Maladies Galore

The problems experienced by general aviation in India are acute and rendered more so in its perception that many of the maladies that afflict it are curable provided the government takes notice

As glowing statistics in support of a buoyant aviation industry is becoming common, analysts are convinced that aviation is an upwardly mobile industry. All trends and statistics are positive and despite the disturbing trends in the international price of crude, aviation remains an attractive industry. India currently has 1,146 registered civil aircraft. Of these, 425 are with the scheduled carriers and the remaining 721 serve general aviation. With the industry’s growth rate expected to be sustained in the coming years, there are another 200 odd aircraft that are expected to be inducted over the next two to three years.

However, Indian civil aircraft operators, be they airlines or general aviation, have remained a largely dissatisfied group during the last decade of growth. Aircraft operators maintain that while they are the prime stakeholders in the civil aviation industry, they continue to be the most traumatised as well. The problems experienced particularly by general aviation in India are acute and rendered more so in its perception that many of the maladies that afflict it are curable provided the government takes notice.

One area of immediate and pressing concern is the regulatory framework within which general aviation is required to function. There is dearth of cogent and comprehensive policies covering all aspects of safety and airworthiness in respect of general aviation. As scheduled operators dominate the civil aviation industry and are more visible to the regulator, the media and the public, regulatory provisions are primarily tailored to meet their requirements. In practice, the regulatory framework for general aviation is derived from one originally drafted for scheduled operations. Quite understandably it fails to address the needs of general aviation in totality.

As an illustration, while it is reasonable to dictate that every airline appoints a full time Head of Security, imposing similar requirement on every non-scheduled operator is unreasonable. Unfortunately, non-scheduled operators are not excluded from this requirement. Training requirements for general aviation are also not defined as clearly as they are for scheduled operators. As a result, every general aviation operator has its own interpretation of how its pilots need to be trained to keep their licences current. It is rare to have two operators owning the same type of aircraft to agree on the minimum “prescribed” training needs for their pilots. The situation is stretched from the uncertain to the ridiculous by the fact that this diversity of interpretation is prevalent even amongst the auditors or inspectors of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). While every auditor insists that the crew should have carried out aviation security training, the agency responsible for the conduct of such training has not been explicitly stated.

Written requests to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security for training of crew rarely elicit any response. Regulations related to critical areas related to operations are also inadequate. Take the case of prescribed aerodrome operating minima (AOM). Any one even peripherally involved with aviation would agree that AOMs are a critical statistic relating to operations when visibility conditions are marginal. The DGCA’s Operations Circular 6/1999 prescribes minima for aircraft in accordance with their categories that are based on their landing speeds. Operations Circular 4/2000 stipulates that the minima prescribed in Operations Circular 6/1999 are not to be followed by general aviation aircraft. Instead they are to follow the minima prescribed in Appendix A to Operations Circular 4/2000. Surprisingly, Appendix A to AIC 4/2000 has only minima related to Category A aircraft listed. So what are Category B and C aircraft for? Are they to follow the Category A minima prescribed in Appendix A to Operations Circular 4/2000? Or are they to ignore Operations Circular 4/2000 and adhere to Operations Circular 6/1999? This anomaly has existed for over a decade. Meanwhile, almost every operator continues to use the minima as given in the Operations Circular 6/1999 in contravention to the letter of Operations Circular 4/2000, which is a later circular and thus ought to supersede Operations Circular 6/1999. Queries to the DGCA have brought forth no response as yet.

As if the lack of attention to policies and regulations related to general aviation were not enough, the sector suffers from lack of suitable infrastructure which is indeed a real cause for distress. Almost 75 per cent of general aviation aircraft are based at or operate largely from the metros mainly due to the nature of their tasks. Parking and manoeuvring space at the metros is at a premium and more often than not, general aviation operators’ end up groveling for scarce parking slots especially if their itinerary involves a night halt at any of the metros. While Delhi and Mumbai have dedicated general aviation lounges, the other airports are yet to establish any such facility. The existence of a general aviation lounge is a mixed blessing in as much as all general aviation operators are now being compelled to use the lounge and related services even if they are capable of having their own. The lounges have been outsourced by the airport operators in pursuit of increased revenues to the highest bidders who pass on the cost to the users. Ultimately, the burden is borne by the general aviation operator and his passengers. A remarkable feature of this monopolistic outsourcing of general aviation lounges is that it militates against the spirit of Para 3 of Chapter II of the Competition Act, 2002. However, the spirit referred to appears to be largely invisible in not just the lounges but also in the widespread outsourcing of ground handling by aircraft operators at not just the metros but at all stations as well. The services provided by these ground handlers come at exorbitant prices and while airlines have clambered up to the Supreme Court in their quest for a just and fair dispensation, general aviation operators are at the mercy of the designated ground handlers whose ‘take it or leave it’ attitude is a cause of serious concern.

The comparatively smaller general aviation aircraft especially the slower turboprop variety often fly to small airports. However, data about such airfields and navigation facilities are not easily available. The Airports Authority of India (AAI) and the DGCA are yet to make available to the operators an authentic directory of these airports. Very often general aviation operators are left to themselves to acquire the required information from that airstrip or obtain it from some other operator who may have operated there in the recent past. Needless to say, some of the smaller airports lack the basic infrastructure such as meteorological and navigational facilities. Operations to military-owned airports are rendered more difficult on account of the need for coordination with defence authorities, especially if a foreign national is onboard or a night halt is involved.