Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India Rejects Japan's Request For Safety Audit  
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1683 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 13700 times:

Taking a tough stand against Japan for not permitting Air India to operate its new Boeing 787 Dreamliners there, aviation regulator DGCA has rejected a request from its Japanese counterpart to carry out a safety audit of the Indian aviation sector.

Interesting, it allowed audits from ICAO and FAA, but rejected JCAB.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...iner-row-india-rejects-japans.html

167 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 13627 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It might be because both the ICAO and the FAA audits went well. India is saying, we've been audited twice and passed twice so take a hike.

I'm no fan of the Indian burocracy but I don't see the point of another audit after the first two supposedly didn't reveal anything to upset the Cat 1 status.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7139 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 13360 times:

Bureaucracy, and a VERY BAD move on the part of India.

Japan will most likely draw some sanctions against AI for this.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinepnqiad From India, joined May 2006, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13108 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Bureaucracy, and a VERY BAD move on the part of India.

Care to elaborate why India should bend over - especially when ICAO audit has already affirmed cat 1 rating? I am actually glad India asked Japan to go take a hike....doesn't happen quite frequently...


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2939 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13036 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Japan will most likely draw some sanctions against AI for this.

India will just retaliate back with NH & JL services being not allowed.
Only travellers heading both direction will suffer.

Cooler heads and more negotiations.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12400 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12884 times:

I thought the 787 issue had been resolved? Is Japan still not allowing the AI 787s in?

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12860 times:

Every aviation authority does their own audits. The company I work for is certified by the EASA, the FAA, the Russian aviation authority, the aviation authority of the Bermudas and every other aviation authority, which´s aircraft we maintain, including the Chinese CAAC, the one of the UAE and of Qatar and the Japanese one, carry out regular audits. Sometimes we have an audit every week.

Jan


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Bureaucracy, and a VERY BAD move on the part of India.

Why is it a very bad move by India? Japan is being unrealistic here. Why is Japan demanding a safety audit in the first place? Have they asked for a similar safety audit from other countries? Too premature to say bad move by India. If Japan is demanding the same from other countries then probably what you say is true and DGCA should comply whether it likes it or not. If it is a selective request to India then DGCA did the right thing by asking Japan to take a hike.

[Edited 2013-09-18 22:42:33]

User currently offlineairportugal310 From Palau, joined Apr 2004, 3568 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12703 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6):

This is the right answer. In my line of work, audits by different parties on the same system are a weekly/monthly occurrence...not sure what India's real issue is.



A,G,A...nobody rides for free
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7139 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12646 times:

It's a bad move because Japan hates being snubbed diplomatically like this. When you go against something like that in Japan, unfortunately Japan does not respond well to it.


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8669 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 12513 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 8):
not sure what India's real issue is.

Pride, which is one of the worst things to affect flight safety. It kills.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3630 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12425 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 7):
Why is it a very bad move by India? Japan is being unrealistic here. Why is Japan demanding a safety audit in the first place? Have they asked for a similar safety audit from other countries?

See MD11Engineer's reply above yours. It is common practice that a country's aviation authority will audit another country's aviation practices. This is how the FAA determines if a country is considered Category 1 or Category 2 or the EASA determines which airlines to put on or take off their blacklist.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12161 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Japan will most likely draw some sanctions against AI for this.

India is probably prepared for that. AI operates 3 weekly on a 77L. Probably loosing lot of money.

Who is the root of B787's battery problems? Japan. If GS Yuasa designed, built and tested the battery system, there wouldn't be a grounding. If Japan is the root the problem and don't know how to fix it keep low profile and hope problem will go away Don't pick on a easy target to cover your incompetency. Boeing paid a hefty price for GS Yuasa's short comings and even today there is no fix to actual problem, there is only a steel case. BTW all B787 customers are loosing money because of the steel case.

Who worked on B787 battery fix. Boeing engineers. If AI did their own fix you can question their process. Now it is a moot point.

Quoting aloges (Reply 10):
Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 8):
not sure what India's real issue is.

Pride, which is one of the worst things to affect flight safety. It kills.

It is also to do with priority. If AI is operating just 3 weekly net loss flights, it is probably better to shut the route down.

It allowed ICAO and FAA audits. It may even allow Europe, Australia and UAE.

Japan said problem is with B787 documentation about battery fix and flights right after the fix, so AI switched to 77L, now Japan wants to audit all documents. So India has to draw the line somewhere.

[Edited 2013-09-19 05:30:39]

User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2939 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12094 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 12):
Who is the root of B787's battery problems? Japan. If GS Yuasa designed, built and tested the battery system, there wouldn't be a grounding.

Whoa. I am not going to defend GS Yuasa in anyway, but this not just a battery problem but a systems problem that goes top to bottom and reverse.


