Showing posts with label Air Safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Air Safety. Show all posts
Monday, May 23, 2022
Tuesday, April 26, 2022
Sunday, March 27, 2022
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Indian aviation: Still flying dangerously
The airlines have to have their own safety manuals and proce-dures which is called ‘line maintenance’.
Aviation worldwide is the safest form of transportation. This is so because the international regulator and aviation law maker, International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), has evolved over the years an excellent framework of rules and regulation for aviation safety called standards and recommended practices as well as procedures and guidelines. Further, the ICAO conducts safety audits of each country.
However, with the recent announcement by Director General of Civil Aviation with regard to the deteriorating financial position of some of our airlines, the issue of their safety has again come into focus. It may be stated that while there is no provision in the Aircraft Act or its Rules to conduct such an audit, however, having conducted it and found it wanting we need to consider the situation in its entirety.
Fastest growth Having said that, we need to look at our own record to see how we are faring. There is no doubt that Indian aviation has had the fastest growth in the last two decades. The massive growth in passenger traffic, number of aircraft, number of landings in metro airports, congestion in the air brings in their own problems. Have we managed to keep up with this? In this sector there are three parties that need to be scrutinised. These is the regulator -- in our context the DGCA -- the airlines who need to maintain their planes and the airports, including air traffic management. An examination will prove that all three of them have been inadequate to keep up with the growth. It was only about two years back that the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) informed India of its intention to downgrade it in its safety from Category I to II, which means India joins the rank of some small African countries. An ICAO report on India’s safety audit also left much to be desired. As a result of hectic activities by the civil aviation ministry, the FAA was persuaded not to downgrade Indian safety and at the prime minister’s level about 400 technical posts were created in one go of which only about 10 per cent have filled up as yet . This means that the inspection staff of DGCA is woefully inadequate even now.
We now come to the issue of airports. The airports in the top four metro cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Bangalore take about 80 per cent of the traffic. But traffic management remains outdated and not as per ICAO standards/recommended practices. We still don’t have a flow management system and our radars between metro cities do not provide seamless connectivity. As a result aircraft have to circle around these airports during peak time before landing permission is given. This also involves safety risks. Lastly, we come to safety precautions conducted by the airlines. The airlines have to have their own safety manuals and procedure which is called ‘line maintenance’. The DGCA is supposed to check them at random and also by a schedule. Inadequacy or carelessness by airlines is what the DGCA inspectors are to check and are empowered to issue notices. However, with shortage of technical staff with DGCA, it is left more to Airlines to conduct its own safety checks. While it is equally important for airlines to maintain its safety requirements, however, whenever airlines go into a financial trouble there is always the possibility of safety being compromised to cut corners. But this cannot be generalised leading to a panic amongst the public. The state of affairs in the countries airlines and the DGCA need to be examined. Besides shortage of staff there are cases of collusion and corrupt practices in various aspects of DGCA functioning which impinge upon safety. The recent cases of fraudulent issue of licenses by DGCA office or failure to pass alcohol test by pilots in many instances show the current level of callousness, collusion and corruption which impact safety. While attempts are being made to improve the system by the Ministry and DGCA, without adequate technical support this will be difficult. To add to these growing losses of some airlines will add to the issues of aviation safety. It is therefore, necessary at this stage to look into all these aspects, take steps to bring aviation industry to financial healthy state by rationalising the tax structure, fill up the technical vacancies in the office of DGCA and solve the issues pertaining to air traffic management. A new minister has taken over as a full time charge. He needs to look into all these aspects without any delay. (The writer is chairman of International Foundation of Aviation, Aerospace and Development, India Chapter)
However, with the recent announcement by Director General of Civil Aviation with regard to the deteriorating financial position of some of our airlines, the issue of their safety has again come into focus. It may be stated that while there is no provision in the Aircraft Act or its Rules to conduct such an audit, however, having conducted it and found it wanting we need to consider the situation in its entirety.
