Airport noise

2010-06-17 

The Delhi High Court order of February 2010 to DGCA regarding aircraft noise impacting the patients in the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre is the start of a new set of issues for the aviation industry. It is interesting to note that noise, as a subject, has been missing from Indian sensitivities. Loud blaring music played at weddings, parties and religious institutions, unnecessary blowing of car horns and railway trains passing habitation, blowing their shrill whistle are some issues that have not yet been at the forefront of Indian sensitivities. In the western world, noise pollution is as big a nuisance as water pollution and public sentiment on noise is very strong.

Aviation noise has become a big issue in developed countries. Many cities around the world close their airports at night so that the neighbourhood can sleep in peace. However, one has not heard of the railways or motorways closing down due to noise pollution.

The movement against noise pollution is a neighbourhood protest movement and has local political sensitivities. Many airports have gone under ‘night curfew’ because of such protests. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, taking this into account, has looked into various aspects of the problem and has managed, over the years, to ensure that aircraft engines become much quieter and landing procedures at airports be improved to cause the least amount of noise impact on the neighbourhood. However, whenever it came to the issue of making air laws or ‘standards’ on noise issues, the industry hesitated. In fact, India has been the leading country in this respect, but has always found the developed countries blocking it. The issue is simple: If all the countries chose to, unilaterally, close down their airports at night then it will be difficult to operate non-stop long-haul flights, especially with new aircraft that can fly non-stop for 14-15 hours. It also reduces the capacity of airports, aircraft and air routes, many of which are already congested with increased air travel.

It is also true that most airports in the world are old and were constructed outside the cities. It is the cities that have grown around the airports.

This is also true of India. Palam in Delhi and Santa Cruz in Mumbai were outside city limits when they came up. Property developers and investors saw the opportunity for price escalation near the airport. Hence, most property development has taken place with full understanding that noise will be a factor. However, having purchased the property, owners form associations and NGOs protest against the noise.
Aircraft noise has come down over the years due to reduction in engine noise, while the number of aircraft landings and take-offs has gone up. To resolve the issue of noise, some airports have also undertaken to provide noise reducing windows in the neighbourhood, from their own fund, besides changing procedures for landing and take-off.

The closing down of airports at night (night curfew) has implications for other countries. The US and the European Union have fought bitterly over this issue. The EU had objected to US aircraft with old noisy engines (mainly cargo) landing at night in Europe. When the US offered to put ‘hush kits’ or silencers, the EU still did not budge. It was finally resolved in ICAO by a compromise solution.

In the current case in Delhi, the spinal injuries hospital has gone to court seeking the courts’ intervention. They claim that aircraft noise is having an adverse impact on their patients as the hospital is located near the flight path. It is not clear why they chose to put up a hospital in the first place at the said location, when they were aware of the noise emanating from the airport. The high court in its judgement has stated that “some immediate measures be taken so that the residents should not suffer”.

There is no easy way out of this problem. However, it is clear that those who have property or reside in an area impacted by aircraft noise have done so voluntarily, since the airport has been in existence much longer. It is also difficult to claim that they did not know that flight movements will increase, as we all know that growth in civil aviation is a reflection of economic growth and we should have anticipated it.
While I would not recommend a closing of airstrip or night curfew, DGCA should order that only aircraft with new engines, which produce less noise, are allowed to land at night.

The author is chairman of the International Foundation of Aviation, Aerospace and Development (India Chapter) sanat_kaul@hotmail.com

At sea over where to build Mumbai’s second airport?

Oct 16, 2009 

The Chhatrapati Shivaji airport at Mumbai will get saturated very soon even after its renovations are complete. It has a single runway and will not be able to cope with the growing Mumbai air traffic. The existing airport will reach saturation point at 40 million passengers (the target for the renovated terminal) but Mumbai airport’s passenger traffic is expected to grow to 90 million passengers in the near future. 

The proposal for a second airport for Mumbai has been stuck in various government files for years. The Union Cabinet has approved a new international airport at a location in Kopra-Panvel area in Navi Mumbai at an estimated project cost of Rs 3,500-4,000 crore. The location is 35 kilometres from the existing airport at Mumbai. The plot—1,560 hectares —was already acquired by CIDCO for this purpose and more land could have been acquired. 

The proposed airport was given ‘in-principle’ approval by the ministry of environment but it seems that the final approval is not forthcoming because a mangrove cluster will need to be cut down. With the Navi Mumbai project unlikely to get environment clearance, the search for a new location for the proposed airport is on. 

