making accountability toothless.
Fifth, air traffic management. The AAI faces a severe shortage of Air Traffic Controller Officers (ATCO) — an issue that has been flagged even by parliamentary committees. The provision to give licences to ATCO has not yet been implemented. Duty-time limitations for ATCOs — recommended by the Mangalore Court of Inquiry — remain unimplemented.
Sixth, silencing whistle-blowers. Whistle-blowers are often demoted, transferred, or terminated — a trend that has discouraged the reporting of critical safety issues in the AAI and airlines.
When aerodromes operate in violation of safety standards, any other shortcomings in any of the other components become potentially fatal – as seen in Ghatkopar (2018), Kozhikode (2020), and now Ahmedabad (2025). Non-compliance in aviation stems from a lack of safety culture, not ignorance. Crashes are not mere 'accidents' — they are the inevitable result of years of systemic neglect and policy violations. Without immediate systemic improvements, the next disaster will not wait for five years, but is just around the corner.
The role of the judiciary is important
The judiciary, which has always been the silver lining in India's constitutional set-up, has been inactive on aviation issues, relying on the state's technical expertise on the subject. It must address the deterioration in the aviation sector and hold authorities accountable. Additionally, the judiciary's conservative approach to valuing human life needs to change.
In India, human life is undervalued, for example, as seen in railway accidents and motor vehicle deaths — a few lakhs of rupees. When this is the worth of a human life, safety upgrades that cost crores of rupees become easier for stakeholders to ignore. Immediate and comprehensive reform is needed. The aviation system requires accountability, oversight and a safety-over-profit commitment.
Reform cannot wait. Lives are at stake.
Yeshwanth Shenoy is the President, Kerala High Court Advocates Association, and has been fighting for aviation safety for over a decade
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Air India crash: How to spin-doctor and peddle narratives, the Western way
Air India crash: How to spin-doctor and peddle narratives, the Western way

