The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that non-implementation of the Director General of Civil Aviation’s (DGCA) Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms, including those relating to weekly rest, has a direct impact on passenger safety.
A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia made this remark while seeking DGCA’s response in a petition filed by former aircraft engineer Sabari Roy against the regulator’s December 5 decision and fixed January 29 as the next date of hearing.
On December 5 last year, DGCA issued a notification withdrawing the norms on weekly rest for pilots that had been introduced under its new crew rest rules, which came into force on November 1. The rules formed part of the revised FDTL framework, strengthened after prolonged litigation by pilots seeking stricter limits on working hours in the interest of passenger safety.
The new norms significantly reduced pilot workload by increasing weekly rest from 36 to 48 continuous hours, expanding definition of night duty from midnight to 6am (from 5am previously), limiting consecutive night duties to two, capping night landings at two per week, and reducing monthly flying time from 125 hours to 100 hours (in 28 days).
ALSO READ | Major airlines say new pilot rest rules unsustainable, ask govt for tweaks
The changes came against the backdrop of large-scale flight disruptions by IndiGo, which cancelled 2,507 flights and delayed 1,852 between December 3 and December 5 last year after the new rules kicked in. A government inquiry released earlier this month found the airline “failed to adequately identify planning deficiencies” and maintained “minimal recovery margins” despite having two years to prepare for the regulations.
{{/usCountry}}The changes came against the backdrop of large-scale flight disruptions by IndiGo, which cancelled 2,507 flights and delayed 1,852 between December 3 and December 5 last year after the new rules kicked in. A government inquiry released earlier this month found the airline “failed to adequately identify planning deficiencies” and maintained “minimal recovery margins” despite having two years to prepare for the regulations.
{{/usCountry}}The exemptions have been provided till February 10.
“Rules are in force. This has a direct link with the safety of the passengers. The regulator has provided some regulations. The new regulations are in effect since when? But they have not been practically followed. These regulations are in force and have to be implemented unless they are revised or challenged… These regulations have a direct impact on the safety measures and the concerns can’t be brushed aside,” the court said.
ALSO READ | IndiGo assures regulator DGCA it has adequate pilot strength
This was after IndiGo’s counsel, Sandeep Sethi, opposed Sabari’s locus to file the petition, arguing that such a plea could be brought only by affected pilots. He also drew attention to two petitions filed by pilot bodies — the Indian Pilots Guild and the Federation of Indian Pilots, seeking contempt proceedings against the DGCA for granting exemptions to various airlines, which are pending before a single judge. Sethi further contended that the petitioner had adopted a pick-and-choose approach by impleading only IndiGo despite the norms being applicable to all airlines.
The court made the remarks days after four of the country’s five national airlines, which together fly 95% of passengers, nudged the government to relax the new crew rest rules.
During the hearing, however, the court also took a dim view of Sabari’s decision to implead only IndiGo despite the exemption being applicable to all airlines. The bench noted that while the notice followed mass flight cancellations by IndiGo, it was applicable to all the airlines and had been issued only after noticing certain disruptions caused by the airlines. The matter will be heard on Thursday.