Why not think different, and think big? An offshore airport. Mumbai offers excellent location in the creeks near the Gateway of India, which are well-protected from the high seas. An offshore airport will also mark a technology challenge for India. 

A number of new airports have already come up on the sea. Hong Kong’s Chep Lap Kok and the Kansai International Airport near Osaka are the prime examples. Japan took only five years from reclamation of land, including the breakwater, to the first touchdown. Hong Kong took seven years. 
Mumbai is used to land reclamation; the entire marine drive is built on reclaimed land. A sea-based airport will also cut down the distance to South Mumbai and will avoid the issues of land acquisition as well as the growing protests against airport noise. 

Hong Kong as a city had problems similar to Mumbai’s. In fact, the situation was worse. The city had grown around the airport and the airport was finding it difficult to meet the growing requirements of air traffic management. With skyscrapers all around, there was an issue of air safety as well—aircrafts had to navigate in peculiar ways to land. Honk Kong also had no potential for a second parallel runway. 

Like Mumbai, Hong Kong is also an island with very little land. So, the decision was taken that a new Hong Kong airport will be built offshore, by creating an island 16 miles out in the sea. Hong Kong’s new Chep Lap Kok airport started construction in 1991 and by July 1998 it was completed, built on the artificial island of Chek Lap Kok. It is considered to be one of the top ten construction achievements of the 20th century. It has two parallel runways of 3,800 metres, 60 aircrafts movements an hour and 800 scheduled flights of both passengers and cargo per day besides non-scheduled flights. It is one of the busiest airports in the world. 

The Kansai International Airport at Osaka Bay in Japan started construction in 1984 and the first runway was opened in September 1994. The second runway was completed by 2007.The airport is well-connected to the mainland by road and train. 

While sea-based airports tend to be more expensive initially, they have the advantage of avoiding land acquisition and other consequent social issues. Also, the issue of airport noise, which is leading to shutting down of airports at night in the West, will not arise in a sea-based airport that, therefore, will operate 24 hours a day. 

India has reached a critical stage in its economic growth pattern —now, it needs a few good engineering feats to prove itself. The Delhi Metro is certainly a case in point. The Mumbai Bandra-Worli- Nariman Point sea link may not qualify as a good example not only because it is behind schedule but also because the link between Worli and Bandra has only four lanes and not eight lanes as it should have had. 

A sea-based airport at Mumbai is, therefore, not just a necessity but also an image booster for Mumbai in its ambitions to become an international city. It will showcase our capabilities to the world. 

However, the economics of the airport will have to be carefully worked out. The Noida Toll Bridge is a good model to follow. Based on a PPP model, it raised its own equity and loan and serviced it. The concession terms ensure that the concession period will be extended to guarantee a certain return on capital. 

With respect to an offshore airport at Mumbai, revenue generation possibilities are higher as besides shops it could provide space for hotels and even hospitals. If we allow commercial development at the present airport land after the new one is ready, then the new airport could pay off its loans quite easily. The Bandra-Nariman Point sea link could also be connected to the proposed airport. 
In summary, a carefully thought-out scheme for a new offshore airport in Mumbai can be a great asset, as it will cut down travel time, avoid noise pollution issues, avoid land acquisition issues and give a boost to our engineering skills. 

The author is chairman, International Foundation for Aviation and Development(India chapter) and India’s former representative, International Civil Aviation Organisation

Nuclear liability lessons from aviation

May 07, 2010
The present controversy in India over nuclear liability needs to draw some comparison and conclusions from the aviation liability that is an 81-year-old worldwide system. The limiting of liability has been done keeping in mind a balance between operator’s liability and promoting investment in nuclear power. The same principle has been followed in aviation since 1929 with the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent amendments and protocols leading to the new refined Montreal Convention, 1999, which has over time raised the strict liability limits. In aviation, the payment of liability has been put fully on the airline (the operator) and the upper limit has been fixed not as per incident but as per individual (passenger) death or injury in an accident. It is currently SDR 100,000 or about Rs 60 lakh, raised over time from around $6,300 in 1929. 

On nuclear liability, there are three main international instruments. They are the Paris Convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy of 1960, the Vienna Convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy of 1963 and the Protocol of 1997. The main convention for our analysis is the Vienna Convention as amended in 1997 and adopted by 80 nations. The main features of this Convention and the 1997 

Protocol are that operators of nuclear power plants are liable for damage caused by them regardless of fault. Second, the potential cross-boundary consequences of a nuclear accident require an international nuclear liability regime. National laws, therefore, would be subservient to international convention. Liability is limited both by international convention and national legislation. So, liability falls exclusively on operators of the nuclear installation and is absolute. Jurisdiction of courts is limited to the country of accident. 

