India
Peegate: Pilots and cabin crew unions appeal DGCA to withdraw commander’s suspension order | India News
[ad_1]
MUMBAI: In a joint appeal sent on Tuesday to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Indian unions and associations representing pilots and cabin crew members requested the revocation of the license suspension issued to the pilot-in-command (PIC) of the November’s New York to Delhi flight on board which a male passenger allegedly urinated on a woman co-passenger.
The letter said that the punishment meted out by the DGCA to the crew in the November 26/ AI-102 New York-Delhi flight incident has been a matter of concern to the pilot and cabin crew community, since the regulator deemed it fit to suspend the license of the PIC for allegedly failing to discharge his duties. The implications of this order on the pilots, cabin crew and staff of all airlines nationwide are vast and will threaten the very fabric of civil aviation, said the letter jointly sent by six unions/associations.
“This order must be crafted as a precedent making opportunity. Unfortunately, based on this order, crew and staff in uniform are henceforth expected to rigorously engage in warning, restraining and handing over likely innocent passengers merely based on “allegations of any nature” or divert aircraft for the same purposes, rather than risk suspension,” it said. “This would give rise to a highly anxious atmosphere for the Pilots, Crew and the travelling public, who should now understand that a mere allegation on an aircraft would result in restraint and post-flight prosecution. Such an atmosphere is truly undesirable,” it said.
Listing out the actions taken by the AI-102 crew members, the letter said that the PIC had signed all reports and then directed the cabin supervisor to forward all reports to the airline and its senior officers instantly upon landing to discuss the next step with the Company (Air India), which were done and verified. “Given the actual facts and non-existence of any eyewitnesses, it was decided by the PIC in consultation with his Crew, that the passenger in 8C was not unruly, and could not be classified as unruly. Further, it was informed that both parties had also amicably settled the issue on their own,” the letter said.
“As per the DGCA civil aviation requirements, airline’s senior officers had 12 hours to study all reports and report the matter ahead to the DGCA, and many more days to discuss the issue to file the FIR if they felt it was required,” it said. The letter alluded to the use of the word “alleged’’ in the DGCA statement said it implied that there was a doubt (legal or otherwise) whether the person committed such an act or not, or is yet to be ascertained and proven. “Whilst not condoning the alleged act, the lack of evidence and eyewitnesses, many contradictory accounts received on board and the passenger’s (alleged perpetrator) polite and cooperative decorum was the very reason that the PIC, the cabin supervisor, and the crew on board AI-102 could not have branded him as an unruly passenger. Since he did not exhibit any such traits, they had no occasion to restrain him,” the letter said. “We appreciate that the PIC who reached upon his 25-plus years of experience, to come to a mature decision based on the facts presented instead of emotion,” it added.
“Thus, it baffles us that despite the office of the DGCA having access to all official reports and emails of the crew which were filed immediately upon landing and the meticulously drafted responses to the show cause notices issued by your office, the regulator has gone ahead and concluded that the Pilot in command has failed to discharge his duties,” it said.
The letter pointed to the “major inadequacies with the conclusions of the expert 3 members Internal Complaints Committee” appointed as per the Car. “There is a mountain of evidence that captain and crew have been privy to which perhaps neither your office nor the ICC Committee nor the airline management had the opportunity to study or to appreciate, the results of both are linked. It is also noteworthy that neither the PIC nor the Cabin Crew have appeared personally before the said Committee and could not thus present their version of the facts as it took place on that fateful day,” it said adding that “the case has been a breach of natural justice for all of us concerned in civil aviation, whether we are pilots, cabin crew, engineers, or staff working at airports, to whom this Car on unruly/ disruptive passenger applies.” “On these grounds alone the Internal Complaints Committee report should be quashed, and by extension the suspension of Captain Narayan Ramprasad be revoked,” it said.
“We believe that the regulator has acted without perhaps obtaining all the facts on record. The due process of investigation has not been followed and vital steps in the investigation and enforcement have been skipped. Additionally, gaps remain in the data collected which need to be brought to light. We strongly appeal to you that upon review of the facts stated above, we request you withdraw the harsh punishment and suspension of Captain Narayan Ramprasad,” it said.