First Post

timean hour ago

  • First Post

Air India crash: How to spin-doctor and peddle narratives, the Western way

Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore used to terrorise villainous Western media by suing them in his courts. They learned to toe the line read more There has been a virtual masterclass lately in the creation and dissemination of biased narratives. Not only in the case of the ill-fated Air India 171 (Boeing 787, June 12, 2025) that crashed, but also in some other, unrelated instances. The age-old practices of 'truth by repeated assertion' and 'dubious circular references' as well as 'strategic silence' have all been deployed in full force. The bottom line with the Air India flight: there is reasonable doubt about whether there was mechanical/software failure and/or sabotage or possible pilot error. Any or all of these caused both engines to turn off in flight. But the way the spin-doctors have spun it, it is now 'official' that the commanding pilot was suicidal and turned off the fuel switch. Boeing, the plane maker, and General Electric, the engine maker, are blameless. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This is, alas, not surprising. It is in the interests of Western MNCs to limit reputational damage and monetary loss related to their products. They do massive marketing by unleashing their PR agencies. We also saw how they protect themselves in other instances. A leaked Pfizer contract for their Covid vaccine insisted that if anything happened, it was the user's problem, not Pfizer's: there was no indemnity. Incidentally, a report on July 19 said that the Pfizer Covid vaccine can lead to severe vision problems. Oh, sorry, no indemnity. What is deplorable in the Air India case is that the AAIB, the Indian entity investigating the disaster, chose to release a half-baked preliminary report with enough ambiguity that a case could be (and definitely was) built up against the poor dead pilots. Any marketing person could have read the report and told them that it would be used to blame the pilots and absolve the manufacturers. Besides, the AAIB report was released late night on a Friday, India time, which meant that the Western media had all of one working day to do the spin-doctoring, which they did with remarkable gusto. Meanwhile, the Indian media slept. Whose decision was this? Clearly, Indian babus need a remedial course in public relations if this was mere incompetence. Of course, if it was intentional, that would be even worse. There is a pattern. In earlier air accidents, such as the Jeju Air crash involving a Boeing 737-800 in South Korea in December, the pilots were blamed. In accidents involving Lion Air (Boeing 737 Max 8, 2018), China Airlines (737-200, 1989), Flydubai (737-800, 2016), ditto. I am beginning to believe that a lot of Asian pilots are poorly trained and/or suicidal. Ditto with the F-35 that fell into the ocean off Japan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Truth by repeated assertion is a powerful force for gaslighting the gullible. I wonder what excuses we'll hear about the Delta Airlines Boeing 767 whose engine caught fire in the air after take-off from LAX on July 20. The pilots didn't die, so they will speak up. Besides, they were Westerners. I am eagerly awaiting the spin on this. I also noticed with grim amusement how the BBC, WSJ, Bloomberg, and Reuters, and so on were busy quoting each other to validate their assertions. This is a standard tactic that India's 'distorians' (see Utpal Kumar's powerful book Eminent Distorians) have perfected: B will quote third-hand hearsay from A, then C will quote B, D will quote C, and before you know it, the hearsay has become the truth. But if you wind it back from D to C to B to A it becomes, 'I hear someone told someone that xyz happened.' Out of thin air, then. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There is also the lovely tactic of strategic silence. It has been used to un-person people who ask inconvenient questions. It has also been used to defenestrate inconvenient news. Just days ago, under the Deep State-installed new regime in Syria, hundreds of minority Druze were brutally massacred. There was video on X of armed men in uniform forcing Druze men to jump off tall buildings, and desecrating their shrines. Similarly, there is a brutal reign of terror, rape, murder, and thuggery against Hindus, Buddhists, and others under the Deep State-blessed regime of Mohammed Yunus in Bangladesh: a clear genocide. Neither Syria nor Bangladesh gets any headlines. There are no loud human-rights protests as in the case of Gaza. This is not news. It is un-news. 'Manufacturing Consent' all the way. India is particularly vulnerable to this gaslighting because Indians consume a lot of English-language 'news.' Scholars have long noted how the US public has been maintained in a state of ignorance so they could be easily manipulated. The same is true of the Indian middle class. So, there is yet another reason to do less in English. Fooling, say, the Chinese or Japanese public is a lot more difficult. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The fact is that even though Indians may be literate in English, they do not understand the context and the subtext of what is fed to them by the likes of The Economist, NPR, The Financial Times, The New York Times, etc. The best way I can explain this is the 100+5 analogy in the Mahabharata: they may fight with each other on domestic matters, but Anglosphere and Deep State are in cahoots when it comes to international matters. Things are both getting better and getting worse. On the one hand, social media and its imprint on generative AI mean that it is ever easier to propagate fake news (in addition to deepfake audio and video, of course). On the other hand, despite the problem of charlatans and paid agents provocateurs getting lots of eyeballs, the large number of Indians on social media may push back against the worst kinds of blood libel against India and Indians, of which there's plenty these days, often created by bots from 'friendly' countries. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This is a serious matter indeed. One solution is to do a version of the Great Chinese Firewall and ban wholesale the worst offenders. Indeed, a few of the vilest handles have been ejected from X. However, the pusillanimity with which notorious Pakistani handles were unbanned, then re-banned after outrage, shows there's something rotten in the Information Ministry. Almost exactly the same as the unbanning of Pakistani cricketers, then rebanning after outrage. Is there anybody in charge? Information warfare is insidious. Going back to the Air India case, I think the families of the maligned pilots should sue for gigantic sums for libel and defamation. The sad state of the Indian judiciary may mean that, unfortunately, this will not go far. However, there is precedent: Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore used to terrorise villainous Western media by suing them in his courts. They learned to toe the line. If this tactic does not work, India should eject the hostile media. The Indian market is increasingly important to Western media (not vice versa) because soon there will be more English-reading consumers in India than in the Five Eyes Anglosphere. I should say that in quotes because as I said above, most Indians are blissfully unaware of the hidden agendas, and naively believe them. But 'Judeo-Christian' culture is very different from dharmic. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD I keep getting emails from The New York Times with tempting offers to subscribe to them for something really cheap like Rs. 25 a month. They need Indian readers. I have been shouting from the rooftops for years that one of these charlatan media houses needs to be kicked out, harshly, with 24 hours' notice to wind up and leave. As in the Asian proverb, 'Kill the chicken to scare the monkeys.' The monkeys will notice, and behave. Otherwise, the information warfare is just going to get worse. The writer has been a conservative columnist for over 25 years. His academic interest is innovation. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

