Plane truth: 2 structures, no runway

While the ICAO Convention has recommended the maximum height of a control tower to be 24 feet, the one constructed at Mumbai airport stands at 187 feet, a whopping 163 feet more than the acceptable standards. The technical building also violates the ICAO-set limit by 62 feet, for although the permissible height is 24 feet, the technical building stands 86 feet tall.

The alternative runway was closed following a report of a high-level committee appointed by the Government of India on December 12, 1996, to examinethe new control tower and technical building at Mumbai airport, which concluded that the structures have posed “serious and unacceptable” hazards to flight safety. The four-member committee was headed by Air Marshal J K Seth (retd).

The report also raised doubts over flight operations on the main runway, but ruled that on practical consideration, the collision hazards posed by the new structures were “acceptable.” Now all flight operations are handled only by a single runway, which is closed for maintenance for almost four hours every week.

The committee had recommended immediate demolition and relocation of the buildings which were constructed at a cost of over Rs 450 crore, and had also suggested that the control tower could be rebuilt on a portion of the existing car park near the international passenger terminal, which enabled better visibility of the entire airport area. It had also suggested the open space between the Indian Oil installations and the AAI staff quarters as a suitable site for thepurpose.

Referring to the demolition of the top storey of Leela Kempinski hotel near the airport as it violated the maximum permissible height, the report pointed out, “We cannot help but remark that in case of the control tower, the officers responsible for ensuring obstruction-free airspace in and around the aerodrome seem to have acted as if height restrictions had to be applied strictly to buildings of other parties, while the Airport Authority’s own buildings had some immunity in this regard.”

“The bureaucrats at the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Airports Authority of India (AAI), while trying to save their own skins, have endangered the lives of millions,” said Capt M R Wadia, a member of the high-level committee and president of the Federation of Indian Pilots, a body of professionals engaged in enhancing aviation safety in India.

“Even the world famous Changi airport at Singapore has its control tower in the middle of the car park. Why can’t we relocate the tower heretoo? In fact, the ICAO Convention does not allow any building, not even a control tower near the runway,” he asked.

“Instead of taking corrective measures to relocate the two structures, the AAI and DGCA have chosen to close the only alternative runway at India’s busiest airport,” Capt Wadia added. He explained that the alternative runway was smaller, used sparingly only for smaller aircraft and in cases when the wind was not conducive for landings on the main runway. “However, we no longer have its advantage as it has been closed to make way for the control tower,” Capt Wadia pointed out.

No AAI official was available for comment, despite repeated efforts.

According to international traffic statistics, Mumbai airport handled 2,741 aircraft, almost 4.35 lakh passengers and about 19,000 tonnes of cargo in May 1997, followed by Delhi airport, which handled 2,361 aircraft, about 2.70 lakh passengers and 14,000 tonnes of cargo. In the domestic sector, Mumbai airport handled 5,794 aircraft, about 5.78lakh passengers and 4,649 tonnes of cargo, followed again by Delhi airport which handled 4,055 aircraft, 4.90 lakh passengers and 3,920 tonnes of cargo.