Fastest growth Having said that, we need to look at our own record to see how we are faring. There is no doubt that Indian aviation has had the fastest growth in the last two decades. The massive growth in passenger traffic, number of aircraft, number of landings in metro airports, congestion in the air brings in their own problems. Have we managed to keep up with this? In this sector there are three parties that need to be scrutinised. These is the regulator -- in our context the DGCA -- the airlines who need to maintain their planes and the airports, including air traffic management. An examination will prove that all three of them have been inadequate to keep up with the growth. It was only about two years back that the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) informed India of its intention to downgrade it in its safety from Category I to II, which means India joins the rank of some small African countries. An ICAO report on India’s safety audit also left much to be desired. As a result of hectic activities by the civil aviation ministry, the FAA was persuaded not to downgrade Indian safety and at the prime minister’s level about 400 technical posts were created in one go of which only about 10 per cent have filled up as yet . This means that the inspection staff of DGCA is woefully inadequate even now.
We now come to the issue of airports. The airports in the top four metro cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Bangalore take about 80 per cent of the traffic. But traffic management remains outdated and not as per ICAO standards/recommended practices. We still don’t have a flow management system and our radars between metro cities do not provide seamless connectivity. As a result aircraft have to circle around these airports during peak time before landing permission is given. This also involves safety risks. Lastly, we come to safety precautions conducted by the airlines. The airlines have to have their own safety manuals and procedure which is called ‘line maintenance’. The DGCA is supposed to check them at random and also by a schedule. Inadequacy or carelessness by airlines is what the DGCA inspectors are to check and are empowered to issue notices. However, with shortage of technical staff with DGCA, it is left more to Airlines to conduct its own safety checks. While it is equally important for airlines to maintain its safety requirements, however, whenever airlines go into a financial trouble there is always the possibility of safety being compromised to cut corners. But this cannot be generalised leading to a panic amongst the public. The state of affairs in the countries airlines and the DGCA need to be examined. Besides shortage of staff there are cases of collusion and corrupt practices in various aspects of DGCA functioning which impinge upon safety. The recent cases of fraudulent issue of licenses by DGCA office or failure to pass alcohol test by pilots in many instances show the current level of callousness, collusion and corruption which impact safety. While attempts are being made to improve the system by the Ministry and DGCA, without adequate technical support this will be difficult. To add to these growing losses of some airlines will add to the issues of aviation safety. It is therefore, necessary at this stage to look into all these aspects, take steps to bring aviation industry to financial healthy state by rationalising the tax structure, fill up the technical vacancies in the office of DGCA and solve the issues pertaining to air traffic management. A new minister has taken over as a full time charge. He needs to look into all these aspects without any delay. (The writer is chairman of International Foundation of Aviation, Aerospace and Development, India Chapter)
For some time, India hasn't filled aviation safety post
WHILE it would be improper to hazard a guess for the reason for the recent air crash in Mangalore on May 22, and we should wait for the inquiry report, it is time to review the capacity and quality of our air safety surveillance. This major airline crash took place about 10 years after the Patna crash of what was then Indian Airlines. During this time our record has been relatively accident-free. However, with a major growth in air traffic during this period, there have been informal reports of many "near-misses"; such incidents generally go unrecorded. The last such took place in Mumbai on May 27.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation has the responsibility for international surveillance of each country's safety practices, as well as the mandate to harmonise them. It also does a safety audit of all its member countries (practically every UN member). The audit programme was started on January 1, 1999 and has since audited all countries. Its report on India in 2006 was hardly good. Out of the eight "critical element" categories, it gave India 9 out of 10 marks in licensing and certification; 8 in specific operating regulations; 7 in surveillance obligations; and 6 each in primary aviation legislation and technical guidance and tools.
