Indian aviation scores low in safety globally, falls short on 5 key counts

On effectiveness of implementing the ICAO standards, India's performance is lower than even Bangladesh

Concerns over how safe it is to take a flight in India have arisen again after the incident last week when the crew of a Jet Airways aircraft failed to maintain cabin pressure.

Despite the Ministry of Civil Aviation immediately initiating an audit of all airlines, the government’s performance on oversight of safety rules has come under scrutiny.

The regulator’s performance has been lacklustre, according to an audit by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) as part of its global Universal Safety Audit Program, 2017.

The audit looks at safety oversight to implement ICAO standards, based on eight parameters.

India does not meet the global average score of “effective implementation” on five of these: Legislation, organisation, licensing, accident investigation, and aerodromes (see chart).

On effectiveness of implementing the ICAO standards, India’s performance is lower than that of even Bangladesh. The neighbouring country has performed better than the global average on seven parameters.

Among other countries performing better than India are Indonesia (all parameters) and Malaysia (in five). Brazil has done not only better than India, but better than even the global average.

Indian airlines have also not performed well in various other analyses.

For instance, the ratings given by Airlineratings.com. It gives scores of one to seven — the highest being the best. Most Indian airlines have scored between three (SpiceJet, AirAsia) and five (IndiGo, Jet and GoAir). Air India has got six.

Globally, however, 160 airlines have scored seven.

Various factors taken into consideration before ranking are whether or not the airline has an operational safety audit from the International Air Transport Association, if the airline is allowed to fly to the European Union, if it has a fatality-free record over the past 10 years, whether or not it is endorsed by the Federal Aviation Administration, and whether or not it meets the ICAO standards.

Questions sent to SpiceJet and AirAsia on this did not elicit any response.

Global safety ranking firm Jet Airlines Crash Data Evaluation Centre (JAC-DEC) has a sobering evaluation of India’s safety record.

Jan-Arwed Richter, founder and general manager of JAC-DEC in Hamburg, said, “Air travel in India has become far safer than it was two-three decades back. But, we have recorded a rising number of ‘serious incidents’, when an accident has been narrowly averted.”

He said the reason for this was the rising quantum of air travel in India. Among top 100 airlines on the safety list for 2018, there are three airlines from India: IndiGo, Air India, and Jet Airways.

This list is prepared based on 33 parametres, including how long the airline has been free of accidents, if it has a young fleet, has passed all local and international safety assessments, and has been uninvolved in any operational risks.

A K Chopra, former joint director general of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), said, “The reason for the frequent safety violations are poor oversight by operators and the regulator.”

He said regulations require airline safety departments to analyse flight data of each flight to check whether safety parameters were met. This helps ascertain if standard operating procedures were followed and corrective action could be taken to prevent accidents. While the reports are shared with the DGCA, their monitoring is not strict and action is often only on paper. Aviation regulators said corrective actions are rare. The DGCA usually suspends the crew after an incident; safety departments are not held accountable nor questioned.

Airlines pass the buck to the regulators. A senior executive of a leading airline said: “We follow all the safety parameters. Our reputation and business are at stake. But, the DGCA is led by civil servants, and not technical people. They have no expertise in handling safety issues. This is the crux of the problem.”

Chopra said the training of DGCA staff was not sufficient. “This is reflected by the fact that it has hired retired air force pilots as inspectors, who are proficient in flying aircraft, but are not always well-versed in civil aviation regulations.”

The FAA had also made the same point a few years back, during an audit, after which it had downgraded the Indian aviation sector.Thanks to the boom in the aviation sector, there are new challenges: huge demand for staff, especially trained pilots; and the need for infrastructure upgrade at airports.

Amit Singh, safety expert and former head of training, IndiGo, said the DGCA had recognised fatigue management while framing rules for pilots’ duty hours.

“But, policies are not implemented in the true spirit. For instance, airline staff are not adequately trained on how to identify and manage fatigue,” he added.

The issue of overworked pilots came into the fore when a PIL was filed this year by activist Yeshwanth Shenoy in the Delhi High Court questioning that the DGCA on allowing variations in pilots’ duty time rules to “suit the commercial interest of airlines”. While the original rule did not allow the same pilot to be on midnight duty on two consecutive dates, the DGCA relaxed the rule for those working outstation or on international flights.

The court struck down the relaxation, allowing for an extension of duty hours only in case of exceptional circumstances such as inclement weather, runway closure etc.

The DGCA has tried to explain why its score in the ICAO safety audit had fallen from 65.82 per cent to 55.74 per cent.

It said ICAO suggested a need for an independent regulatory oversight on Airports Authority of India and traffic controllers. The ministry is now working on a plan which will allow the DGCA to oversee air-traffic controller officials.

DGCA officials point out that without this issue, India’s score would have been 71.3 per cent.

The ICAO report also points out that over 130 countries audited till May-end had an effective implementation percentage of 60 per cent or more. This includes Nepal, Sri Lanka, Botswana, Fiji and Kenya, among others but does not include India.