From Air Bubble Pacts to RCS-UDAN, Here’s Aviation Ministry’s Revival Plan for Industry

COVID-19 has put a hard brake on the aviation industry across the globe as the of contamination has stopped passengers from taking a flight and going out. With India announcing nation wide lockdown from March 23 and other countries banning entry and exit from the country, movement of people was restricted completely for at least a couple of months.

However, India was among the only country to announce a repatriation drive called ‘Mission Vande Bharat’ bringing back lakhs of stranded Indians from various countries despite flight ban. Later, the government announced Air Bubble agreement with various countries to ease the travelling.

Not only this, government has undertaken various measures to revive the slowdown in the aviation industry and here’s a list of all the efforts made to reduce the impact of the pandemic on the aviation sector.

– India was among the first few countries to band and then restart the domestic air services, albeit in a calibrated manner. Initially only one third (33%) of the summer schedule 2020 was allowed to be operated which was subsequently increased to 45% on 26 Jun 2020 and then to 60% on 02 Sep 2020. Facilities like booking middle seat for social distancing, providing PPE kits onboard and more were taken to ensure less contamination in the aircraft.

– Operation of Regional Connectivity Scheme (RCS) – UDAN flights were allowed without the above-mentioned restrictions. Many cities which were earlier not in the aviation map were added to enhance regional connectivity and further more airports are in process of completion.

– Exclusive air-links or Air Bubbles have been established with countries which include Afghanistan, Bahrain, Canada, France, Germany, Qatar, Maldives, UAE, UK and USA. These are temporary arrangements aimed at restarting international passenger services while regular international flights remain suspended due to COVID-19.

– During the pandemic, Delhi’s IGI airport emerged as a hub for cargo transport in the country. Not only Delhi, but all airlines and airports functioned as cargo terminals whenever required transporting essential materials not only for domestic purposes but to international destinations too.

– Government earlier announced that India will emerge as a hub for Aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) services and keeping in line the same, GST rates were reduced to 5% for domestic MRO services.

– In a major change of Route rationalisation, Civil Aviation Ministry coordinated with the Indian Air Force for efficient airspace management over the Indian airspace. This resulted in shorter routes and reduced fuel burn for civil aircrafts.

– Government also announced Mission Vande Bharat, one of its largest kind of repatriation drive to bring back stranded Indians on a chargeable basis, giving airlines like Air India, Spicejet, Indigo and GoAir and opportunity to operate some of their flights on international routes.

India has one of the better air safety indicators in the world, says Puri

India has one of the better air safety indicators in the world as aircraft accidents in the country in 2019 were just 0.82 per million flights as compared to the global average of 3.02, said Civil Aviation Minister

On August 7, an Air India Express flight from Dubai with 190 people overshot the tabletop runway during landing at the Kozhikode airport in heavy rain and fell into a valley 35 feet below and broke into two, killing 18 people, including the pilots.

Puri said on Twitter: “Regardless of the motivated narrative on India’s record, I would reiterate that we have one of the better safety records/indicators in the world.”

Aircraft accidents in India in 2019 were just 0.82 per million flights as compared to the global average of 3.02, he noted.

“This can be understood better when we compare it to corresponding indicator in India which was 2.8 per million flights in 2014,” he stated.

We take all measures to ensure aviation safety, he said.

The Ministry of Civil Aviation and Airports Authority of India have taken positive steps to further strengthen the infrastructure in the country, he added.

About 1000 air traffic controllers have been recruited during the last three years taking their number to 3,263, Puri stated.

“Number of air misses has considerably come down from 35 in 2018 to 18 in 2019. There have only been 3 such cases in 2020 till now,” he mentioned.

Parliament on Tuesday passed a bill that seeks to improve India’s ratings and provide statutory status to regulatory institutions, including the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

“In the amended Aircraft Bill as passed by Rajya Sabha today, the maximum penalty for any act in contravention of the provisions of the Rule has been enhanced from Rs 10 lakhs to Rs 1 crore. Further, the regulator has been empowered to impose the penalty,” Puri said in a tweet.

“Some Hon’bl members enquired during RS session today as to why the regulator had not imposed fines on operators despite finding deficiencies in the past. I want to inform my esteemed colleagues that power to impose penalty,” Puri said in a tweet.

“Some Hon’bl members enquired during RS session today as to why the regulator had not imposed fines on operators despite finding deficiencies in the past. I want to inform my esteemed colleagues that power to impose penalties vested with Hon’ble courts before today’s amendment,” he said in another tweet.

