Context

• The preliminary report of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on the Air India Boeing 787 crash in Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, released on July 12, highlights significant uncertainties regarding pilot actions.
• However, the real issue extends beyond individual culpability to a systemic lack of trust in India’s aviation ecosystem.
• This distrust stems from a recurring pattern where aviation personnel face disproportionate penalties while regulators, airlines, and oversight bodies escape equivalent scrutiny.

India’s Aviation Framework: A Fractured Aviation Ecosystem

• India’s aviation framework involves a complex interplay of components: aircraft design, airworthiness, maintenance, and the professionals operating these systems, including engineers, pilots, and cabin crew.
• These operational aspects are managed by airlines, while the Airports Authority of India (AAI) oversees airport infrastructure and air traffic control.
• The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) regulates airlines, airport operators, and the AAI, under the supervisory oversight of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA).
• Despite these layered responsibilities, aviation accidents seldom arise from a single failure.
• Instead, as per the Swiss cheese model, they occur when multiple systemic gaps align, allowing a critical lapse to escalate into a disaster.

Judicial Interventions and Regulatory Loopholes in India’s Aviation Sector

• Judicial Interventions and Safety Advocacy
  • Judicial interventions have occasionally proven lifesaving, as evidenced in the 2018 Ghatkopar crash in Mumbai, where earlier court-ordered restrictions on construction near airports prevented potentially greater casualties.
  • Mumbai’s airspace exemplifies the hazards of regulatory neglect, with over 5,000 vertical obstructions within a four-kilometre radius, a clear violation of the Inner Horizontal Surface (IHS) safety criteria.
  • Despite ongoing PILs, the number of obstacles near critical air routes has soared, reflecting the opacity and possible misrepresentation by the DGCA, AAI, airport operators, and MoCA.
  • This illustrates a judiciary forced to compensate for administrative failures, yet often constrained by its reliance on state-provided technical expertise.
• Regulatory Loopholes and Dangerous Precedents
  • The deterioration of safety standards can be traced back to policy changes.
  • Until 2008, airspace around airports was tightly regulated under the Aircraft Act and Statutory Order 988 of 1988, which prohibited hazardous constructions.
  • However, the creation of a non-statutory committee in 2008 diluted these safeguards, approving illegal building heights through flawed aeronautical studies.
  • By 2015, obstacles not only posed physical risks to aircraft but also interfered with radar and communication systems.
  • Instead of tightening controls, the 2015 Rules granted statutory recognition to the very committee responsible for height violations.
  • The MoCA’s amendment to limit the no-objection certificate (NOC) validity to 12 years, without outlining measures for demolishing illegal floors, epitomizes bureaucratic evasion of responsibility.
  • Similar violations now plague greenfield projects like Navi Mumbai and Noida airports, where operational runways are compromised due to surrounding obstructions.

Systemic Failures Across Key Areas

• Aircraft Design and Airworthiness: The DGCA’s limited technical expertise forces excessive reliance on foreign regulators, as highlighted during the 2017–18 Pratt & Whitney engine failures affecting IndiGo.
• Maintenance Standards
  • Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AMEs) face extreme workloads without duty-time limitations.
  • Airlines are permitted to delegate AME responsibilities to underqualified, lower-paid technicians, prioritising cost-cutting over safety.
• Flight Crew Fatigue
  • Airlines routinely breach Flight Time Duty Limitations for pilots, with DGCA exemptions allowing fatigued crews to operate.
  • The unique NOC requirement for pilots restricts their career mobility, increasing psychological stress and regulatory coercion.
• Cabin Crew Neglect: The reduction of cabin crew roles to hospitality functions ignores their vital role in passenger safety.
• Air Traffic Management: The AAI grapples with a severe shortage of Air Traffic Controller Officers (ATCOs), a crisis worsened by the non-implementation of licensing provisions and duty-time limitations recommended after past crashes.
• Suppression of Whistle-Blowers: Retaliation against safety whistle-blowers fosters a culture of silence, allowing violations to persist unchecked.

The Judiciary’s Role and the Value of Human Life

• The judiciary, often hailed as India’s constitutional safeguard, has been relatively passive in aviation safety matters.
• Courts tend to defer to the technical expertise of state agencies, despite evidence of systemic negligence.
• A shift is needed in how human life is valued; compensation for railway and road accidents often amounts to mere lakhs of rupees, enabling stakeholders to rationalise safety investments as financially unnecessary.
• A revaluation of human life and its intrinsic worth is critical to motivating systemic safety

Conclusion

• The Air India crash in Ahmedabad is a stark reminder that systemic failure in aviation is not a distant threat but an immediate reality.
• Without a comprehensive reform encompassing regulatory accountability, mental health support for crew, and strict adherence to safety standards, the next disaster is inevitable.
• The judiciary, government, and airlines must work in unison to develop a genuine safety culture, one that places lives above profit margins and bureaucratic convenience.
• Reform cannot wait; every delay risks another tragedy.