Air India’s flight into training turbulence

Allegations of compromised flight training is the most worrisome problem the airline faces, given ensuring passenger safety is the cornerstone of the business

In the last few weeks, Air India (AI) added a few more black marks to its not so stellar report card. The Tata-owned airline was in the news after a flight bound for Delhi had to return to Chicago airport after eight out of its 12 lavatories were found clogged and unusable, an embarrassing state of affairs by any yardstick and one that reeks of some kind of sabotage. AI was also in the news for having denied a wheelchair to an elderly passenger, prompting the civil aviation minister to say a show-cause notice would be issued to the carrier.

The recent sacking of the trainer based on the airline’s own internal investigation leaves observers with many doubts (Wikimedia)

Almost no week goes by without a minister, politician, celebrity, senior media persons, or regular fliers complaining about the airline’s service standards or poor handling. Many of these incidents blow up, thanks to social media.

But a more serious incident received much less attention than it deserved, compared to the clogged toilets — AI fired a simulator trainer-instructor and removed 10 pilots trained under him from flying duty after finding evidence of poor training practices and flouting of standard procedures earlier this month. Whistleblower complaints led to an internal investigation, and the incident was reported suo motu to the directorate general of civil aviation (DGCA). Actions against the officials involved has ostensibly been taken by the airline. This is by far the most worrisome problem the airline faces, given ensuring passenger safety is the cornerstone of the business.

What is disturbing is that many in the airline and outside argue that this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as training practices and safety norms in the airline are concerned. Former and serving commanders and airline insiders say that this did not happen overnight and has been building up for a few years. In short, AI’s training standards have not been on a par with most competitors for a while. Three or four legacy allegations have been made over a period, some of which might have been resolved; others might require a more thorough investigation, just like the case with the simulator training.

One, unlike IndiGo and Jet Airways, AI has no fixed prescription of how many sessions its trainees need before they take command of a new aircraft type. DGCA prescribes a syllabus for full flight simulator (FFS) training for a co-pilot who hopes to take command. This involves a co-pilot flying a particular type moving from the right seat to the left seat. But when pilots are moving from one type of aircraft to another, the operator can also add a few Fixed Base Simulator (FBS) sessions to familiarise trainees before commencing the more expensive FFS sessions.

This is left to the discretion of the airline; in AI’s case, it has been left to what the head of training deems appropriate at that point in time. This has led to varying pilot competencies, based on how rigorous their training was or wasn’t. A senior airline commander said that, at times, he is wary of letting the co-pilot do one leg of the journey as he is not fully convinced of his abilities! While this is understandable in inclement weather or other complicated situations, it is unacceptable in the normal course of things. Real-time practice is critical for a co-pilot who is poised to take command, as a simulator cannot replicate real flying experience.

A second worrying aspect is the change in the process even as the syllabus for training remains unchanged. Earlier, the entire simulator training was conducted by a dedicated instructor who also supervised line flying. This ensured continuity and accountability as each instructor would consider trainees as their responsibility. In 2017, a circular had been issued internally to this effect.

But, over time, this was watered down, and the concept of a dedicated instructor was done away with. As a result, no one assumes any responsibility or can be held accountable. Moreover, the handover of a trainee lacks due diligence as the reports of their abilities are not very detailed. Even in other airlines, a trainee can end up being assigned to more than one instructor, but in more professionally managed airlines, even if a trainee is assigned to more than one instructor, the instructor will write detailed reports about the trainee’s performance, giving a good insight to the next instructor. In AI, instructors rarely write such detailed reports. Whether that has changed under the new management remains unclear.

The allegation that some instructors see training as an avenue for additional income and little else has persisted. It may be more an aberration than a rule, but a recent DGCA audit found that some trainers were logging in hours but were not imparting any training since they are paid on an hourly basis. The airline has consistently denied this charge, reiterating that trainers log in training hours only when training is conducted. But as was the case with the simulator trainer who was sacked, only a thorough investigation will reveal the facts.

Lastly, senior managers in the airline argue that after privatisation, there has been a “rush-hour” approach taken by the new management that is focussed on expansion. Aggressive training of batches is on, and this, many argue, is a concern since safety could be compromised.

The airline has consistently maintained that its trainee pilots are released as co-pilots only after they have flown under the supervision of qualified trainers for the duration deemed adequate and successfully completed training sessions on the simulator. They are authorised to perform take-offs and landings only if their performance is found satisfactory. Yet, the recent sacking of the trainer based on the airline’s own internal investigation leaves observers with many doubts.

Anjuli Bhargava writes about governance, infrastructure and the social sector. The views expressed are personal