The 1997 Protocol puts a lower limit on operators’ liability in each nuclear incident of not less than SDR 300 million (approx $400 million or Rs 2,000 crore). Member states may put a higher minimum cap. The Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009 fixes maximum liability for a nuclear incident at Rs 500 crore for the operator and the government beyond it, but up to SDR 300 million (about Rs 2,000 crore). In the Indian case, the only possible operator under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 is the Nuclear Power Corporation, a public sector corporation. 

Comparing nuclear liability to aviation liability, it becomes clear that aviation liability provisions are much better for victims. First, the concept of absolute individual (passenger) liability is missing in nuclear conventions and our Bill. It has been replaced by incident, which means that in the unfortunate case of a nuclear disaster there would be no minimum liability of the operator mandated for payment against each death. This is unlike aviation protocols where individual compensation is currently SDR 100,000 (Rs 60 lakh), which sets a benchmark for cases of injury. Of course, in aviation the limit of number of persons is restricted to number of passengers and also third parties on the ground. In cases of nuclear incidents, the number of affected persons will depend upon the intensity of the accident and the spread of radioactivity (the case of Chernobyl where radiation got spread by wind is still vivid in our minds). 

Under the Indian Bill, a claims commissioner will be appointed and will determine the amount of the claim. But the operator’s total liability will not exceed Rs 500 crore and the government’s will not exceed SDR 300 million, irrespective of the number of deaths and injuries. In aviation, there is no upper limit on total liability and airlines are expected to have adequate insurance cover. The Indian Bill (2009) also provides that the central government may, by notification, increase or decrease liability of the operator but not to less than Rs 100 crore. The implication of this provision, especially regarding decreasing the liability, is unclear. 

In order to meet states’ liability, International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) in 1997 to meet compensation beyond SDR 300 million. An international fund is to be created using contributions from contracting parties collectively on the basis of installed capacity and UN rate of assessment. For CSC to gain force, at least 5 nuclear installation states, with a combined capacity of 400 GWth, need to ratify. So far, 4 states with a combined capacity of 350 GWth have ratified it. To bring CSC into force, one among France, Japan, Russia or Korea needs to ratify. A combination of India, China and the UK would also suffice. With this, the operator’s liability will shift beyond SDR 300 million to the CSC fund and the states and taxpayers will be exempt from this liability. In the US, under the Price-Anderson Act, an insurance facility has been created with operators’ contribution (which also insures the equipment suppliers). Therefore, the US is not interested in CSC. 

In conclusion, while a nuclear accident is likely to wreak greater damage than an aircraft accident, the liability regime is more restricted. No minimum amount of compensation per death has been prescribed, either in the international context or in the domestic Bill. Unless this is changed, the plight of the Bhopal Gas tragedy victims will continue to haunt us. 
The author is chairman of the International Foundation for Aviation and Development and former representative to ICAO

Troubling questions on air safety

May 25, 2010

While it’s too early to comment on the reasons behind the unfortunate air crash that took place on May 22 in Mangalore, there are some wider issues that need to be discussed at this stage. One is the serious conflict taking place between interests of airline owners and the travellers, especially with regard to safety. Airlines state that they are interested in safety as the survival of an airline depends upon its good safety record. However, looking at the financial condition of the airline sector in India (and abroad), this is a worrying matter. There is no doubt that even in a state of high competition, while safety does come first, short cuts are adopted.

For instance, a major cause of accidents today is pilot error since new aircraft are very sophisticated and have many backups to mechanical failure. The Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA) has been taking up the issue of Flight Time Duty Limitation (FTDL), which were formulated in 1992 but revised in 2005. FTDL issued by DGCA lays down rules regarding how many hours a pilot can fly and how much rest he requires so that fatigue does not set in. It appears from ICPA’s statement that FTDL rules were revised in 2005 to give pilots more rest time but were later withdrawn allegedly due to pressure from private airline operators, as they were proving to be more expensive for them.