However, it gave only 5 out of 10 for resolution of safety concerns; 4 out of 10 for the state civil aviation system and its safety oversight function; and an abysmal 2 out of 10 for technical personnel qualification and training. While the report could be considered below average, especially with regards to technical personnel, it was the US's Federal Aviation Authority which first took up cudgels with India's civil aviation ministry in 2008-09 when it threat ened to downgrade India from Category 1 to 2 in their system; they categorise countries based on their safety surveillance parameters. With a large number of vacant safety-related posts in spite of a huge increase in traffic, the condition of India's safety surveillance system was unacceptable to them.
It is unfortunate that things were allowed to deteriorate in India so much. Finally it was prime ministerial intervention which put our house in order; he ordered the revival of lapsed posts which had not been routinely filled up, and the creation of new safety-related posts. A very large number of technical posts have since been created but it is difficult to fill them up -due to an unattractive salary package and an excruciatingly painful and slow recruitment process followed by the Union Public Service Commission.
Neglecting safety issues in the face of increasing air traffic invites trouble. Adding to this is the highly competitive environment in which airlines are working. If we look at the financial position of airlines in general we can see that they have deteriorated over the years. From the 9/11 incident to the financial crisis, with swine flu and H1N1 in between, world air traffic has had something of a roller-coaster ride. In India, the impact of all this has been felt on both the domestic and international fronts. Most of India's airlines are in the red.
While airlines might say that safety is as much a concern of theirs as that of passengers and government, cutting corners in times of deep financial crisis cannot be ruled out. In this connection a recent proposal by the DGCA to monitor finances from a safety perspective is a welcome move. According to this draft proposal, there is a need to carry out the "evaluation of air carrier's management of significant changes to identify airlines in distress either due to financial issues or operational issues, so as to ensure that safety oversight functions are not affected and also to pin-point changes in the operating environment conditions, which significantly alter the balance between resources and operations." It is heartening to see that the DGCA has taken note of the precarious finances of the airline industry where many of them are unable to pay even fuel or airport charges. It has, therefore, called for an "examination of any condition that may indicate a significant deterioration in the operator's financial condition." In some cases in recent times aircraft on lease by our airlines have been recalled by their owners for nonpayment of lease charges. Under these circumstances, the DGCA's draft proposal is very welcome.
The writer is chairman, The International Foundation of Aviation, Aerospace and Development. He is based in Delhi express@expressindia.com A very large number of technical posts have since been created but it is difficult to fill them up, due to an unattractive salary package and the excruciatingly painful UPSC process.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation has the responsibility for international surveillance of each country's safety practices, as well as the mandate to harmonise them. It also does a safety audit of all its member countries (practically every UN member). The audit programme was started on January 1, 1999 and has since audited all countries. Its report on India in 2006 was hardly good. Out of the eight "critical element" categories, it gave India 9 out of 10 marks in licensing and certification; 8 in specific operating regulations; 7 in surveillance obligations; and 6 each in primary aviation legislation and technical guidance and tools.
However, it gave only 5 out of 10 for resolution of safety concerns; 4 out of 10 for the state civil aviation system and its safety oversight function; and an abysmal 2 out of 10 for technical personnel qualification and training. While the report could be considered below average, especially with regards to technical personnel, it was the US's Federal Aviation Authority which first took up cudgels with India's civil aviation ministry in 2008-09 when it threat ened to downgrade India from Category 1 to 2 in their system; they categorise countries based on their safety surveillance parameters. With a large number of vacant safety-related posts in spite of a huge increase in traffic, the condition of India's safety surveillance system was unacceptable to them.
It is unfortunate that things were allowed to deteriorate in India so much. Finally it was prime ministerial intervention which put our house in order; he ordered the revival of lapsed posts which had not been routinely filled up, and the creation of new safety-related posts. A very large number of technical posts have since been created but it is difficult to fill them up -due to an unattractive salary package and an excruciatingly painful and slow recruitment process followed by the Union Public Service Commission.
