The single engine Pilatus PC-12 crash in Faridabad has generated a debate on a number of aspects related to the Indian civil aviation industry and has helped turn the spotlight on perhaps its most neglected sector—general aviation
On the night of May 25, 2011, a nine-seat Pilatus PC-12 business aircraft of Swiss origin crashed into a house in a densely populated residential area of Faridabad, about 60 km from the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA), New Delhi. The aircraft, modified as an air ambulance, was owned by Delhi-based Air Charter Services India Private Limited and had been hired by Apollo Hospital in Delhi to fly in a very seriously ill patient, Rahul Raj, from Patna. The 20-year-old patient was in a coma and was on a life support system. Aboard the craft, two pilots and five passengers including the patient, a relative, two doctors and a nurse died in the crash. Three women inmates of the house were also killed in the crash.
While the investigating agency sifts through the wreckage and the related mass of evidence in search for clues to the cause of the tragic accident, prima facie it appears that the aircraft flew into a thunderstorm, stalled and spun into the ground. It could have suffered damage to control surfaces while being tossed about violently inside the thunderstorm. The accident appears to be somewhat similar to the crash of Air France flight AF 447 over the Atlantic some time ago.
As is usually the case, the tragic event at Faridabad too has in its wake, generated a debate on a number of aspects related to the Indian civil aviation industry and has helped turn the spotlight on perhaps its most neglected sector—general aviation. The single engine Pilatus PC-12 bearing registration number VT ACF was manufactured in 2005 and hence was not an ageing machine. However, there are some other aspects of this episode that could be relevant to general aviation in India. Following the economic liberalisation and deregulation of the sector, the Indian civil aviation industry has grown rapidly over the last seven years. This being a recent experience, the industry is yet to stabilise. Further, the focus of attention of the government has so far been the airline industry and not general aviation. Given the high demand and lucrative prospects, the airline industry draws the best of human resources leaving general aviation little to choose from. Suffice it to say that the competence and experience levels in general aviation both in respect of aircrew and maintenance personnel are not comparable to those in the airline industry. Maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) facilities for general aviation are woefully inadequate. All these factors could seriously undermine air safety in general aviation and could well have been contributory factors in the instant case.
The episode in question also suggests poor understanding of weather phenomena and the related hazards during the pre-monsoon season during which thunderstorms develop and especially in the late evening hours. As such, the medical evacuation (medevac) mission ought not to have been planned for late evening. Besides, an average pilot would not consider it prudent to go anywhere near a thunderstorm, provided he is informed by the approach radar at Delhi airport about the presence of the violent weather phenomenon astride the route. Alternatively, the pilot can ascertain the position of the thunderstorm ahead of him from the airborne radar fitted on the aircraft, provided that it was functional. In this case, it appears that the pilot remained blissfully unaware of the presence of the impending danger casting serious doubts about the competence of the pilot, the quality of maintenance and the approach of the air traffic management (ATM) system at IGIA towards a general aviation aircraft. Hopefully, the investigating agency will delve into these aspects.