Accident and Serious Incident Reports: Helicopters

Accidents and Incidents involving Helicopters/Rotary Wing Aircraft

  • A109, vicinity London Heliport London UK, 2013 (On 16 January 2013, an Augusta 109E helicopter positioning by day on an implied (due to adverse weather conditions) SVFR clearance collided with a crane attached to a tall building under construction. It and associated debris fell to street level and the pilot and a pedestrian were killed and several others on the ground injured. It was concluded that the pilot had not seen the crane or seen it too late to avoid whilst flying by visual reference in conditions which had become increasingly challenging. The Investigation recommended improvements in the regulatory context in which the accident had occurred.)
  • A139 / A30B, Ottawa Canada, 2014 (On 5 June 2014, an AW139 about to depart from its Ottawa home base on a positioning flight exceeded its clearance limit and began to hover taxi towards the main runway as an A300 was about to touch down on it. The TWR controller immediately instructed the helicopter to stop which it did, just clear of the runway. The A300 reached taxi speed just prior to the intersection. The Investigation attributed the error to a combination of distraction and expectancy and noted that the AW139 pilot had not checked actual or imminent runway occupancy prior to passing his clearance limit.)
  • A139, vicinity Sky Shuttle Heliport Hong Kong China, 2010 (On 3 July 2010, an AW139 helicopter was climbing through 350 feet over Victoria Harbour Hong Kong just after takeoff when the tail rotor detached. A transition to autorotation was accomplished and a controlled ditching followed. All occupants were rescued but some sustained minor injuries. The failure was attributed entirely to manufacturing defects but no corrective manufacturer or regulatory action was taken until two similar accidents had occurred in Qatar (non-fatal) and Brazil (fatal) the following year and two interim Safety Recommendations were issued from this Investigation after which a comprehensive review of the manufacturing process led to numerous changes.)
  • A169, Leicester UK, 2018 (On 27 October 2018, a single pilot Augusta Westland AW169 lifted off from within the Leicester City Football Club Stadium, but after a failure of the tail rotor control system, a loss of yaw control occurred a few hundred feet above ground. The helicopter began to descend with a high rotation rate and soon afterward impacted the ground and almost immediately caught fire, which prevented those onboard surviving. An Investigation is being conducted by the UK AAIB.)
  • A319 / AS32, vicinity Marseille France, 2016 (On 27 June 2016, an Airbus A319 narrowly avoided a mid-air collision with an AS532 Cougar helicopter whose single transponder had failed earlier whilst conducting a local pre-delivery test flight whilst both were positioning visually as cleared to land at Marseille and after the helicopter had also temporarily disappeared from primary radar. Neither aircraft crew had detected the other prior to their tracks crossing at a similar altitude. The Investigation attributed the conflict to an inappropriate ATC response to the temporary loss of radar contact with the helicopter aggravated by inaccurate position reports and non-compliance with the aerodrome circuit altitude by the helicopter crew.)
  • A320 / A139 vicinity Zurich Switzerland, 2012 (On 29 May 2012, a British Airways Airbus A320 departing Zürich and in accordance with its SID in a climbing turn received and promptly and correctly actioned a TCAS RA ‘CLIMB’. The conflict which caused this was with an AW 139 also departing Zürich IFR in accordance with a SID but, as this aircraft was only equipped with a TAS to TCAS 1 standard, the crew independently determined from their TA that they should descend and did so. The conflict, in Class ‘C’ airspace, was attributed to inappropriate clearance issue by the TWR controller and their inappropriate separation monitoring thereafter.)
  • AS32 / B734, Aberdeen UK, 2000 (For reasons that were not established, a Super Puma helicopter being air tested and in the hover at about 30 feet agl near the active runway at Aberdeen assumed that the departure clearance given by GND was a take off clearance and moved into the hover over the opposite end of the runway at the same time as a Boeing 737 was taking off. The 737 saw the helicopter ahead and made a high speed rejected take off, stopping approximately 100 metres before reaching the position of the helicopter which had by then moved off the runway still hovering.)
  • AS32, en-route, North Sea Norway, 1998 (On 20 October 1998, in the North Sea, an Eurocopter AS332L Super Puma operated by Norsk HeliKopter AS, experienced engine failure with autorotation and subsequent lost of height. The crew misidentified the malfunctioning engine and reduced the power of the remaining serviceable engine. However, the mistake was realised quickly enough for the crew to recover control of the helicopter.)
  • AS32, en-route, North Sea UK, 2002 (On 28th February 2002, an Aerospatiale AS332L Super Puma helicopter en route approximately 70 nm northeast of Scatsa, Shetland Islands was in the vicinity of a storm cell when a waterspout was observed about a mile abeam. Soon afterwards, violent pitch, roll and yaw with significant negative and positive ‘g’ occurred. Recovery to normal flight was achieved after 15 seconds and after a control check, the flight was completed. After flight, all five tail rotor blades and tail pylon damage were discovered. It was established that this serious damage was the result of contact between the blades and the pylon.)
  • AS32, en-route, near Peterhead Scotland UK, 2009 (On 1 April 2009, the flight crew of a Bond Helicopters’ Eurocopter AS332 L2 Super Puma en route from the Miller Offshore Platform to Aberdeen at an altitude of 2000 feet lost control of their helicopter when a sudden and catastrophic failure of the main rotor gearbox occurred and, within less than 20 seconds, the hub with the main rotor blades attached separated from the helicopter causing it to fall into the sea at a high vertical speed The impact destroyed the helicopter and all 16 occupants were killed. Seventeen Safety Recommendations were made as a result of the investigation.)
  • AS3B, en-route, northern North Sea UK, 2008 (On 22 February 2008, a Eurocopter AS332 L2 Super Puma flying from an offshore oil platform to Aberdeen was struck by lightning. There was no apparent consequence and so, although this event required a landing as soon as possible, the commander decided to continue the remaining 165nm to the planned destination which was achieved uneventfully. Main rotor blade damage including some beyond repairable limits was subsequently discovered. The Investigation noted evidence indicating that this helicopter type had a relatively high propensity to sustain lightning strikes but noted that, despite the risk of damage, there was currently no adverse safety trend.)
  • AS3B, vicinity Den Helder Netherlands, 2006 (On 21 November 2006, the crew of a Bristow Eurocopter AS332 L2 making an unscheduled passenger flight from an offshore platform to Den Helder in night VMC decided to ditch their aircraft after apparent malfunction of an engine and the flight controls were perceived as rendering it unable to safely complete the flight. All 17 occupants survived but the evacuation was disorganised and both oversight of the operation by and the actions of the crew were considered to have been inappropriate in various respects. Despite extensive investigation, no technical fault which would have rendered it unflyable could be confirmed.)
