The Bombay High Court last week directed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to look into concerns surrounding the safety mechanism in Air India’s leased Boeing 777-200LR aircraft, which service long-distance routes between the US and India. The court asked the aviation regulator to consider whether the aircraft, which has a 12-minute supply of stored oxygen, can descend to an altitude of 10,000 feet within 12 minutes, and land safely at the planned alternative airport in case of decompression. How did the case reach the Bombay High Court? The petitioner, a 55-year-old pilot from Mumbai who served as a Boeing 777 commander, refused to operate a specific flight between San Francisco and Bengaluru on January 30, 2023 till a legally viable and safe route was provided to him. He was subsequently grounded by the airline, and terminated in May 2023. He approached DGCA in October that year with a complaint raising concerns over lack of safety of the Air India-operated aircraft, and has also challenged his termination. On January 24, the DGCA imoposed Rs 1.1 crore fine on Air India for prima facie non-compliance of regulations. The appellate authority on May 24 upheld the order. Thereafter, the petitioner pilot approached the Bombay High Court challenging these decisions. He argued that the impugned orders were passed without hearing him, and mere imposition of fine on the airline was insufficient to remedy the situation of public importance. He said that despite the DGCA orders, the said aircraft are still used on ultra long-haul distance paths between US and India. He sought the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the matter be decided afresh with a reasoned order. What were the petitioner’s concerns regarding the aircraft’s safety mechanisms? The pilot claimed that the said five aircraft acquired by Air India from Delta Airlines in November 2022 did not have adequate oxygen supply for long distance paths passing over mountainous terrains between US and India, especially for the Mumbai/Bangalore/Delhi to San Francisco routes. He claimed that as per the Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM) and Flight Planning and Performance Manual (FPPM) limitations and state regulations, it is necessary to have sufficient quantity of chemically generated stored breathing oxygen (more than 12 minutes) for all crew members and passengers He said that the aircraft are in clear violation of DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) and safety regulations, and cannot be operated unless sufficient quantity of stored oxygen is made available. The stored breathing oxygen is supplied from the masks which fall down automatically from above the seats in case of drop in pressure throughout the cabin. The announcement to the passengers for the use of oxygen masks are mandatorily done before every take off. He submitted that the route segments pass over mountain ranges and in case of drop in pressure inside of an aircraft, operation of such flights would endanger the lives of passengers and crew members. The petitioner argued that in case of depressurisation, it is not possible to descend to an altitude of 10,000 feet (where the atmosphere has enough oxygen) within 12 minutes due to vast stretches of mountainous terrains, and the insufficiency was in violation of regulatory norms and detrimental to the passengers’ safety. Air India, while opposing the plea, submitted that it had met every norm applicable for passenger safety in this regard. The DGCA and airline also said that the plea was not maintainable as the Bombay HC did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter since the DGCA was headquartered in Delhi. What did the HC observe and hold? A Bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan heard the matter at length and observed that the impugned orders did not articulate the issues involved, therefore it was inclined to refer the matter to DGCA’s full consideration It observed that the matter was “not a bilateral dispute between the parties” but instead comprised “issues of a wider social impact involving flight safety and passenger safety.” The judges said that they were not experts in the field, and as the parties had consented to refer the matter to the aviation safety regulator to consider all facets, it was appropriate for DGCA to consider the issue without getting influenced by the court’s views. The Bench asked the aviation safety regulator to hear the petitioner pilot and the airline, and consider all relevant material to decide whether the aircraft are compliant with requisite regulations, and issue directions for remedial measures, if required.