What's up will all this anti-Japan statements recently on this site.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24732 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11950 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6):
Every aviation authority does their own audits. The company I work for is certified by the EASA, the FAA, the Russian aviation authority, the aviation authority of the Bermudas and every other aviation authority, which´s aircraft we maintain, including the Chinese CAAC, the one of the UAE and of Qatar and the Japanese one, carry out regular audits. Sometimes we have an audit every week.

  

Its the nature of the industry.

There is really no room for such intransigence by Indian authorities.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinegarudaa From India, joined Nov 2011, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11841 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):

Here the issue is that JCAB coming up with different reasons at the flip of the coin. First it was the documentation for 787s and now when 787s where withdrawn they come up with another reason "audit " . I think there is some one in JCAB who can still come up with something that will help this issue 'coz I think DGCA has moved on and what I see is ordinary citizens from both sides not having a direct means to fly.   


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24732 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11763 times:

Getting frustrating and refusing are two things.

This certainly is not the first time JCAB has been to review what the Indian authorities are up to.

Its part of global aviation politics, and its best to play along. If you don't like it, let the diplomats handle things behind the scenes, while the aviation folks follow their orders for now.

While I have no particular insight into this specific issue, it seems to me the Indian authorities are the ones that tend to be the more emotional and schizophrenic ones in their dealings then my experience with Japanese authorities last few decades.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Its the nature of the industry.

Reading "MD11Engineer"'s reply; yes, it is similar to Boeing (the manufacturer) or UAL (the airline for example) being audited by the Chinese or Australians before allowing their planes into operate into their airspace. It is a different ballgame though when we are talking about the Chinese or the Australians telling FAA & EASA that, hey look - we don't trust your practices, we would like to audit you (FAA & EASA) guys. The FAA and EASA are simply not going to roll over just because the Australians/Chinese asked them to unless there is some kind of mutual 2 way working agreement between them; something on these lines -

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/repair/media/EASA_US_roadshows.pdf


http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking...A%20EASA-JCAB%20final%20signed.pdf

http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking...ina/WA%20CAAC-EASA%20FAsL-A320.pdf

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
There is really no room for such intransigence by Indian authorities.

Really, how so? Please explain with some logic, otherwise it is a blanket statement at best that does not hold water. DGCA passed ICAO certification; which leads one to believe that they met international standards. So, since JCAB is asking to audit DGCA again it means one of 2 things -
1) The ICAO audit was eye wash. ICAO is incompetent and their auditing practices and their standards are questionable.

OR

2) JCAB's practices are totally different from the "international standards" that ICAO recognizes as safe practices and certified the DGCA for; which means that JCAB's practices are questionable since they don't see eye to eye with ICAO.

In view of the above; i think ICAO and JCAB should actually be audited to figure out what is going on. Obviously they don't see eye to eye and ICAO audits are a waste of time.

Quoting aloges (Reply 10):
Pride, which is one of the worst things to affect flight safety. It kills.

Pride!! really? Obviously pride is involved here to a certain extent and we would be lying if we say there isn't. But i would wonder what would happen if in the interest of "flight safety" the Chinese, the UAE authorities, the Indian DGCA and a bunch of others jointly order a full audit of the certification process of the FAA & JCAB for the Boeing 787 and other Boeing aircraft types since certification practices of the FAA have been largely questioned and faulted after the 787 fiasco - http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html .Obviously the FAA and EASA are not going to rollover, there will be a certain pride involved in them too.

[Edited 2013-09-19 11:19:53]

[Edited 2013-09-19 11:21:21]

User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1261 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11383 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 17):
DGCA passed ICAO certification; which leads one to believe that they met international standards.

I hope you realize ICAO standards are the thinnest regulations in the world. Its not a very high standard.

The only manner anything gets done at ICAO (a UN organization) is because its based on the lowest common denominator. Everyone from Zimbabwe, to China, to Poland influences the regulatory frame work.

Individual nations (eg Japan, USA, etc) have rights to augment any ICAO guidance with their own levels of regulation.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 17):
unch of others jointly order a full audit of the certification process of the FAA & JCAB for the Boeing 787 and other Boeing aircraft types.

And then it would be up to Mr. Boeing to produce aircraft and meet the certification requirements of these other parties.

In effect this already happens. You realize many FAA approved items for example are not compliant with foreign authorities. One of the most glaring was the UK, where Boeing for decades had to build all types of differences in their aircraft from cockpit instruments, to cabin doors to meet UK requirements.

To this day, many internal items on aircraft must be modified to meet local regulatory regulations. Just because its blessed by FAA or EASA does not mean its ok universally.


User currently offlineHeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 632 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11342 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Bureaucracy, and a VERY BAD move on the part of India.