  • AS3B, vicinity Sumburgh Airport Shetland Islands UK, 2013 (On 23 August 2013, the crew of a Eurocopter AS332 L2 Super Puma helicopter making a non-precision approach to runway 09 at Sumburgh with the AP engaged in 3-axes mode descended below MDA without visual reference and after exposing the helicopter to vortex ring conditions were unable to prevent a sudden onset high rate of descent followed by sea surface impact and rapid inversion of the floating helicopter. Four of the 18 occupants died and three were seriously injured. The Investigation found no evidence of contributory technical failure and attributed the accident to inappropriate flight path control by the crew.)
  • AS50 / PA32, en-route, Hudson River NJ USA, 2009 (On August 8, 2009 a privately operated PA32 and a Eurocopter AS350BA helicopter being operated by Liberty Helicopters on a public transport sightseeing flight collided in VMC over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey whilst both operating under VFR. The three occupants of the PA32, which was en route from Wings Field PA to Ocean City NJ, and the six occupants of the helicopter, which had just left the West 30th Street Heliport, were killed and both aircraft received substantially damaged.)
  • AS50, Dalamot Norway, 2011 (On 4 July 2011, an Airlift Eurocopter AS 350 making a passenger charter flight to a mountain cabin in day VMC appeared to suddenly depart controlled flight whilst making a tight right turn during positioning to land at the destination landing site and impacted terrain soon afterwards. The helicopter was destroyed by the impact and ensuing fire and all five occupants were fatally injured. The subsequent investigation came to the conclusion that the apparently abrupt manoeuvring may have led to an encounter with ‘servo transparency’ at a height from which the pilot was unable to recover before impact occurred.)
  • AS50, en-route, Hawaii USA, 2005 (On 23 September 2005, an AS350 helicopter, operated by Heli USA Airways, crashed into the sea off Hawaii following loss of control associated with flight into adverse weather conditions.)
  • AS50, manoeuvring, East River New York USA, 2018 (On 11 March 2018, an Airbus AS350 engine failed during a commercial sightseeing flight and autorotation was initiated. The pilot then noticed that the floor-mounted fuel cut-off had been operated by part of the tether system of one of the five passengers but there was insufficient time to restore power. On water contact, the automatic floatation system operated asymmetrically and the helicopter submerged before the occupants could evacuate. Only the pilot was able to release his harness and escape because the unapproved adapted passenger harnesses had no quick release mechanism. The Investigation found systemic inadequacy of the operator’s safety management system.)
  • AS55, vicinity Fairview Alberta Canada, 1999 (On 28th April 1999, an AS-355 helicopter suffered an in-flight fire attributed to an electrical fault which had originated from a prior maintenance error undetected during incomplete pre-flight inspections. The aircraft carried out an immediate landing allowing evacuation before the aircraft was destroyed by an intense fire.)
  • AS65, vicinity North Morecambe Platform Irish Sea UK, 2006 (On 27 December 2006, an AS365 Dauphin 2, operated by CHC Scotia, crashed into the sea adjacent to a gas platform in Morecambe Bay, UK, at night, following loss of control.)
  • B412, vicinity Karlsborg Sweden, 2003 (On 25 March 2003, the crew of a Bell 412 lost control of the aircraft as a result of pilot mishandling associated with the development of a Vortex Ring State.)
  • D150 / H500, London UK, 2007 (On 5 October 2007, a loss of separation occurred between a Hughes 369 helicopter and a Jodel D150. The incident occurred outside controlled airspace, in VMC, and the estimated vertical separation as the Jodel took avoiding action by descending, was assessed by both pilots to be less than 50 feet.)
  • D328 / R44, Bern Switzerland, 2012 (On 2 June 2012, a Dornier 328 and a commercially-operated Robinson R44 helicopter came into close proximity within the airport perimeter whilst both were departing from Bern in VMC as cleared. The Investigation attributed the conflict to inappropriate issue of clearances by the controller in a context of an absence of both a defined final approach and take off area and fixed departure routes to the three designated departure points.)
  • EC25, en-route, 20nm east of Aberdeen UK, 2012 (On 10 May 2012, the crew of a Eurocopter EC225 LP on a flight from Aberdeen to an offshore platform received an indication that the main gearbox (MGB) lubrication system had failed. Shortly after selecting the emergency lubrication system, that also indicated failure and the crew responded in accordance with the QRH drill to “land immediately” by carrying out a successful controlled ditching. The ongoing investigation has found that there had been a mechanical failure of the MGB but that the emergency lubrication system had, contrary to indications, been functioning normally.)
  • EC25, en-route, 32nm southwest of Sumburgh UK, 2012 (On 22 October 2012, the crew of a Eurocopter EC225 LP on a flight from Aberdeen to an offshore platform received an indication that the main gearbox (MGB) lubrication system had failed. Shortly after selecting the emergency lubrication system, that system also indicated failure and the crew responded in accordance with the QRH drill to “land immediately” by carrying out a successful controlled ditching. The ongoing investigation has found that there had been a mechanical failure within the MGB but that the emergency lubrication system had, contrary to indications, been functioning normally.)
  • EC25, vicinity Bergen Norway, 2016 (On 29 April 2016, an Airbus EC225 Super Puma main rotor detached without warning en-route to Bergen. Control was lost and it crashed and was destroyed. Rotor detachment was attributed to undetected development of metal fatigue in the same gearbox component which caused an identical 2009 accident to a variant of the same helicopter type. Despite this previous accident, the failure mode involved had not been properly understood or anticipated. The investigation identifies significant lessons to be learned related to gearbox design, risk assessment, fatigue evaluation, gearbox condition monitoring, type certification and continued airworthiness, which may also be valid for other helicopter types.)
  • EC25, vicinity ETAP Central offshore platform, North Sea UK (On 18 February 2009, the crew of Eurocopter EC225 LP Super Puma attempting to make an approach to a North Sea offshore platform in poor visibility at night lost meaningful visual reference and a sea impact followed. All occupants escaped from the helicopter and were subsequently rescued. The investigation concluded that the accident probably occurred because of the effects of oculogravic and somatogravic illusions combined with both pilots being focused on the platform and not monitoring the flight instruments.)
  • EC25, Åsgård B Platform North Sea, 2012 (On 12 January 2012, the crew of an EC 225LP helicopter were unable to prevent it almost departing the helideck at the offshore platform where it had just made a normal touch down at night after an en route diversion prompted by a partial hydraulic failure. An emergency evacuation was ordered and ground crew intervention prevented further helicopter movement. A component in the left main landing gear brake unit was found to have failed due to a manufacturing fault. Emergency Regulatory action for the helicopter type followed in respect of both the airworthiness and operational issues highlighted by the Investigation.)
  • EC35, Sollihøgda Norway, 2014 (On 14 January 2014, the experienced pilot of an EC 135 HEMS aircraft lost control as a result of a collision with unseen and difficult to visually detect power lines as it neared the site of a road accident at Sollihøgda to which it was responding which damaged the main rotor and led to it falling rapidly from about 80 feet agl. The helicopter was destroyed by the impact which killed two of the three occupants and seriously injured the third. The Investigation identified opportunities to improve both obstacle documentation / pilot proactive obstacle awareness and on site emergency communications.)
