Civil Aviation in India - Key Recommendations

Indian civil aviation has seen two terrible tragedies in last ten years and both the accidents seem to have some similarities. In 2010 an Air India aircraft from Dubai had overshot the runway in Mangalore and slid downhill killing 158 people. On August 7, 2020 another Air India Flight IX-1344 from Dubai to Calicut overshot the runway and 18 out of 190 people onboard perished in the crash including the two pilots. While the investigation by Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is still on, there were several comments like “two fellows are dead...and the landing it seems was not appropriate” made by the officials in the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). These comments faced severe backlash from the Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association (ICPA) and the Indian Pilots’ Guild (IPG) which, in a letter to civil aviation minister Hardeep Singh Puri asked for removal of current DG Arun Kumar and replacing him with a suitable candidate with substantial knowledge of the aviation sector and sufficient operational experience.

The accident and the events after that have raised several questions regarding the aviation safety practices in India. DGCA which is the statutory body to regulate civil aviation is facing several challenges including maintaining its credibility as a responsible member of ICAO. The DGCA conducted investigations through the Court of Inquiry and the Committee Inquiry and simultaneously a separate investigative agency was established to comply with the Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPs) of ICAO before the Aircraft amendment bill 2020. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) was established in 2011 when questions of accident investigation were raised after the 2010 Mangalore accident.

AVIATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION – GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

It is an interesting study to go through the investigation procedures across the globe, most of which (193 ICAO members) are regulated by ICAO Aircraft Investigation Manual. ICAO Annex 13 gives the investigative structure of most of the countries. While USA has got National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for all civil aircraft accidents, very few other countries like Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland have such established institutions; however all are well aware and are expected to follow ICAO Annex 13. NTSB considered as the benchmark of transport accidents, is composed of five presidentially appointed members, who are confirmed by the senate. The board is totally independent and responsible only to the President and the Congress. The size of investigation team is as per the size of the accident. It could be a single member for a small investigation and maybe 10-12 groups for a big airline accident. The investigations may take 8 to 10 months in several cases and only an authorised member (maybe Investigator-in–charge or one of the Group Chairmen) will make any public comment. NTSB follows ICAO recommendation closely with a unique exception of use of “Parties to the Investigation”. These parties maybe the organisation’s employees, functions or qualified technical personnel to assist in the field investigation.

The accidents in the recent past and the events after that have raised several questions regarding the aviation safety practices in India

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may get involved in the investigations as a party to the investigation. However it does not participate in the analysis and cause determination. This makes the investigation independent and unbiased to a large extent. FAA does not get involved in airline accidents. Some accidents involving agricultural aircraft or homebuilt experimental aircraft are delegated to the FAA for collecting factual information. Further, NTSB uses this factual information for determination of probable causes.

Most of the investigating staff all over the world are trained either in US or UK and therefore they share common knowledge, practices and procedures. Globally it is believed that the purpose of investigation is not to fix the blame but prevention of future accidents. Here it is very important to discuss the military aviation accident investigation procedure too, because most of the advanced military forces have always had a robust and strong internal investigation system. In fact Air Commerce Act 1926 in USA was written to exclude the military aviation.

Indian Air Force too has had a very reliable and robust Flight Safety eco-system. Director General (Inspection and Safety) is tasked with the job of Inspecting the operational and combat preparedness of all the IAF units. In this process all the aspects including operations, maintenance and administration are scrutinised and put under the microscopic observations of the inspectors. This kind of audit system from an external agency keeps a check on the field units and ensures adherence to safe procedures without compromising on operational efficiency.

DGCA AND ITS PROBLEMS

The DGCA primarily deals with safety issues and is responsible for regulation of air transport services and for enforcement of civil air regulations, air safety and airworthiness standards. There are twelve specialised technical directorates to perform its regulatory functions. The major departments include Licensing, Examinations, Training and Medicals for Pilots, Engineers, Air Traffic Controllers and dispatchers, Air Operator Permits for scheduled and non scheduled air transport services and also certification of airworthiness and registration of the aircraft. The safety audits from time to time have brought out a number of issues with these departments.

