The jury is still out on what caused the London-bound Air India Boeing 787-8 to go down seconds after take-off from Ahmedabad airport, snuffing out 260 lives on June 12. But, the devastating crash has eroded consumer confidence in the aviation industry and raised serious questions about the safety of the Dreamliners manufactured by Boeing, the quality of servicing and maintenance of the aircraft by Tata Sons-owned Air India, and the adequacy of the safety standards and protocols put in place and enforced by the regulator, Directorate General of Civil Aviation.

Let’s look at Air India, which raised so many hopes of improved services and safety when it was taken over by Tata Sons in 2022. From the stern warning issued by the regulator some days after the air crash, it is obvious that the airline was blatantly disregarding several aspects of flight safety and was guilty of unauthorised and non-compliant crew pairing and violations of crew rest rules. The transgressions were so serious as to force the regulator to ask for the suspension of three officials of the airline. Considering that inexperience, sleeplessness, fatigue and stress among pilots can undermine flight safety, the violations are truly shocking.

But this is not the first time that the airline has cocked a snook at the regulator. In July last year, Air India was found guilty of flawed pilot pairing on a flight from Mumbai to Riyadh. It got away with a penalty of Rs 90 lakh. According to a Reuters report, days before the air crash, the DGCA had issued a notice to the airline about flying three Airbus planes without completing the mandatory emergency equipment inspections that were overdue.

In January 2024, the airline was found guilty of overlooking passenger safety in respect of emergency oxygen supply, forcing the regulator to impose a penalty of Rs 1.1 crore for its operation of leased Boeing 777 jets to the United States.

Ironically, this regulatory action was not the result of any checks by the DGCA, but a direction from the Bombay High Court, in response to a petition filed by a pilot pointing out that the leased (from Delta Airline) Boeing 777 jets had only 12 minutes of emergency oxygen. Therefore, flying those planes over high mountainous terrains would put the life of the passengers in danger in case of cabin decompression requiring oxygen supply.

The fact that a pilot had to go to court on such an extremely important safety issue shows not just the airline, but also the DGCA in extremely poor light. In fact, it raises questions on the integrity of the regulator.

After the accident, the DGCA has started comprehensive safety audits of airlines and airports and has found flagrant violations. Did so many persons have to die for the regulator to wake up to breaches in the law? It is obvious that slack enforcement has emboldened the operators to defy the law.

Let us now come to Boeing, which has in recent years earned notoriety for its propensity to cut corners and overlook safety in the manufacturing process. As a result of the flawed automated flight control system, 346 persons lost their lives in two accidents involving Boeing 737 Max in 2018 and 2019, but its reputation reached a new low in January last year. A mid-cabin door plug, used to replace an unused emergency exit, got detached from the fuselage of a new 737 Max 9 and flew off, even as the plane was climbing out of Portland.

Dreamliners, too, have had their share of serious safety issues in the past, but what is most disconcerting today is the large number of flights that have reported some snag or the other during take-off or mid-flight and have turned back to the base airport. The website ‘AeroInside’, for example, has listed about seven such incidents pertaining to 787-8 alone this year.

On June 16, a Delhi-bound Air India flight from Hong Kong turned back following an engine fuel filter problem. A day before that, a British Airways flight from London to Chennai returned to base after it encountered some problem with the flaps. On April 23, a Colombian Avianca flight from Madrid to Medellin reported an engine problem while climbing out of the airport. On April 19, American Airlines flying out of Buenos Aires to Miami returned after noticing smell of smoke in the cabin; on March 28, an American Airlines Paris-bound flight made an emergency landing, after reporting failure of the landing gear to retract.

On January 24, a United Airlines flight from Lagos to Washington experienced a sudden loss of altitude, causing serious injuries to over 38 persons on board, before it made an emergency landing. Again, on January 7, an American Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Philadelphia had to return about 90 minutes after take-off, on account of a flap problem.

All of them may not be manufacturing issues and may have to do with poor servicing, but the testimonies of whistleblowers about the use of non-conforming parts on Dreamliners, and its repercussions as they age, certainly raise concerns. There are also recent issues about water leakages in Dreamliners affecting critical electronics, posing a serious safety threat.

 The AI air crash is indicative of a crisis in the aviation sector, calling for urgent upgradation and enforcement of safety standards in a transparent manner. The first step towards this end is to strengthen the regulatory framework in such a way that ensuring passenger safety truly becomes the raison d’etre of the regulator.