  • EC35, vicinity Glasgow City Heliport UK, 2013 (On 29 November 2013, control of an Airbus Helicopters EC135 undertaking a night VMC night for policing purposes was lost after both engines flamed out following fuel starvation. The subsequent crash killed the three occupants and seven on the ground, seriously injuring eleven others. The Investigation found that although the pilot had acknowledged low fuel warnings after both fuel transfer pumps had been switched off, the helicopter had not then been landed within 10 minutes as required. No evidence of any relevant airworthiness defects was found and without FDR/CVR data, a full explanation of the accident circumstances was not possible.)
  • EC55, en-route, Hong Kong China, 2003 (On 26 August 2003, at night, a Eurocopter EC155, operated by Hong Kong Government Flight Service (GFS), performing a casualty evacuation mission (casevac), impacted the elevated terrain in Tung Chung Gap near Hong Kong International airport.)
  • F100 / EC45, vicinity Bern Switzerland, 2012 (On 24 May 2012, a Fokker 100 descending visual downwind to land at Berne and an EC145 helicopter transiting the Bern CTR (Class ‘D’ airspace) VFR came within 0.7 nm horizontally and 75 ft vertically despite early traffic advice having been given to both aircraft. The Investigation attributed the conflict to the failure of the F100 crew to follow either their initial TCAS RA or a subsequent revised one and noted that although STCA was installed at Berne it had been disabled “many years before”.)
  • H500 / D150, en-route, North of London UK, 2007 (On 5 October 2007, a loss of separation occurred between a Hughes 369 helicopter and a Jodel D150. The incident occurred outside controlled airspace, in VMC, and the estimated vertical separation as the Jodel took avoiding action by descending, was assessed by both pilots to be less than 50 feet.)
  • NIM / AS32, vicinity RAF Kinloss UK, 2006 (On 17 October 2006, at night, in low cloud and poor visibility conditions in the vicinity of Kinloss Airfield UK, a loss of separation event occurred between an RAF Nimrod MR2 aircraft and a civilian AS332L Puma helicopter.)
  • P28A / S76, Humberside UK 2009 (On 26 September 2009, a Piper PA28-140 flown by an experienced pilot was about to touch down after a day VMC approach about a mile behind an S76 helicopter which was also categorised as ‘Light’ for Wake Vortex purposes rolled uncontrollably to the right in the flare and struck the ground inverted seriously injuring the pilot. The Investigation noted existing informal National Regulatory Authority guidance material already suggested that light aircraft pilots might treat ‘Light’ helicopters as one category higher when on approach and recommended that this advice be more widely promulgated.)
  • S61, vicinity Bournemouth UK, 2002 (On 15 July 2002, a Sikorsky S-61 helicopter operated by Bristow suffered a catastrophic engine failure and fire. After an emergency landing and evacuation, the aircraft was destroyed by an intense fire.)
  • S61, vicinity Bødo Norway, 2008 (On 24 February 2008, a Sikorsky S-61N being operated by British International Helicopters on a passenger flight from Værøy to Bødo attempted a visual approach at destination in day IMC and came close to unseen terrain before accepting an offer of assistance from ATC to achieve an ILS approach to runway 07 without further event. None of the 18 occupants were injured.)
  • S76, Peasmarsh East Sussex UK, 2012 (On 3 May 2012, a Sikorsky S76C operating a passenger flight to a private landing site at night discontinued an initial approach because of lack of visual reference in an unlit environment and began to position for another. The commander became spatially disorientated and despite a number of EGPWS Warnings, continued manoeuvring until ground impact was only narrowly avoided – the minimum recorded height was 2 feet +/- 2 feet. An uneventful diversion followed. The Investigation recommended a review of the regulations that allowed descent below MSA for landing when flying in IMC but not on a published approach procedure.)
  • S76, en-route, southeast of Lagos Nigeria, 2016 (On 3 February 2016, a Sikorsky S76C crew on a flight from an offshore platform to Lagos was ditched when the crew believed that it was no longer possible to complete their intended flight to Lagos. After recovering the helicopter from the seabed, the Investigation concluded that the crew had failed to perform a routine standard procedure after takeoff – resetting the compass to ‘slave rather than ‘free’ mode – and had then failed to recognise that this was the cause of the flight path control issues which they were experiencing or disconnect the autopilot and fly the aircraft manually.)
  • S76, vicinity Lagos Nigeria, 2015 (On 12 August 2015, a Sikorsky S76C crew on a flight from an offshore platform to Lagos lost control of their aircraft after a sudden uncommanded pitch up, yaw and roll began and 12 seconds later it crashed into water in a suburb of Lagos killing both pilots and four of the 10 passengers. The Investigation concluded that the upset had been caused by a critical separation within the main rotor cyclic control system resulting from undetected wear at a point where there was no secondary mechanical locking system such as a locking pin or a wire lock to maintain system integrity.)
  • S76, vicinity Moosonee ON Canada, 2013 (On 31 May 2013 the crew of an S76A helicopter positioning for a HEMS detail took off VFR into a dark night environment and lost control as a low level turn was initiated and did not recover. The helicopter was destroyed and the four occupants killed. The Investigation found that the crew had little relevant experience and were not “operationally ready” to conduct a night VFR take off into an area of total darkness. Significant deficiencies at the Operator and in respect of the effectiveness of its Regulatory oversight were identified as having been a significant context for the accident.)
  • S92, West Franklin Wellhead Platform North Sea, 2016 (On 28 December 2016, yaw control was lost during touchdown of a Sikorsky S92A landing on a North Sea offshore platform and it almost fell into the sea. The Investigation found that the loss of control was attributable to the failure of the Tail Rotor Pitch Change Shaft bearing which precipitated damage to the associated control servo. It was also found that despite HUMS monitoring being in place, it had been ineffective in proactively alerting the operator to the earlier stages of progressive bearing deterioration which could have ensured the helicopter was grounded for rectification before the accident occurred.)
  • S92, en-route, east of St John’s Newfoundland Canada, 2009 (On 12 March 2009, a Sikorsky S-92A crew heading offshore from St. John’s, Newfoundland declared an emergency and began a return after total loss of main gear box oil pressure but lost control during an attempted ditching. The Investigation found that all oil had been lost after two main gear box securing bolts had sheared. It was noted that ambiguity had contributed to crew misdiagnosis the cause and that the ditching had been mishandled. Sea States beyond the capability of Emergency Flotation Systems and the limited usefulness of personal Supplemental Breathing Systems in cold water were identified as Safety Issues.)
  • S92, northeast of Aberdeen UK, 2018 (On 23 August 2018, a low experience Sikorsky S92 First Officer undergoing line training made a visual transit between two North Sea offshore platforms but completed an approach to the wrong one. The platform radio operator alerted the crew to their error and the helicopter then flew to the correct platform. The Investigation attributed the error primarily to the inadequate performance of both pilots on what should have been a straightforward short visual flight but particularly highlighted the apparent failure of the Training Captain to fully recognise the challenges of the flight involved when training and acting as Pilot Monitoring.)

