SC rejects pilots' plea, sticks to 1992 flying hour rules

The Supreme Court today dismissed the appeal of the Joint Action Committee of Pilots’ Association against the Bombay High Court judgment, which had upheld a decision of the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to keep in abeyance a decision regarding reducing the maximum flying time of pilots, and rejected claims that it would compromise with aircraft safety.

A bench of judges P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan rejected the plea of the pilots' association that the decision to keep the 2007 decision in abeyance and reverting to the 1992 rules would mean longer duty hours, leading to fatigued crew and danger to aircrafts safety.

In 2007, the DGCA had issued certain civil aviation requirements (CAR) which included non-flying hours within an overall annual duty cap of 1,600 hours per pilot, within which the number of flying hours has been capped at 1,000 hours a year. The DGCA has also increased the mandatory rest period for a pilot per day from eight to 10 hours, to the greater benefit of the pilots. Accordingly, the time pilots lose, owing to delays, airport congestion or diversions will be counted within the duty cap.

Following this, all airlines made several representations to the DGCA and the central government pointing out it was not possible for them to ensure compliance of the CAR 2007 and it would entail an additional Rs 300 crore on the industry towards recruitment of 25-30 per cent additional pilots.

The CAR was then kept in abeyance.

The association representing pilots of various airlines, challenged the action alleging it jeopardised the safety of passengers and the same was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the high court dismissed their petition.

They later appealed to the Supreme Court.

The DGCA argued that its decision to keep the CAR 2007 in abeyance was based on the advice given by the central government. It also stated that the CAR has been revised and a new draft has been posted on the DGCA website giving opportunity to all concerned to submit their objections and suggestions within a period of 30 days and a new CAR is likely to come into existence very soon.

Writing the judgement, Justice Chauhan chided the pilots and pointed out that some of the pilots had, in fact, strongly supported the 1992 rules in the Bombay High Court for being ‘scientific’ and in tune with ‘international standards.’

It said the pilots had subsequently retracted from the stand and assailed the new rules of 2007