'Serious' safety violations: DGCA issues 4 show cause notices to Air India
'Serious' safety violations: DGCA issues 4 show cause notices to Air India

Business Standard

timean hour ago

  • Business Standard

'Serious' safety violations: DGCA issues 4 show cause notices to Air India

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on Wednesday (July 23) issued four show-cause notices to Air India over repeated violations of cabin crew deployment, training lapses, rest regulations, and operational oversight that compromise flight safety. The regulator has held multiple senior executives accountable, and asked the airline to explain why enforcement action should not be initiated. The DGCA has given the airline 14-15 days to respond. The regulator will proceed with enforcement action based on available evidence if Air India fails to reply to the notices. The enforcement action comes weeks after the AI171 crash in Ahmedabad on June 12, wherein 260 people were killed. One of the notices was based on Air India's voluntary disclosure dated June 20, which revealed that the airline operated four ultra long-range flights in April and May, with fewer cabin crew members than the regulatory minimum of 15. On flights AI126 and AI188 on April 27, only 12 and 14 crew members were deployed, respectively. On April 28, AI190 had 14 crew, and on May 2, AI126 flew with only 12. These flights violated rules the deal with crew's fatigue risk management. The DGCA held the airline's Director of Cabin Safety responsible for these. 'Such non-compliance represents a serious breach and raises concerns about the safety management and operational oversight,' the DGCA stated in the first notice. A second notice, based on a disclosure dated June 21, flagged three separate violations involving cabin crew operating flights without valid competency cards. One crew member flew on April 10 and 11 despite a lapsed certification, while another served on multiple flights between February and May under similar conditions, and a third operated a flight on December 1, 2024, after deploying an emergency slide, which disqualifies them from flying without undergoing a requalification process. The regulator held the Chief of Safety and Training Management accountable. When asked about these notices, Air India spokesperson said, "We acknowledge receipt of these notices related to certain voluntary disclosures that were made over the last one year. We will respond to the said notices within the stipulated period. We remain committed to the safety of our crew and passengers." The third notice from the DGCA listed 19 instances of training-related lapses involving pilots. These included a 114-day gap between simulator training and a release check, premature release of pilots before completing required sessions, and multiple violations of night operations clearance. The Director of Training was called out for failing to ensure compliance with training oversight mechanisms. The fourth notice related to three instances of crew duty and weekly rest requirements, reported by the airline itself on June 20. Two of the breaches occurred on June 24, 2024, and one on June 13, 2025. These were found to contravene regulation that governs crew fatigue and scheduling. 'Despite repeated warning and enforcement action of non-compliance in the past, systemic issues related to compliance monitoring, crew planning, and training governance (remain) unresolved,' the fourth notice mentioned. The Director of Flight Operations, Pankul Mathur, was held responsible.

183 tech snags reported by 5 Indian airlines in 2025; over 100 Air India pilots went on leave post AI171 crash
183 tech snags reported by 5 Indian airlines in 2025; over 100 Air India pilots went on leave post AI171 crash

New Indian Express

time4 hours ago

  • New Indian Express

183 tech snags reported by 5 Indian airlines in 2025; over 100 Air India pilots went on leave post AI171 crash

Five Indian airlines have reported as many as 183 technical defects in their aircraft until July this year, the civil aviation ministry said in a written reply to the Lok Sabha on Thursday. Out of the 183 technical snags reported to aviation watchdog Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), 85 have been reported by Air India and Air India Express together. IndiGo and Akasa Air reported 62 and 28 technical defects, respectively, while SpiceJet reported 8 defects, according to the government data. "All defects reported by the airline to the DGCA are required to be investigated for taking appropriate rectification action. The investigation of all defects, particularly major defects, has to be completed expeditiously so as to take preventive/corrective action at the earliest possible," Minister of State for Civil Aviation Murlidhar Mohol said in the written reply. Meanwhile, the government also informed the lower House of the Parliament that as many as 112 pilots working with Air India have taken sick leave after the deadly Ahmedabad plane crash on June 12 that killed at least 260 people, including all but one of the 242 onboard.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store