Civil aviation recovery would be faster due to market size: Airbus India Prez

New Delhi: India’s civil aviation recovery would be much faster on the back of large market size, Airbus India President Remi Mail lard said on Saturday.

Speaking at Assocham’s webinar on ‘Covid-19 Impact and Opportunities’ for the civil aviation sector, he said: “The revival will at least take a year and the domestic market should be the focus right now. Regional connectivity is of utmost importance right now.”

According to Maillard, opening up of the domestic sector in a phased manner would help in reviving the industry.

“While the Indian airline companies are suffering losses, the situation is not different in other countries. Passengers have to be told that travel by airlines is the safest form of travel today. Once they get the confidence, recovery is possible,” he said.

The aviation sector is one of the worst impacted industries by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Other panelists at the webinar pointed out that the sector is limping back to recovery due to the opening up of the domestic flights and cargo services.

“I believe there is a silver lining in cargo segment which is just a percentage lower than what it was in the pre-Covid times,” IndiGo’s Chief Strategy and Revenue Officer Sanjay Kumar said at the webinar.

“The revenue from cargo has not been much affected despite the lockdown. Domestic travel is allowed on a 60 per cent capacity. But I think it is slowly and steadily changing,” he added.

50 % Discounted Fee – Aviation Related Ground Training for Unemployed Pilots,75 % Discounted Fee for Cabin Crew

50 % Discounted Fee – Aviation Related Ground Training for Unemployed Pilots and 75 % Discounted Fee for Cabin Crew.

COVID 19 has created serious Financial distress among the Aviation Industry which has resulted in large number of Pilots and Cabin Crew  loosing their job.Keeping in  mind the economic crisis and to help the Pilots and Cabin Crew to keep the validity and currency of Ground Training, Aviation Safety India in coordination with FAST has decided to provide 50 % discounted Fee for unemployed Pilots and 75 % for unemployed Cabin Crew.

Interested Unemployed Pilots and  Cabin Crew are requested to email their requirement to aviationsafetyindia1@gmail.com,trainingfast16@gmail.com for coordination of their training.

Happy Landings

Free SMS Training by Aviation Safety Management Society of India for all the Stakeholders in Aviation

Free SMS Training by Aviation Safety Management Society of India for all the Stakeholders in Aviation

Greetings from Aviation Safety Management Society of India (ASMSI).

