Airport expansion violated runway width and other global norms: NGO.
The Mangalore International Airport — the scene of one of India's most ghastly air disasters on Saturday morning — has long been an environmentalist's nightmare with numerous public interest litigations (PILs) since 1997 against the controversial expansion work on the airport.
The expansion plan for the second runway proposed in the mid-1990s was pilloried by environmentalists, minority groups and human rights activists for not conforming to international design standards.
An Air India Express flight arriving from Dubai with 166 on board crashed at the Mangalore International Airport on Saturday. The plane overshot the runway while landing and fell over a cliff, resulting in a disastrous explosion.
Arthur Pereira, trustee of Vimana Nildana Vistharana Virodhi Samithi (Local Communities Alliance Against Airport Expansion) based at Bajpe near Mangalore, said the accident involving the Boeing 737-800 aircraft was the result of failure on the part of aviation officials at the highest level.
“The second runway was built in negligence of applicable norms and standards. In 1995, when the expansion plan was being discussed, I had asked the Mangalore airport authorities for a copy of the techno-economic feasibility study undertaken for the project. They said they did not have one. In spite of that, the runway expansion project was allowed to go ahead.”
Echoing Pereira’s views a press release from an NGO, Environment Support Group said, “This was no accident, but the direct result of the deliberate failure of officials at the highest levels in the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Airports Authority of India (AAI), civil aviation ministry and the the Karnataka government for allowing this second runway to be built in criminal negligence of applicable norms and standards.”
The NGO has claimed that the site chosen for expansion at Bajpe was surrounded by deep valleys on three sides and did not provide for emergency landing areas, as required.
“The airport authorities now tell us that this is the first accident in over 3,500 safe landings. It is inexplicable how such excuses can be bandied about after the authorities have violated runway construction norms from the very beginnning,” Pereira added.
According to the rules, during emergency, particularly landings and takeoffs, the airport should have emergency approach roads within a kilometre on all sides. The expansion project did not account for emergency entry and exit routes.
Several groups who had filed petitions against the second runway’s expansion were also concerned that the width of the strip violated prescribed standards. “The prescribed end-to-end width of the runway should be 300 metres. In Mangalore, it did not exceed 200 metres,” Pereira added.
However, petitions in the Karnataka High Court in 1997 and 2002 and subsequently, in the Supreme Court were dismissed following Airports Authority of India claims that no infringement of any of the ICAO recommendation had taken place.