Neglecting safety issues in the face of increasing air traffic invites trouble. Adding to this is the highly competitive environment in which airlines are working. If we look at the financial position of airlines in general we can see that they have deteriorated over the years. From the 9/11 incident to the financial crisis, with swine flu and H1N1 in between, world air traffic has had something of a roller-coaster ride. In India, the impact of all this has been felt on both the domestic and international fronts. Most of India's airlines are in the red.
While airlines might say that safety is as much a concern of theirs as that of passengers and government, cutting corners in times of deep financial crisis cannot be ruled out. In this connection a recent proposal by the DGCA to monitor finances from a safety perspective is a welcome move. According to this draft proposal, there is a need to carry out the "evaluation of air carrier's management of significant changes to identify airlines in distress either due to financial issues or operational issues, so as to ensure that safety oversight functions are not affected and also to pin-point changes in the operating environment conditions, which significantly alter the balance between resources and operations." It is heartening to see that the DGCA has taken note of the precarious finances of the airline industry where many of them are unable to pay even fuel or airport charges. It has, therefore, called for an "examination of any condition that may indicate a significant deterioration in the operator's financial condition." In some cases in recent times aircraft on lease by our airlines have been recalled by their owners for nonpayment of lease charges. Under these circumstances, the DGCA's draft proposal is very welcome.
The writer is chairman, The International Foundation of Aviation, Aerospace and Development. He is based in Delhi express@expressindia.com A very large number of technical posts have since been created but it is difficult to fill them up, due to an unattractive salary package and the excruciatingly painful UPSC process.
Hit those near-misses
Air Safety issues can be divided into three sections: near-misses, incidents and accidents. Near-misses are cases where an accident is averted and generally goes unreported. Incidents are those that take place but are of a minor nature. While we are lucky we have not had many accidents in the last few years, the number of incidents and near-misses has gone up. This is because our safety oversight functions have been allowed to decay due to low priority given to safety.
Our aircraft rules contain provisions for notification, investigation and reporting of incidents. But our legislation does not provide for a much needed independent investigator of accidents as the Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) is the designated investigative authority for them. For very serious accidents aircraft rules do confer upon the Civil Aviation Ministry to appoint an ad hoc entity, the ‘committee of inquiry or court of inquiry’. These, too, are assisted by DGCA officials.
However, all reports have to be submitted for ministerial approval and are, therefore, not independent. Meanwhile, incidents and near-misses have increased, many going unreported.
The Civil Aviation Ministry supervises two major agencies: the DGCA and the Airport Authority of India (AAI). Both are directly concerned with air safety. While the DGCA is the licensor, regulator as well as the implementer of safety, the AAI provides the entire air traffic service over the country, including a vast oceanic air space. Both these institutions have not kept pace with the growth of air traffic.
There are huge vacancies within the existing strength of technical staff with both these organisations. In the DGCA, vacancy levels run as high as 50 per cent in some of its directorates. In the AAI, the shortage of air traffic controllers is becoming a major safety issues. As traffic movements increase, the need to have more controllers is absolutely necessary.
Training has also been a causality because of shortage of critical manpower. Recruitment of highly skilled technical staff on lower than market salaries through an excruciating entry process — Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) recruitments — is not only painful but self-defeating.
India’s air safety record has been traditionally good. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) of the US conducts a survey of countries whose aircrafts come into their country. They have categorised the countries into Category I and II with Category I countries being those with whom they have no safety problems. Category II are those countries they consider whose safety procedures are inadequate. Category II countries have some restrictions placed on them. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) also conducts safety audits of all member countries. The US has always rated India in its Category I while the ICAO had given India a clean chit. However, of late, the FAA has issued a notice to downgrade India to Category II and the ICAO’s 2007 safety audit report, too, is reportedly full of reservations.