Aviation Safety Management Society of India (ASMSI) is an all India Registered “Not for Profit” Society, dedicated to the promotion of Aviation and Aviation Safety in the country, through spread of knowledge and awareness.

ASMSI is fortunate to have large number of highly accomplished and reputed Aviation Professionals as its Esteemed Members and associates. These professionals are working with zeal to share their knowledge and expertise, selflessly, in the field of Aviation, for the benefit of all the stakeholders in Aviation.

It is an established fact that SMS is a very effective and proven Management System to identify hazards in a proactive manner and to ensure that hazards do not turn into accidents, incidents, through timely elimination of hazards.

The Scope of SMS includes all the personnel of the Operator, right from the CEO downwards to lowest level, including employees from Finance, HR, Admin and Marketing etc., since they also have a role to play in maintaining safe Operation and Maintenance environments, in the Company. Hence, it is essential that every employee of the Company should be sensitized to the concept of SMS through training.

Most of the Operators get only those employees i.e. Pilots, Cabin Crew, Accountable Executives/Managers, Chief, Deputy Chief of Flight Safety and Safety Manager etc. trained which are required to be trained as mandated by DGCA.Thus, In the absence of SMS training, the other employees of the Company, obviously, remain ignorant about the SMS. Even the employees who have been trained do not take SMS seriously, possibly, due to lack of supervision, monitoring and involvement of the Management.

It is essential that the Management of the Aviation Organisations appreciates that SMS is a very useful system to promote Safety, Efficiency of their Operations and prevention of accidents. It needs to be remembered that Accidents are bad for business, reputation and can impact very heavily on the finances and survivability of a Company.

Keeping in mind the importance of SMS towards prevention of accidents/incidents and the reluctance of the Operators to get the SMS training done for all their personnel due to financial considerations/constraints, ASMSI has taken the initiative to offer the services of its SMS experts to conduct Online SMS training of all the employees of an Operator Free of Cost.

It is emphasised that training of all the personnel on SMS will go a long way in enhancing Safety of the Operations and promotion of Safety Culture in the organisation.

Kindly email to aviationsafetyindia1@gmail.com or call 98711251590,8178431060 whenever you wish to join the training in groups or individuals and we will be prompt in  giving you date and time of training Online.

Knowledge and Awareness are Key to Achieve and Maintain High Standards of Safety.

Many Many Happy Landings

 

Airports, airlines being audited on safety, financial health: DGCA chief

New Delhi: As India’s air transport gradually picks up, the country’s aviation regulator has upped the ante on not just physical but even financial safety aspects of the sector’s stakeholders.

The DGCA has maintained a delicate balance between reintroducing some of the suspended safety norms owing to Covid-19 outbreak and giving some relaxation in terms of administrative paperwork requirements to the sectoral players and crew.

However, the sharpest vigil is being kept on the overall safety aspect of airlines and airports.

In terms of the safety aspect, DGCA Director General Arun Kumar cited that safety audits of all major metro airports have been completed.

“Safety audits of airports at Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai among others have been completed,” Kumar said.

“All airports will be audited in a phase-wise manner. Not just airports but airlines are also being audited,” he said.

“Recently, two major airlines (Air India and SpiceJet) have been audited on various safety aspects. Now, the rest of the airlines will be audited,” he said.

“Despite Covid, audits will continue and no compromise with safety will be allowed.”

Even financial audits are being conducted, revealed Kumar.

“This ensures that no compromise is made with safety issues due to strained financial condition of the airlines,” he said.

Besides, he disclosed that engine replacements on A320neos is nearing completion.

This process will make India one of the first countries in the world where this type of aircraft flies with both new engines, thereby mitigating machinery-related safety risks.

In addition, he disclosed that to ensure faster delivery of services, DGCA’s e-governance initiative – ‘eGCA’ – will be completed by the year-end.

It envisages to bring all the functions and services provided by the DGCA to an e-platform.

The project is being implemented in four phases and is expected to be completed by the end of 2020.

These developments assume significance as India’s civil aviation sector has shown signs of revival in passenger traffic growth as well as registered aircraft in the country.

In July, traffic grew sequentially to 21.07 lakh from 19.84 lakh which was reported for June 2020.

However, traffic remained deep in the red on a year-on-year basis during July as it plunged by more than 82 per cent to 21.07 lakh from 1.19 crore passengers who were ferried during the corresponding period of the previous year.

Trichy Air Incident 2018: Investigation In Limbo As Probe Team At Odds To Fix Liability

The three-member probe team have apparently conflicting views as one member has cited technical glitch as the reason for the air accident while another has blamed pilots for the lapse.

Members of a probe team constituted almost two years ago to investigate the air accident at Trichy International airport on October 12, 2018, are apparently at loggerheads in fixing the responsibility for the incident.

The Air India Express plane, carrying 136 passengers, had a narrow escape when it hit the boundary wall of the Trichy International airport while taking off to Dubai on October 11, 2018.

It landed safely at the Mumbai airport when the ATC intimated the two pilots who were unaware of the brushing off and continued flying for about two hours. The aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) immediately suspended the licence of the two pilots for three years without issuing any show-cause notice.

Sources have confirmed to Outlook that the three-member probe team, constituted soon after the incident, have apparently conflicting views as one member has cited technical glitch as the reason for the air accident while another member has blamed pilots for the lapse.

“It is due to this reason why the AAIB is keeping quiet on the report of an incident that took place almost two years ago. This is not only jeopardising the career of two pilots but it has thrown all air safety norms to the wind,” the source said.