DGCA has suffered multiple times due to their lack of expertise and lack of understanding of the intricacies of aviation operations

• Lack of Expertise. All these are specialised jobs which need domain expertise. DGCA has suffered multiple times due to their lack of expertise and lack of understanding of the intricacies of aviation operations. They have been questioned multiple times for their mishandling of Boeing 737 MAX case. Their investigations too have been questioned by aviation regulators in cases like Kingfisher Airline runway overrun in Pune in 2009 and the Air India Express aircraft Mangalore accident in 2010.
• Immature Handling of the Accidents. In the present case too, the remarks made by the DG only go to reveal his total lack of technical knowledge and amateurish view of the unfortunate accident. It is an established scientific fact that so-called “smooth” touchdowns may be counterproductive in certain adverse weather conditions and may pose a significant risk to safety. Whether a landing technique is appropriate or a contributory factor to a mishap can only be ascertained after a thorough, evidence backed investigation. Such speculative and casual remarks damage the investigation as well as the reputation of the organisation and the country. It is not only un-ethical and against the law to blame the pilot even before the enquiry has started, this shifts the focus from systemic failures to the individual who is not alive anymore to defend himself. The DGCA needs to introspect and look into the shortcomings that were brought out in the audits carried out by ICAO and FAA.
• Shortage of Qualified Flight Operations Inspectors. The Flight Standards Directorate (FSD) is responsible for the overall safety oversight related activities of the DGCA. These involve implementation of policies related to licensing, aircraft operations and airworthiness of aircraft. FAA had downgraded India from Cat 1 to Cat 2 in the year 2014. One of the reasons for the downgrade was lack of current and qualified type rated instructors. After this the cabinet approved 75 posts of Flight Operations Inspectors (FOIs). At present it is being manned by FOIs in various categories on contract basis since 2014 which was to expire in June 2020. This year 36 of these FOIs have left the job already. These FOIs are critical to flight safety of the civil aviation in India. They are supposed to ensure that the pilots operating the aircraft are trained according to an approved programme and carry out proficiency checks of these pilots before the pilot license is endorsed with the type of aircraft.
• Lack of Authority with the Inspectors. The contractual FOIs face many problems like lack of job security due to it’s temporary nature, difficulty in maintaining flying currency, lack of authority in DGCA. The power of recruitment is with DG, which means that the FOI will serve only till the time his recruiters are happy. This is an unhealthy situation for the Inspectors to work.
• Lack of Training opportunities for the Trainers. FOIs are supposed to maintain their flying currency from time to time to keep their license valid and these involve several hours of flying with heavy financial obligations. The cost involved in training the pilots on these aircraft is exorbitant. The contractual FOIs are not getting any support in this respect and if their parent airlines facilitate this flying then they would expect favours in return. This compromises the standard and sanctity of the exam leading to sub-standard flight safety environment.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE DGCA AND AAIB MORE EFFECTIVE

The impact of such downgrade by international bodies like ICAO, FAA and EASA is bad for the country’s image. It has got far reaching economic impacts too. The Indian Carriers would not be allowed to expand their operations in these countries. The existing operations too would come under ‘heightened FAA Surveillance’.

• AAIB should be an independent body reporting directly to the Cabinet. AAIB reporting to DGCA may lead to clash of interests and also it is against basic principles of natural justice. For example, in USA the NTSB is not answerable to FAA and reports to the President directly. The Chairman of AAIB should be given quasi- judicial powers so that they have authority to summon the witnesses and this will also enable them to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them so as to provide the basis of an official action.
• DGCA should have type qualified FOIs on permanent payroll and not on contractual basis and they should be tasked with inspecting and rating the airlines the way Directorate of Air Staff Inspection does in the IAF. In order to attract the FOIs, the DGCA needs to have a more attractive pay package. These FOIs should standardise the procedures across the fleet.
• DGCA should have two wings – (a) Aviation Operations and (b) Administration & Finance. Issues like Regulations, Airworthiness certifications, Licensing etc should come under the Aviation Operations and should be looked after by aviation experts qualified on the job. The bureaucrats may be given the Administration and finance part.
• DGCA should be headed by an aviator from Civil Aviation or Air force background with sufficient experience on various types of aircraft. Let’s face it, aviation is a specialised field as complex as brain surgery. With all due respect to the bureaucrats’ versatility and management capability, a three year or even five year tenure is not sufficient to understand the nuances of aviation operations. All over the world the Aviation regulatory bodies are managed and headed by aviation specialists. UK Civil Aviation Authority and FAA are examples of the same. Sir Stephen Hillier who heads the UK CAA is ex Chief of Air Staff of Royal Air Force, Stephen Dickson who heads the FAA is ex Air Force pilot and has flown civil aircraft extensively with Delta Airlines. There are instances in DGCA too when the Director General’s post was tenanted by IAF officers - Air Marshal Jafar Zaheer in 1979 and Air Marshal Chandrakant Raje from 1984 to 1986. Both these officers were experienced aviators and did a lot of changes in DGCA to improve flight safety which included proposal to create Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS).

Most of the safety audits of DGCA (ICAO- December 2012; FAA – September 2013) have highlighted the same issues which have been covered in the article. The institution of AAIB, recruitment of 75 Flight Operations Inspectors and giving controls of DGCA to aviation specialists are going to prove positive steps in securing the aviation environment in India. This will also improve India’s credibility across the globe and provide the airlines more opportunities to expand their businesses abroad.