Media reports about near-misses may have their individual background, but they are a symptom of a growing malaise. The sudden growth of air traffic in India has been a great story and is a manifestation of India as a growing economy. But to maintain it, there is a need for sustained growth in the safety apparatus with a proper plan. Any shortfall in it can prove to be a disaster.
It will also put on hold future plans of our airlines to grow. Obsession with airlines and their problems and policy changes to be made according to issues including security is only a prescription to disaster. If India is downgraded to Category II by the FAA, it will be a slap in the face of Indian aviation. It is high time we put our house in order and safety be given the priority it deserves.
Sanat Kaul is former representative of India to ICAO and is current chairman, International Foundation of Aviation and Development.
Our aircraft rules contain provisions for notification, investigation and reporting of incidents. But our legislation does not provide for a much needed independent investigator of accidents as the Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) is the designated investigative authority for them. For very serious accidents aircraft rules do confer upon the Civil Aviation Ministry to appoint an ad hoc entity, the ‘committee of inquiry or court of inquiry’. These, too, are assisted by DGCA officials.
However, all reports have to be submitted for ministerial approval and are, therefore, not independent. Meanwhile, incidents and near-misses have increased, many going unreported.
The Civil Aviation Ministry supervises two major agencies: the DGCA and the Airport Authority of India (AAI). Both are directly concerned with air safety. While the DGCA is the licensor, regulator as well as the implementer of safety, the AAI provides the entire air traffic service over the country, including a vast oceanic air space. Both these institutions have not kept pace with the growth of air traffic.
There are huge vacancies within the existing strength of technical staff with both these organisations. In the DGCA, vacancy levels run as high as 50 per cent in some of its directorates. In the AAI, the shortage of air traffic controllers is becoming a major safety issues. As traffic movements increase, the need to have more controllers is absolutely necessary.
Training has also been a causality because of shortage of critical manpower. Recruitment of highly skilled technical staff on lower than market salaries through an excruciating entry process — Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) recruitments — is not only painful but self-defeating.
India’s air safety record has been traditionally good. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) of the US conducts a survey of countries whose aircrafts come into their country. They have categorised the countries into Category I and II with Category I countries being those with whom they have no safety problems. Category II are those countries they consider whose safety procedures are inadequate. Category II countries have some restrictions placed on them. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) also conducts safety audits of all member countries. The US has always rated India in its Category I while the ICAO had given India a clean chit. However, of late, the FAA has issued a notice to downgrade India to Category II and the ICAO’s 2007 safety audit report, too, is reportedly full of reservations.
Media reports about near-misses may have their individual background, but they are a symptom of a growing malaise. The sudden growth of air traffic in India has been a great story and is a manifestation of India as a growing economy. But to maintain it, there is a need for sustained growth in the safety apparatus with a proper plan. Any shortfall in it can prove to be a disaster.
It will also put on hold future plans of our airlines to grow. Obsession with airlines and their problems and policy changes to be made according to issues including security is only a prescription to disaster. If India is downgraded to Category II by the FAA, it will be a slap in the face of Indian aviation. It is high time we put our house in order and safety be given the priority it deserves.
Sanat Kaul is former representative of India to ICAO and is current chairman, International Foundation of Aviation and Development.
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
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
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
Monday, June 17, 2019
Not so Safe Flights
Not so safe flights
Sanat Kaul 2010-01-19
Aviation has come a long way over the last 60 years. Once considered the most dangerous way to travel, it is now the safest mode of transportation, safer than road, rail or shipping. How did aviation go from being the most dangerous to being the safest in just 60 years? The answer is constant improvements in technology and the concept of ‘failsafe’, which provides multiple backups, theoretically eliminating the possibility of a technical glitch or breakdown. In fact, most accidents today are due to human error, not technological failure. In modern times, the failure of an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or a breakdown in radar systems are virtually unheard of.
However, recent incidents in Delhi have raised questions about the state of our aviation equipment. The media reported the January 9 failure of the ILS and the January 14 radar failure with great concern. Security had been our principal preoccupation ever since the IC184 hijacking in late 1999, but now safety is replacing it.