Aurobindo Handa, Director General, (AAIB), didn’t respond to Outlook’s questions sent via email.

One of the pilots, Captain D Ganeshbabu, challenged his suspension in the Madras High Court on May 23, 2019, and pleaded innocence and the court asked the DGCA, AAIB and the Ministry of Civil Aviation to respond.

DGCA, in its repose, told the court that preliminary investigation suggested pilots’ fault and rest was being investigated by the AAIB.  The AAIB and the Ministry of Civil Aviation haven’t filed any reply yet. In the most recent hearing, held on July 1, they sought more time to file affidavits.  

Ganeshbabu told the court that the cause of the incident was a faulty recline seat which collapsed moments before the take-off when the aircraft was at 110 knots (203 km/h) speed. He said that he immediately adjusted his seat. He felt a slight shake on taking off which was not unusual. Neither cabin crew nor any passenger reported any abnormal vibration or noise.

Aviation experts say that it is a case of blatant violations of air safety norms both by AAIB and the aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation.

DGCA’s procedure manual regarding suspension says, “In order to meet the end of natural justice, a Notice of Suspension to the alleged offenders shall be required to be issued, whether or not it is legally binding and obligatory.”

“The charge is required to be mentioned in the Notice and appropriate time should be given to submit his explanation,” it adds.

Ganeshbabu in his petition has alleged that neither he nor his co-pilot, Anurag, were given any such opportunities and both were arbitrarily suspended.

“What will happen to the morale of a pilot if the regulator makes him a scapegoat? What could be a bigger threat of aviation safety than this?” SS Panesar, a veteran pilot and air-safety expert asked.

He added, “I filed several RTIs to find the status of investigation in Trichy case and every time I got a similar reply that the investigation is in progress. The DGCA has refused to share any documents.”

Even AAIB too has compromised with its own rules and international safety norms. Out of three-member probe team – Amit Gupta, Dinesh Kumar Yadav and Captain Gaurav Pathak – Gupta and Yadav belong to DGCA. This formation of a probe team with experts from DGCA violates international air accidents investigation norms and India’s commitment to the International Civil Aviation Organisation that AAIB is independent of DGCA.

“Can a DGCA officer find fault in DGCA’s functioning? The purpose of AAIB is to separate the regulatory functions from the investigation as regulator’s negligence is one of the major causes of air accidents and incidents,” Panesar said.

Before the formation of AAIB on July 30, 2012, the DGCA used to investigate all the air accidents. However, aviation experts protested to separate investigation from DGCA. A committee formed by the government in the 1990s, under the Chairmanship of Air Marshal JK Seth, stated that the DGCA couldn’t be a prosecutor, a jury and a judge in a case against its own.

Further, ICAO’s investigation norms say that the final report of the investigation should be released in the shortest possible time and, if possible, within twelve months of the date of the occurrence.

“If the report cannot be released within twelve months, the State conducting the investigation should release an interim report on each anniversary of the occurrence, detailing the progress of the investigation and any safety issues raised,” ICAO’s Annex 13, that outlines the process of aircraft accident and incident investigation, says.

“Since the probe started in October 2018, AAIB has not even once released any interim report in this case. It is not even apprising the court about the status of the investigation,” said a safety expert requesting anonymity as he is associated with AAIB.

Kerala Plane Crash: Govt Aviation Body Side-lines Its Own 46 Experts To Set up Probe Panel

The 46 experts of Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau are required to carry out the investigation of aircraft accidents. However, the panel investigating the Kerala plane crash has only one member from the AAIB.

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau has ignored its own panel of 46 experts in setting up a 5-member probe team to find out what led to crash of Air India Express aircraft at Kozhikode International Airport on August 7.

A Boeing 737 aircraft, carrying 191 passengers, skidded off a tabletop runway, fell into a gorge and split into two earliet this month. Twenty passengers, including the two pilots, lost their lives.

Five days later, on August 13, Group Captain Aurobindo Handa, Director General Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), issued an order for setting up a five-member panel with an investigator-in-charge to probe the accident.  

The five member panel is headed by Captain SS Chahar, a former examiner of Boeing 737 NG with SpiceJet. His team members include Ved Prakash (Operations Experts), Mukul Bhardwaj (Senior Aircraft Maintenance Engineer of B737), Group Captain YS Dahiya (Aviation Medicine Expert) and Jasbir Singh Larhga (Deputy Director AAIB).

The AAIB has a regular workforce of seven safety personnel and an independent panel of 23 pilots and cockpit crew, 12 engineers, four aviation operation experts, two experts each for aviation psychology and aerodrome and one expert each as In-Flight Safety personnel and air safety investigator.

Empanelled in October 2018, these 46 experts, according to the AAIB’s circular of June 9, 2016, “are required to carry out the investigation of Aircraft Accidents and serious incidents as member of Committee of Inquiry (COI) whenever called upon to do so by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.”

Except one regular member Jasbir Singh Larhga, Deputy Director, AAIB, the rest four of the current probe team come from outside. A complaint against Larhga about allegedly tampering with the pieces of evidence of Ghatkoper Air crash has already been pending before the aviation ministry.  

In the fifth meeting of the Asia Pacific Accident Investigation Group, under the aegis of ICAO in August 2017, the Indian representative had said that the country has “established Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India independent of the DGCA.”

The government informed the same Group in October 2012 in its second meeting that it formed an AAIB on July 30, 2012, and “training on the aircraft accident investigation techniques and management has been organized for the benefit of the officials of AAIB and industry under an MoU signed with BEA France.”

