DGCA audit finds worn tyres, faulty simulators, faded runway marks

The first sectorwide saftey audit by DGCA comes days after the deadly crash of Air India's AI171 flight on June 12, in which 229 passengers, 12 crew members and 34 people on the ground were killed

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on Tuesday carried out its first comprehensive audit of multiple stakeholders in the Indian aviation sector, and flagged serious safety lapses — from aircraft being flown with worn tyres and repeated technical snags, to unserviceable ground-handling equipment and simulators that don’t match aircraft configurations. At some airports, even runway markings were found faded, and data on surrounding buildings hadn't been updated for years.

 

The sweeping audit comes days after the crash of Air India’s AI171 flight on June 12, in which 229 passengers, 12 crew members and 34 people on the ground were killed. In response, DGCA had issued a circular on June 19, announcing a new “comprehensive special audit” mechanism aimed at breaking down the traditional silos in India’s aviation safety oversight.

   

Two multidisciplinary teams led by DGCA joint director general conducted overnight and early morning surveillance checks at major airports, including Delhi and Mumbai. 

 

The inspections covered key areas such as flight operations, airworthiness, ramp safety, air traffic control (ATC), communications, pre-flight medical checks, and maintenance practices. 

 

Some of the most concerning findings were repeated technical problems on the same aircraft, showing that issues were not being fixed properly. The DGCA called this a sign of “ineffective monitoring and inadequate rectification”.

 

"A domestic flight of a scheduled carrier was held up due to worn tyres, and it was released only after the required rectification was carried out," the DGCA noted.

 

In maintenance audits, inspectors found that Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AMEs) had failed to follow prescribed work orders. “Unserviceable thrust reverser system and flap slat lever were not locked,” the DGCA said in a statement, adding that safety precautions mandated by manuals were ignored during maintenance tasks. In some cases, defects detected by onboard aircraft systems were not even recorded in the technical logbook.

 

Passenger safety was also compromised. Several life vests were found improperly secured, while corrosion-resistant tape on a winglet’s lower blade was damaged. Tool control procedures were not followed in line maintenance stores. 

 

At one airport, runway markings were found to be faded, and the lighting on taxiways was not working properly. The DGCA also pointed out that information about buildings and other structures near the airport had not been updated for three years, even though new construction had taken place nearby. In addition, several vehicles operating in restricted airport areas did not have proper speed controls. These vehicles were removed from service, and the drivers’ permits were suspended.

 

Even the training infrastructure came under scrutiny. A simulator inspected during the audit was found to be running outdated software and did not match the current configuration of the aircraft it was supposed to replicate.

 

“These findings have been communicated to the operators concerned for taking necessary corrective actions within seven days,” the DGCA said, adding that such intensive, cross-domain audits would now be a continuing process to detect systemic hazards.

 

This first-of-its-kind assessment is part of the regulator’s push for a “360-degree evaluation” of the aviation ecosystem, covering airlines, airports, MROs (maintenance, repair, and overhauls), training institutes, and ground-handling agencies. The new audit regime — described by DGCA as a “significant paradigm shift” — is intended to supplement annual surveillance with broader, integrated inspections triggered by both routine and extraordinary circumstances.

 

Audit findings will be graded by severity. While some issues may be resolved over 30-90 days, “critical” lapses like those identified in the current audit require urgent redressal. Entities must file corrective action plans, detailing root causes, preventive strategies, and implementation timelines.

 

Failure to comply could lead to strict penalties. “Non-compliance… may result in progressive enforcement actions, including advisory guidance, formal warnings, operational restrictions, financial penalty, suspension, or revocation of licences,” the June 19 circular stated.

 

Major findings 

• Engineers failed to follow prescribed maintenance work orders
• Life vests improperly secured; winglet tape found damaged
• Unserviceable ground equipment, including baggage trolleys
• Routine maintenance done without adhering to work orders
• Faded runway markings, faulty taxiway lighting at one airport