In a similar manner, we have the case of compensation to victims of air accidents in international flights. In 1929, the Warsaw Convention set the pace by fixing an upper limit of about $6,300. This was followed by many protocols and conventions that enhanced the limits and improved other features. The latest convention in this series is the Montreal Convention of 1999, which takes into account all the existing protocols and conventions. The main feature of this convention is that it raises the limit of absolute liability up to SDR 1,00,000 (about Rs 60 lakh). In simple words, this means that a carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or injury of a passenger on board an aircraft (or even during the course of embarkation or disembarkation) without proving the fault of the airline. This further means that the airline has to pay an amount of up to SDR 1,00,000 in case of death or injury even if the airline is not at fault.
India, however, delayed ratification of this convention and finally adopted it in 2009. This ratification comes after 55 years; the last convention by India on this subject was the Hague Protocol of 1955, which had kept the upper limit at $16,000. We did not ratify any of the succeeding protocols or conventions, nor participated in the Kuala Lumpur Intercarrier Agreement under IATA in 1975, where airlines of the world voluntarily raised the limit to $75,000. The Montreal Convention of 1999 came into force in 2004 but due to reluctance shown by our airlines we did not ratify it until 2009, by which time most of the countries of the world had already done so. 

This implies that an Indian national would be at a disadvantage in an international air accident, getting lower compensation than other nationals. This was amply proved in the case of the 2007 Kenya Airways flight KQ507 crash in Cameroon in which 15 Indian nationals died. While some families were persuaded by the airline and their insurance companies to sign up for lower compensation, a few other next of kin, who chose to retain legal counsel, were able to negotiate a much higher quantum of compensation than would have been otherwise possible. In fact, the International Foundation for Aviation, Aerospace and Development managed to organise a seminar on this subject in New Delhi with the next of kin and get them higher compensation.
In the current context, although the level of compensation for all passengers, including Indians, will be at par, the fear is that insurers of the airlines will move swiftly to enter into settlements with the next of kin and survivors so as to keep the amount at a minimum. Such a settlement would imply that claimants have waived their right to claim any further compensation. Therefore, the claimants of this crash would be well advised not to rush into early settlements and to get good legal counsel of international repute who can negotiate a far higher compensation by negotiating directly with the insurers.

The author is chairman of International Foundation for Aviation, Aerospace and Development

Managing disasters better

Posted online: 2010-07-08

A comparative study of six catastrophic events in India and the US spanning the last 26 years provides a good idea on governments’ management and compensation policies. Three disasters occurred in India, namely the Bhopal gas incident, the tsunami and the Mumbai attacks. The first was an industrial accident, the second a natural disaster and the third a terrorist attack. These are compared to three similar incidents in the US, namely the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina and an undersea oil spill by BP.

The Bhopal gas tragedy that took place on Dec 2, 1984, killed 3,800 people immediately (the unofficial figure goes up to 16,000) and thousands suffered from the effects of the poisonous gas. It is considered the worst industrial disaster in history. Even now, almost 25,000 people living near the carbide factory are forced to drink poisonous water. The government’s response was shoddy. The judiciary also failed people’s expectations when the SC reduced the importance of the charge and the district court took 26 years to award a sentence. The government settled out-of-court for $477 million instead of fighting for the rightful $3 billion in the US courts, leaving a bitter memory in our minds. In comparison, the BP oil spill that has taken only 11 human lives but severely impacted the environment in the Gulf of Mexico, making even the US President’s position unenviable. Under the US Oil Pollution Act, there is a cap of $75 million for damages. However, the limit does not apply to oil removal costs or damage resulting from gross negligence or federal safety violations. Consequently, under pressure from the US President, BP has declared a $20 billion ‘Spill Response Fund’.

The next category is natural disasters. The tsunami that hit the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and India’s east coast in 2004. While early warnings were not heeded, the government’s response was reasonably good. In contrast, the US government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was poor, which caused havoc in New Orleans and Florida. In spite of prior information, the US government was not able to evacuate all the people. However, there were hardly any deaths in this cyclone and relief and rehabilitation was provided with international help.

The third category is terrorist attacks. First, the Mumbai attack on November 26, 2008. None of the warnings and briefs were considered and the intelligence reports were termed ‘non-actionable’! The attack led to the death of 173 people in shoot-outs. The live broadcast by TV channels was used by handlers besides damaging the government’s reputation. The reaction time by the NSG as well as the state government, including the infamous visit by the CM along with Bollywood stars, is still fresh in our minds. (It is ironic that the same government returned to power, although the CM and Union home minister were removed under public pressure). The compensation by the government amounted to about Rs 19 crore. While Railways paid Rs 10 lakh each to the families of those who died at the station, the government paid Rs 5 lakh. The injured were paid Rs 50,000 each and funeral expenses of those killed were also borne by the government.

