Air India planes are parked at Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi
| Photo Credit: AP

The story thus far: Air India has called as excessive the Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s (DGCA) choice to suspend the licence of one of its pilots for a interval of three months following the November 26 incident on a New York-Delhi flight the place a woman passenger complained {that a} co-traveller had urinated over her. The incident went with out being reported to the DGCA or the accused being handed over to the police. Six airline staff’ unions have additionally demanded a withdrawal of this ‘harsh’ punishment.

What is the penalty imposed by the DGCA?

On January 20, the DGCA introduced a complete of three punishments for Air India and two of its personnel for an incident on November 26, 2022 on a New York -Delhi flight the place 34-year-old Shankar Mishra, who’s in judicial custody, allegedly urinated over a senior citizen woman passenger in a closely inebriated state however walked away because the airline failed handy him over to the police after the flight landed. It introduced a high-quality of ₹30 lakh on Air India, suspension of the licence of the pilot-in-command Captain Narayan Ramprasad for 3 months, and a high-quality of ₹3 lakh on the director of in-flight companies of Air India for failing to discharge her duties.

The incident raised questions not solely a couple of misdemeanour towards a woman passenger which may quantity to a possible sexual assault going unreported, but in addition the airline’s protocols in coping with an incident that may endanger the protection of an plane.

What guidelines type the DGCA’s choice?

The DGCA has cited two necessary guidelines to elucidate its motion, of which the primary pertains to Civil Aviation Requirement, (Section 3- Air Transport Series M Part VI) which offers with dealing with of unruly passengers. The guidelines recognise that an unruly passenger can jeopardise the protection of a flight and lay down the duties of an airline in coaching its crew and growing SOPs to make sure well timed identification of potential unruly passengers at check-in, within the lounges, on the boarding gate or another place within the terminal constructing. It requires an airline consultant to file an FIR as soon as the plane lands with the involved safety company at aerodrome, to whom, the unruly passenger shall be handed over. The airline can be anticipated to type an inner committee to probe the incident. The second rule is Rule 141 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 which defines the accountability of a pilot-in-command (PIC) who has to “supervise and direct the other members of the crew in the proper discharge of their duties in the flight operations”. In addition to being liable for the operation and security of the plane throughout flight time, the PIC can be “responsible for the safety of the passengers and cargo carried and for the maintenance of flight discipline and safety of the members of the crew.”

Why have Air India and worker unions raised objections?

In a public assertion on January 24, Air India whereas calling the DGCA’s punishment for its PIC “excessive” and asserting that it will likely be offering him help to attraction towards the choice, defined that it believed its pilot and cabin crew had acted in “good faith” and couldn’t have recognized the accused passenger, as unruly since he was “calm, co-operative and did not appear intoxicated to the crew” and that “in the judgment of the crew, the alleged perpetrator posed no risk to flight safety at any time”. It additionally added that there had been a mutual settlement between the accused and the girl passenger who levelled allegations towards him, and there have been no eyewitnesses to the incident, and to ask the crew to make a presumption of the accused’s guilt could be “contrary to natural justice”.

The unions requested the DGCA in a joint letter to “withdraw the harsh punishment and suspension” of the PIC as he filed all studies “instantly upon landing” however the Air India administration and senior officers did not act upon them and report the matter to the DGCA throughout the 12-hour window. They have additionally raised questions on Air India’s inner committee report on the incident and known as it filled with “inadequacies and inaccuracies” that additionally failed to offer the pilots and cabin crew a chance to seem earlier than it, due to this fact, leading to a “miscarriage of justice”.

But a senior authorities official carefully concerned with the matter mentioned, “the pilot and crew can’t act like the judge and the jury. They have to believe the lady passenger and file a complaint and let the police do its job.”

Is the punishment harsh?

Such a punishment just isn’t thought of uncommon in any respect. In 2022, in keeping with DGCA knowledge, there have been a complete 115 enforcement actions towards pilots which included warnings in 37 instances, suspensions in 77 instances and withdrawal of licence in a single case. A complete of 113 cabin crew and 7 ATCOs (air visitors management officers) additionally confronted suspensions. The floor for such enforcement motion towards a pilot can fluctuate from reporting for responsibility inebriated, or flying by turbulence regardless of being cautioned or flying a aircraft regardless of information of a technical glitch and jeopardising the protection of the passengers. “If the DGCA issued a showcause notice to the pilot and found his response inadequate, then the action is justified as the PIC is in-charge of the safety of the aircraft. But we may argue about the quantum of punishment handed out, as the rules don’t define that and the DGCA can arbitrarily decide on that,” mentioned aviation security skilled Mohan Ranganthan. A 3-month suspension may set a pilot again by practically ₹20 lakh-₹24 lakh, whereas the airline itself has a ₹30 lakh high-quality.