The letter said that the punishment meted out by the DGCA to the crew in the November 26/ AI-102 New York-Delhi flight incident has been a matter of concern to the pilot and cabin crew community, since the regulator deemed it fit to suspend the license of the PIC for allegedly failing to discharge his duties. The implications of this order on the pilots, cabin crew and staff of all airlines nationwide are vast and will threaten the very fabric of civil aviation, said the letter jointly sent by six unions/associations.
“This order must be crafted as a precedent making opportunity. Unfortunately, based on this order, crew and staff in uniform are henceforth expected to rigorously engage in warning, restraining and handing over likely innocent passengers merely based on “allegations of any nature” or divert aircraft for the same purposes, rather than risk suspension,” it said. “This would give rise to a highly anxious atmosphere for the Pilots, Crew and the travelling public, who should now understand that a mere allegation on an aircraft would result in restraint and post-flight prosecution. Such an atmosphere is truly undesirable,” it said.
Listing out the actions taken by the AI-102 crew members, the letter said that the PIC had signed all reports and then directed the cabin supervisor to forward all reports to the airline and its senior officers instantly upon landing to discuss the next step with the Company (Air India), which were done and verified. “Given the actual facts and non-existence of any eyewitnesses, it was decided by the PIC in consultation with his Crew, that the passenger in 8C was not unruly, and could not be classified as unruly. Further, it was informed that both parties had also amicably settled the issue on their own,” the letter said.
“As per the DGCA civil aviation requirements, airline’s senior officers had 12 hours to study all reports and report the matter ahead to the DGCA, and many more days to discuss the issue to file the FIR if they felt it was required,” it said. The letter alluded to the use of the word “alleged’’ in the DGCA statement said it implied that there was a doubt (legal or otherwise) whether the person committed such an act or not, or is yet to be ascertained and proven. “Whilst not condoning the alleged act, the lack of evidence and eyewitnesses, many contradictory accounts received on board and the passenger’s (alleged perpetrator) polite and cooperative decorum was the very reason that the PIC, the cabin supervisor, and the crew on board AI-102 could not have branded him as an unruly passenger. Since he did not exhibit any such traits, they had no occasion to restrain him,” the letter said. “We appreciate that the PIC who reached upon his 25-plus years of experience, to come to a mature decision based on the facts presented instead of emotion,” it added.
“Thus, it baffles us that despite the office of the DGCA having access to all official reports and emails of the crew which were filed immediately upon landing and the meticulously drafted responses to the show cause notices issued by your office, the regulator has gone ahead and concluded that the Pilot in command has failed to discharge his duties,” it said.
The letter pointed to the “major inadequacies with the conclusions of the expert 3 members Internal Complaints Committee” appointed as per the Car. “There is a mountain of evidence that captain and crew have been privy to which perhaps neither your office nor the ICC Committee nor the airline management had the opportunity to study or to appreciate, the results of both are linked. It is also noteworthy that neither the PIC nor the Cabin Crew have appeared personally before the said Committee and could not thus present their version of the facts as it took place on that fateful day,” it said adding that “the case has been a breach of natural justice for all of us concerned in civil aviation, whether we are pilots, cabin crew, engineers, or staff working at airports, to whom this Car on unruly/ disruptive passenger applies.” “On these grounds alone the Internal Complaints Committee report should be quashed, and by extension the suspension of Captain Narayan Ramprasad be revoked,” it said.
“We believe that the regulator has acted without perhaps obtaining all the facts on record. The due process of investigation has not been followed and vital steps in the investigation and enforcement have been skipped. Additionally, gaps remain in the data collected which need to be brought to light. We strongly appeal to you that upon review of the facts stated above, we request you withdraw the harsh punishment and suspension of Captain Narayan Ramprasad,” it said.
#Peegate #Pilots #cabin #crew #unions #appeal #DGCA #withdraw #commanders #suspension #order #India #News