The 9/11 terrorist attack in New York and Washington, DC, proved that the US had a shoddy security system. But the US government reacted forcefully, declared it a ‘war on terrorism’, and took on Afghanistan (and not so wisely, on Iraq) in a military effort. The compensation paid in the US was quick and substantial. The US government, by an Act of their legislature, created, without delay, a ‘Victim Compensation Fund’. With 1,600 hearings within 33 months, $7 billion was awarded to over 5,000 people (more than 97% of the families). The average payout for death claims was about $2 million ranging from $250,000 to over $7 million. More than 2,800 injury claims were also paid out, mostly to rescue workers. The claims took into account lost income, insurance, dependents and other factors. The total compensation paid by the government (federal, state and local) and insurance companies exceeded $38 billion.

In conclusion, we can state that while response and compensation in the US’s catastrophic events have been quick and effective, except for that in Hurricane Katrina; India has been tardy and ineffective. Even considering that India is a developing country, the response leaves a lot to be desired. Our policy towards compensation also needs to be made clear and should not be decided on an ad hoc basis.

—The author is chairman of International Foundation of Aviation, Aerospace and Development

Still a slow crawl on the Stilwell Road

2011-01-24

China will reportedly be rebuilding a key section of the famous Stilwell Road. The political and economic importance of this cannot be underestimated. This road will connect India and China through north Myanmar. Myanmar is rich in resources and China already has an upper hand on it. Geopolitically, both Myanmar and Pakistan have signed border agreements with China. China is also building an all-weather road through Gilgit/Ladakh through Balochistan along the west of India and is already connected to Burmese ports by road. The northern most island of Andaman archipelago called Coco Islands is with Myanmar, which has allowed China to set up a listening post and an airstrip there. Even in Sri Lanka, the southern port of Hambantota has been built by China after India did not respond fast enough to requests for the same. 

Stilwell Road provides road connectivity between India and China through Myanmar, through a peaceful and undisputed area. The road will also bring prosperity to the Northeast. But India continues to act like an ostrich. Our security setup did not allow construction of roads up to the Chinese border either along the eastern or western posts after 1962. It did not allow the development of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Now, the Stilwell Road up to the Indian border will be constructed by Yunnan Construction Engineering Group and Yuzana Group. This is despite the fact that we had been requested to reconstruct Stilwell Road by Myanmar General Maung Aye in Delhi itself in April 2008. 

Stilwell Road connects Assam to Kunming in Yunnan. It was built along the ‘alternate silk route’ by the US army in 32 months under famous General Joseph W Stilwell, commander of the US forces during World War II. This road of 1,726 km was constructed in a short span, a feat not to be underestimated considering the bad terrain, using a large contingent of American Engineers along with the Chinese and the Shinghpo, Khamtoi, Mishmi, Padam, Garo, Galong tribes of India as labour. The road was a joint effort of India, China, the US, Britain and South Africa, and cost $173 million in those days. But the road was abandoned by October 1945. Only about a 63-km fall on the Indian side is well-maintained by our PWD. Even the Myanmar customs post was being maintained by PWD. 
The road was abandoned by India and Myanmar for many reasons. The Burmese had little control over the territories north of Mandalay. Independent armies of Kachins and Shans controlled these areas. There was smuggling of arms and narcotics into India. By the early 1980s, as insurgent activities started coming up to Indian side, the government of India sealed the border. Then, in 1999, the Chinese sponsored a Kunming Initiative with a conference on regional cooperation and development in Yunnan, with India, Myanmar, Bangladesh and China. The Indian delegation strongly supported rebuilding of the Stilwell Road but the Chinese did not show much interest. As a follow up, the Institute of Defence Studies, the Centre for Policy Research and the Institute of Chinese Studies in India jointly arranged a second meeting in India, reiterating the Kunming Initiative. 

Next, India declared the Stilwell Road open on its side of the border and called it National Highway 153. By 2001, India had constructed another road, connecting Tamu to Kalema-Kahua in Myanmar, and inaugurated by the then foreign minister, Jaswant Singh. In the interim, a border agreement was signed between India and Myanmar in January 1994, promoting trade, education, agriculture, horticulture, etc. 

On issues of trade and economic complementarities, it may be stated that coal has been found in the Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh adjoining Myanmar, and this coal is of good quality. There are prospects of oil, coal, minerals, forest products, etc. So, India really needs to open up ties with Myanmar along the Stilwell Road, especially to check the growing influence of China in Myanmar. China has already taken a lead in Myanmar by establishing better relations with the military regime while we were supporting the pro-democracy movement. It is high time to consider our best interests and act on these rather than non-strategic factors. 

—The author is a commentator and has served in Arunachal Pradesh