The recent ILS failure was caused by a problem with the Runway Visual Range (RVR) system, which provides visibility levels to pilots from three locations on the runway. On January 9, the RVR was not functioning from the last location on the runway, meaning that under low-visibility conditions pilots were unable to land using the ILS. It was later discovered that the wire connecting the last instrument had been cut off during work on the runway. Delhiites should be familiar with such scenarios as underground cables are frequently cut off due to roadwork. But we cannot treat our airports in the same callous way in which the PWD treats the capital’s roads.
However, the most serious concern in the RVR failure is that the failsafe mechanism did not work. Normally, the RVR’s wireless mode should have functioned in lieu of the wire that had got cut off. The blame game now starts to find out who is responsible—the Airports Authority of India who maintains it, the Met department that maintains the RVR system or the airport operator that maintains the runway.
Five days later, on January 14, there was another technological failure—a radar malfunction. The radar software upgrade malfunctioned while uploading and switched off. There was no backup for at least 45 minutes. Autocrat II, the existing software of the surveillance radar, malfunctioned and its display unit went blank at 5.44 pm. As a result, the ATC could not monitor the locations of the aircraft in flight. The backup also failed. Luckily, the new software, Autocrat III, was also running and was used. But since this software was not fed with the data, it ran as the primary radar and therefore could not identify individual aircraft, which appeared only as blips on the screen.
Both instances are rare in modern aviation. The issue is not only technical malfunction of the main systems, but also the reliability of the backups that failed. While the causes of these two particular failures will eventually be determined, the greater issue is the maintenance and reliability of all our aviation equipment and by extension the safety of passengers and flight crews. How is it that the backups also failed? Is it because they were already down and had not been repaired and were therefore unable to function at the critical time? How often is the safety equipment tested? Is there an independent agency that conducts safety audits to ensure our equipment is in top working condition? What are the best practices around the world? These questions need answers. Aviation system failures can have a deadly cost.
The author is chairman of the International Foundation for Aviation and Development (India chapter). He was formerly India’s representative to ICAO
What beleaguers air safety in India?
10th June, 2010
V THULASIDAS
FORMER CMD, AIR INDIA
Safety concerns are overplayed, flying is safe in India
THE MANGALORE AIR CRASH HAS THROWN up questions regarding air safety in India. It is but natural that a tragedy of this proportion will invite public and media attention to the negative aspects of Indian aviation. It is, however, unnatural, and typically Indian, to imagine all possible horrors and see an accident in every flight that takes off.
Is aviation in India worse than rail or road transport in terms of accidents and fatalities? Scan any newspaper almost any day, and you will read about crashes, on either the roads or rail lines. Are those deaths less painful or less important?
Let us concentrate on all the negatives in an attempt to improve air safety in India. But, this need not be done by imagining near misses all over Indian skies. Is it that, even if true, these happen only in India?
A quick internet search shows that in 2009 and 2010, till now, there were six accidents in the USA/US aircraft, three each in Indonesia and Iran and two each in India and Dubai/Dubai aircraft and one each in 14 other countries. The Air India Express crash is the third highest in terms of fatalities, after 228 deaths in the Air France crash in the Atlantic and 168 deaths in the Caspian Airlines crash in Iran. There were 52 deaths in the case of US. It is pure luck that the passengers of the US Airways flight that ditched in the Hudson river did not drown.
The Air France crash of June 1, 2009 does not make France an unsafe country for air travel. If frequent accidents and fatalities happen, that certainly casts doubts on safety standards in a country. The last fatal crash of a commercial airline in India was the Alliance Air crash in July 2000 in Patna.
The reason for any accident needs to be understood before we start the blame game. Investigation in to the Mangalore crash will bring out the reason. The earlier it is done, the better. It is important, thereafter, that the agencies concerned, government, Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), airline and airport take corrective action, promptly and transparently. This alone will send a reassuring message to the travelling community.
