Quotes of the Day

India's lofty aviation ambitions hit major turbulence last month when 159 Indians died in an accident that engineers and safety advocates believe could have been prevented.

Less than three months ago, at a trade show in the southern city of Hyderabad, Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel told an eager gathering of global businesses that India would have 400 airports in 10 years — up from 85 at present — and Indian airlines would need as many as 3,000 new aircraft to keep the pace. The previous month, Patel had inaugurated new terminals at two airports, laid the foundation of a third and kicked off modernization projects at five others. With the sector growing at 18% a year, billions of rupees were being spent on new terminals, runways, aprons, escalators, baggage conveyors and parking lots. But not enough, critics say, on air safety — with the case in point being the May 22 crash at Bajpe airport in Mangalore, where an Air India Express flight careened off a runway.

Just a week before the crash, Patel had visited Bajpe to inaugurate a spanking new terminal built at a cost of $34 million. Addressing a delighted local business community that hoped the airport would soon get an international status — boosting the local tourism and export sectors — the minister announced a further stash of $21 million for further expansion. Despite the huge funds spent on the project, the airport did not have a precision approach radar even though it was located on a hilltop surrounded by valleys on three sides. Approach radars, while not mandatory, provide lateral and vertical guidance on the approach of an aircraft for landing and are useful in tricky landing conditions. In the case of Flight IX-812, air-traffic control could have warned the pilot that he was high on approach and not aligned properly to the glide path, as initial investigations have found.

That was not the only red flag. Bajpe's overrun area (the section that extends beyond the runway as a cushion for planes that may overshoot upon landing) was 295 ft. (90 m), already much shorter than the 787 ft. (240 m) recommended internationally — and ended in a drop off a cliff. It also did not have EMAS, a decade-old technology, basically a bed of soft concrete placed at the end of a runway to arrest a speeding plane. There may have been a bed of soft sand in its place, but it did not prevent the tragedy. "It is not about the money not being there. It is a question of wrong priority," says A. Ranganathan, a Chennai-based analyst. "Airlines have been expanding faster and infrastructure is not ready. There is large deficiency on the part of the regulator, and then there's political interference."

In fact, local activist groups say that if safety had been the priority at Bajpe, the airport's second runway, where the crash took place, would not have existed in the first place. Local residents have objected to the newer runway since plans for it were first proposed in the late 1980s, warning that due to the area's mountainous topography the proposed runway could not conform to basic national and international standards for airport design. Safety requirements would be severely compromised as the runway would be surrounded by deep valleys on three sides and would not provide for emergency approach roads as required in case of a crash. In 1997, the group filed a petition to the state's high court to stop construction of the runway. "Even though alternative sites existed, the authorities proceeded obstinately to expand the airport due to pressure from the business, real estate and hotel lobbies," says Leo Saldanha of Environment Support Group, one of the activists who drafted the petition. He says "politicians were keen to make the expansion a part of their legacy and overlooked all concerns raised."

That petition and an appeal to the Supreme Court were dismissed on grounds that the airport authorities had assured the court they would comply with international and domestic standards. However, Saldanha claims this was never done, and the second runway was built in 2006. "The construction of the second runway violates rules and standards laid down by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the National Building Code of India and the ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization]," he says, "The crash was no accident. It was the direct result of deliberate failure of officials at the highest level."

Activists have been voicing their concerns and criticisms ever since a 2003 domestic open-skies policy that led to the emergence of low-cost carriers and airport privatization. Analysts have been warning that the sector's phenomenal growth masks a laundry list of safety violations: inadequate physical and technological infrastructure, poorly trained and overworked personnel and insufficient disaster preparedness. "They were so smug in the belief that no accident had taken place in one decade that they didn't pay attention to the many near-hits and close shaves," says Ranganathan.

Such close calls are reported with alarming frequency. There was one at Mumbai airport just days after the Air India Express crash, and at least three were reported last year in Mumbai alone. Ranganathan says that, despite being a signatory to the ICAO, India has several airports with incorrect runway markings and inadequate landing aids. In fact, India only barely missed being downgraded from Category I to Category II by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. A Category II designation applies to countries that violate ICAO norms, and would have hiked Indian airlines' insurance premiums and made it difficult for them to expand services in the U.S., a much more safety-conscious market. Ranganathan says airlines have also been at fault for hiring poor-quality non-Indian pilots and not pressing for proper pilot rest rules in their hurry to service new sectors and offer more flights. With the government's safety auditors often poorly trained, there has been no check on airlines' safety standards.

On May 26, Director General of Civil Aviation Nasim Zaidi announced that a new advisory council would be set up to oversee air safety. But critics say such a council will only be able to play a significant role if it is independent and is allowed to transparently assess the mistakes of the past and begin to correct them. Zaidi says many changes have been afoot since he joined in November 2008, especially with regard to improving the regulatory system, operational management, ensuring airworthiness of aircraft and hiring of technical personnel. But clearly more drastic changes will have to be made for the Indian aviation sector to restore the faith of its customers and international suppliers. "The system has been inefficient and corrupt," says Ranganathan. "But hopefully, the Mangalore crash will change things."

• Madhur Singh / New Delhi
• A lack of a specific kind of radar and a short runway may have contributed to the death of 159 passengers but systemic problems in the airline industry may have had roles too