“In the past eight years, we haven’t been able to enrich AAIB with adequate and competent manpower. This is a mockery of aircraft accident investigation in India. It looks like the country doesn’t have a single competent investigator to investigate the Calicut crash,” a safety expert empanelled with AAIB said requesting anonymity.

He said the panel of the experts was just an “eye-wash”.

Before the formation of AAIB on July 30, 2012, the DGCA used to investigate all the air accidents. However, aviation experts protested to separate investigation from DGCA.

A committee formed by the government in the 1990s, under the Chairmanship of Air Marshal JK Seth, stated that the DGCA couldn’t be a prosecutor, a jury and a judge in a case against its own.

International air safety norm also, to which India is a signatory, mandates the separation of investigation and regulation.

Though several aviation experts describe Captain Chahar as “a man of integrity”, questions are being raised over his inclusion in the probe panel since he lacks the necessary experience for aircraft accident investigation.

Outlook had earlier reported that AAIB’s circular dated June 7, 2016, available on the website of the Union Aviation Ministry, states that an air safety investigator should have minimum 25 years of experience in an air safety investigation; should have been a member of the transport aircraft accident investigations, and should have undergone courses in aircraft accident investigations. However, Captain Chahar doesn’t have any of these qualifications.

Group Captain Handa has not responded to questions mailed to him.

Free SMS Training By Aviation Safety Management Society of India for all the Stakeholders in Aviation

Free SMS Training By Aviation Safety Management Society of India for all the Stakeholders in Aviation

Greetings from Aviation Safety Management Society of India (ASMSI).

Aviation Safety Management Society of India (ASMSI) is an all India Registered “Not for Profit” Society, dedicated to the promotion of Aviation and Aviation Safety in the country, through spread of knowledge and awareness.

ASMSI is fortunate to have large number of highly accomplished and reputed Aviation Professionals (Former Secretary/Additional Secretary, Members of Parliament, Air Marshals, Generals, Admirals, President ICAO (ANS) Senior  Officials from DGCA, AAI, Industrialist,Doctors,Pilots,Engineers,Air Craft ,Helicopter Operators and MRO,s etc.), both from Civil and Military Aviation, as its Esteemed Members and associates. These professionals are working with zeal to share their knowledge and expertise, selflessly, in the field of Aviation, for the benefit of all the stakeholders in Aviation.

Since it is learnt that the implementation of SMS by the Operators has been found to be lacking, ASMSI has taken a conscious decision to work towards effective implementation of Safety Management System.

It is well known that Safety Management System is a very effective and proven management system to identify hazards in a proactive manner and to ensure that hazards do not turn into accidents, incidents, through timely elimination of hazards.

SMS was introduced in India for the first time on 20 Jul 10 by DGCA through the issue of a CAR. Since then DGCA has been making concerted efforts to ensure that the SMS is implemented in letter and spirit. However, in some recent audits by DGCA, it was observed that the implementation of SMS is lacking on many fronts and obviously it is not being taken seriously by most of the Operators. The lack of effective implementation of SMS was also highlighted by the Honorable Minister of Civil Aviation during his briefing to the lawmakers in Parliament.

The Scope of SMS includes all the personnel of the Operator, right from the CEO downwards to lowest level, including employees from Finance, HR, Admin and Marketing etc., since they also have a role to play in maintaining safe Operation and maintenance environments in the Company. Hence, it is essential that every employee of the Company should be sensitized to the concept of Safety Management System, depending on their role and responsibilities.

Most of the Operators get only those employees i.e. Pilots, Cabin Crew, Accountable Executives/Managers, Chief, Deputy Chief of Flight Safety and Safety Manager etc. trained which are required to be trained as mandated by DGCA. In the absence of SMS training, the other employees of the Company, obviously, remain ignorant about the SMS. Even the employees who have been trained do not take SMS seriously, possibly, due to lack of supervision, monitoring and involvement of the Management.

The Management of the Aviation organisations should appreciate that SMS is a very useful system to promote safety, efficiency of their Operations and prevention of accidents. It needs to be remembered that Accidents are bad for business, reputation and can impact very heavily on the finances and survivability of a Company.

Keeping in mind the importance of SMS towards better  safety  standards and the reluctance of the Operators to get the SMS training done for all their personnel due to financial considerations/constraints, ASMSI has taken the initiative to offer the services of its SMS experts to conduct Online  SMS training of all the personnel of a Company, free of cost.

We have requested all the Operators to make use of the opportunity of the offer of ASMSI to get all their personnel trained on SMS, without incurring any expenditure. Training of all the personnel on SMS will go a long way in enhancing safety of the operations and promoting Safety Culture in the organisation.

We are aware of the fact that most of the Officials from DGCA are quite learned and expert in their field of Work/Operations. Hence, the professionals from ASMSI would be keen to interact with the Officials from DGCA to learn from their vast knowledge and field experience, to enable them to share the knowledge gained through such interaction, with the other stakeholders in Aviation.

ASMSI takes great pleasure in extending an open invitation to Officials from DGCA to join SMS training sessions Online as and when they can spare some time from their busy schedule, to refresh their knowledge about Safety Management System and provide guidance to us in enhancing quality of training and safety standards.

Kindly email to aviationsafetyindia@gmail.com whenever you wish to join the training in groups or individuals and we will be prompt in  giving you date and time of training Online.

Our Mission is to assist DGCA in effective implementation of Safety Management System among all the Stakeholders, to create safe flying environments in the country.  We are quite hopeful of receiving the guidance, support and cooperation from the learned Aviation Professionals from DGCA.

Knowledge and Awareness are Key to Achieve and Maintain High Standards of Safety.

Many Many Happy Landings