Knee-jerk reactions from any quarters, prompted by frenzy on TV channels or prophets of doom, should not dictate policy or corrective action. For example, the environmental lobby baying for blood for the construction of the second runway in Mangalore or the lobbies demanding ouster of all foreign pilots wholesale or the impression sought to be created that a table-top runway is essentially unsafe, are all to be taken with a pinch of salt. The regulator in India, the DGCA, has been in the forefront of enforcing safety standards. True, India can do with better technology, more sophisticated equipment and more skilled manpower. After all, Indian aviation grew too fast, perhaps, in the last 5-6 years, and the regulator also needs to grow. But, let us not send wrong signals to the international community that Indian aviation is not safe; it is safer than that in most other countries. It is safer than other modes of transport in India.
SANAT KAUL CHAIRMAN IFAAD* (INDIA CHAPTER)
DGCA lacks both financial and technical independence IS SAFETY OF OUR CIVIL AVIATION SET-UP IN good hands? Is the safety apparatus adequate? These are some of the questions in the mind of the public after the Mangalore crash and the reports of ‘near-misses’ happening on a daily basis. After Mangalore crash, there have been a series of near misses such as a tyre burst in Delhi, a goaround at Patna airstrip and sudden descent over Muscat while the pilot took a toilet break.
DGCA lacks both financial and technical independence IS SAFETY OF OUR CIVIL AVIATION SET-UP IN good hands? Is the safety apparatus adequate? These are some of the questions in the mind of the public after the Mangalore crash and the reports of ‘near-misses’ happening on a daily basis. After Mangalore crash, there have been a series of near misses such as a tyre burst in Delhi, a goaround at Patna airstrip and sudden descent over Muscat while the pilot took a toilet break.
These are signs that our safety apparatus is under stress. While we cheered and gloated over the growth in civil aviation, new aircrafts and new or refurbished airports, little attention was paid to safety surveillance. Alongwith growth of aviation, it is essential to enhance the safety systems. In India the reverse happened. We gloated over growth and forgot the safety. As a result, we did not even fill up essential safety posts. With posts lying vacant over a year, they attracted the across-the-board ban on filling vacant posts when permanent economy cuts were imposed by the finance ministry. In 2006, International Civil Aviation Organization rated India poorly in its safety audit. Finally, it was the threat of a downgrade from category-II country to category-I by Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) of US that led to a prime ministerial intervention and creation of posts.
We need to clarify where the buck stops and who are the stakeholders. At one end is the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the safety regulator. The second is the Airports Authority of India (AAI), which has the statutory charge of air traffic management and are, therefore, the sole service provider for air traffic management. Third is the ministry of civil aviation. Both the DGCA and the AAI are subordinate to the ministry. The only difference is that AAI is an independent authority with its own finances and its chairman and executive directors are appointed by the Public Enterprises Selection Board. DGCA, is, unfortunately, an attached office of the ministry with very little financial and non-financial powers. The budget of the DGCA is a part of the ministry’s budget, and therein lies the problem.
The lack of independent status almost cripples the DGCA. Unlike in other countries such as the US where the FAA comes under the Department of Transport but is independent by tradition and statute, DGCA appointments are an internal matter for the government. This puts DGCA at a disadvantage. All essential matters have to be referred to the ministry. All accident reports have to be approved by the ministry. He cannot create even a post of peon.
It is high time that DGCA was made into an independent authority with financial independence and with power to create technical posts and fill them up. Without such independence, issues of surveillance over safety oversight in aviation will remain a pipe dream. Further, the issue of accident investigation (including near-misses) should be with an independent statutory authority similar to National Transport Safety Board of the US, an autonomous body for all transport modes including the railway and roads, and kept independent of the government.
*International Foundation of Aviation, Aerospace and Development
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)