The near-collision between an Air India passenger aircraft and an IAF helicopter in President Pratibha Paril's entourage at the Mumbai airport has highlighted the perilous state of air safety in India. But for the AI pilot's alertness and presence of mind, a major accident would have taken place, endangering the lives of a number of people. Such narrow escapes from accidents have become all too common in Indian aviation. While the Mumbai incident happened recently, the next two days saw similar scares elsewhere. Another IAF plane and an AI Airbus came close to a mid-air collision in Assam and there was a scare involving two private airlines planes carrying passengers in Kolkata later on. The increase in brushes with air mishaps in the past few years reflects poorly on the aviation safety system and procedures in the countty.
The phenomenal increases in air traffic, number offlights and aircraft may be the reasons for the frequent occurrence of close shaves with danger but they expose the inadequacy of the support mechanisms at the airports. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is poorly staffed and therefore overworked. Air safety is cruciall y dependent on the skills and alertness of the ground staff and pilots and coordination between the two. In the Mumbai incident there was no such coordination. The IAF pilot landed earlier on the runway than when he was expected to.
The usual blame game is on with the IAF asserting that its pilot followed ground instructions and both the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the IAF ordering separate enquiries. The routine suspensions have also taken place. The enquiries should pinpoint the responsibility for the incident and the DGCA should take corrective action that goes even beyond the Mumbai incident. Often such enquiries lead nowhere and the findings are not acted upon.
The statements by IAF officials and DGCA after the incidents have given an impression of discord between the two organisations. It is obvious that steps taken to iron out their differences have not yielded resul ts. Immediate steps need to be taken to ensure smooth functioning of these two bodies. The aviation sector is growing and the DGCA is right in seeking help from the International Civil Aviation Organisation to set up national projects to monitor flight safety, airports and air navigation. The govt must [alee short-term measures like actingon the enquiry reports' findings and ensure that such incidents are not repeated.
The ground infrastructure and facilities at the airports that support flights are also inadequate. There are international norms of air safety and accepted practices and these should be implemented without fail. Availability of the best devices and systems and strict adherence to the best practices will minimise the scope for human error on the part of the ground staff and pilots. Investment for this purpose, however high, should be the immediate priority because passenger safety has to be the most importan t consideration of the aviation industry. The industry, which, in spite of the recent slowdown, has immense prospects in the country, will be adversely affected if public confidence in it is shaken.
The phenomenal increases in air traffic, number offlights and aircraft may be the reasons for the frequent occurrence of close shaves with danger but they expose the inadequacy of the support mechanisms at the airports. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is poorly staffed and therefore overworked. Air safety is cruciall y dependent on the skills and alertness of the ground staff and pilots and coordination between the two. In the Mumbai incident there was no such coordination. The IAF pilot landed earlier on the runway than when he was expected to.
The usual blame game is on with the IAF asserting that its pilot followed ground instructions and both the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the IAF ordering separate enquiries. The routine suspensions have also taken place. The enquiries should pinpoint the responsibility for the incident and the DGCA should take corrective action that goes even beyond the Mumbai incident. Often such enquiries lead nowhere and the findings are not acted upon.
The statements by IAF officials and DGCA after the incidents have given an impression of discord between the two organisations. It is obvious that steps taken to iron out their differences have not yielded resul ts. Immediate steps need to be taken to ensure smooth functioning of these two bodies. The aviation sector is growing and the DGCA is right in seeking help from the International Civil Aviation Organisation to set up national projects to monitor flight safety, airports and air navigation. The govt must [alee short-term measures like actingon the enquiry reports' findings and ensure that such incidents are not repeated.
The ground infrastructure and facilities at the airports that support flights are also inadequate. There are international norms of air safety and accepted practices and these should be implemented without fail. Availability of the best devices and systems and strict adherence to the best practices will minimise the scope for human error on the part of the ground staff and pilots. Investment for this purpose, however high, should be the immediate priority because passenger safety has to be the most importan t consideration of the aviation industry. The industry, which, in spite of the recent slowdown, has immense prospects in the country, will be adversely affected if public confidence in it is shaken.
0 comments:
Post a Comment