Japan will most likely draw some sanctions against AI for this.

We definitely know someone who won't get Haneda international flight slot.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11323 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 17):
Reading "MD11Engineer"'s reply; yes, it is similar to Boeing (the manufacturer) or UAL (the airline for example) being audited by the Chinese or Australians before allowing their planes into operate into their airspace. It is a different ballgame though when we are talking about the Chinese or the Australians telling FAA & EASA that, hey look - we don't trust your practices, we would like to audit you (FAA & EASA) guys. The FAA and EASA are simply not going to roll over just because the Australians/Chinese asked them to unless there is some kind of mutual 2 way working agreement between them; something on these lines -

The fact is that e.g. the Chinese (we don´t have Australian customers) audit us, even though there has been an EASA audit just a week before and our company operates to EASA standards.
ICAO sets the MINIMUM standards. Every country is free to set higher standards for the use of their airspace, and the Japanese authorities are one of the strictest (trying to figure out how I can get a Japanese licence, without having to be fluent in Japanese).
And every authority has different rules (before EASA we had different rules for each European country).
The Japanese are totally correct here and the Indians are acting stubborn.

Jan


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24732 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11251 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
I hope you realize ICAO standards are the thinnest regulations in the world. Its not a very high standard.

  

ICAO is the most basic baseline regulations the industry has. Grafted on top of the ICAO regulations come local authorities (eg FAA) and industry groups (eg ARINC with avionics) with their own guidance and requirements.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 17):
The ICAO audit was eye wash. ICAO is incompetent and their auditing practices and their standards are questionable.

Yes ICAO audit is rather basic, they are not incompetent, but the framework qualification is rather minimal, so just because you pass ICAO does not mean you hold no fault.

Look back in history. USSR was a big ICAO member, and its aircraft were compliant with ICAO rules, but could not be certified under stricter US, UK or other western regulations.

Same goes to the operational, maintenance and safety practices of airlines, and countries. They might meet basic ICAO qualifications, but fail to achieve higher standards imposed by individual nations.


At the end of the day, its for India to meet Japan's needs, no matter how bizarre they might seem to the Indians. Obviously many many other carriers have done so, so it can certainly be achieved.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11133 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 8):
This is the right answer. In my line of work, audits by different parties on the same system are a weekly/monthly occurrence...not sure what India's real issue is.
Quoting ha763 (Reply 11):
See MD11Engineer's reply above yours. It is common practice that a country's aviation authority will audit another country's aviation practices.

It's not just aviation. I used to work in Quality Assurance in a pharmaceuticals and medical device facility. We had, and conducted audits all the time. In short, you do not put your own liability on the line based on somebody else's audit, UNLESS you have hired them specifically to do so. In another instance, during the time of the Beijing Olympics one of our suppliers shut down their factory temporarily to comply with pollution regulations and concerns set forth by the Chinese government. As a result of not having audited the new, temporary facility and its QA methods, we (meaning me) had to do full USP testing, as opposed to the streamlined testing we had done prior.

It sounds like India is playing politics with the Japanese, and regardless of how it hurt the Japanese pride (a silly notion if you ask me) it can come back to bite them in the butt quite quickly because it can be argued that they are willing to place the safety of people on the line as a political tool.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11037 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
Yes ICAO audit is rather basic, they are not incompetent, but the framework qualification is rather minimal, so just because you pass ICAO does not mean you hold no fault.

DGCA also cleared FAA audit last week. If JCAB is world's supreme CAA, FAA & EASA should take back seat.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 20):

You are probably working for an MRO facility and CAA from any customer country can audit your facility. If JCAB wants to audit a facility which services JL/NH in India they can very well do so.

BTW all MRO facilities in India are FAA/EASA certified. AI is not the only game in town. Airworks(India) does good amount of work. Malaysian Airlines MRO has a joint venture in India.

http://www.airindia.com/Images/pdf/AirIndia_Engneering_Services.pdf
http://www.airworks.in/commercialaviation.asp
http://www.masgmr-aerotech.in/

[Edited 2013-09-19 11:56:54]

[Edited 2013-09-19 12:31:18]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24732 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10533 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 23):
DGCA also cleared FAA audit last week.

Great, then only another hoop to jump through with Japan.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 23):
If JCAB is world's supreme CAA, FAA & EASA should take back seat.

No one is supreme at all, but like all they have the right to manage their own requirements.

Anyhow, its not like India does not have its own unique set of regulatory burdens when it comes to many industries.  



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
25 DTW2HYD : It could but for some reason I think AI will stop service to Japan. Japan pushing a B788 customer on a battery fix issue comes out as pot calling the
26 phxa340 : Care to elaborate on this ? This is the first time I have heard this.
27 SATexan : Curious question. Does anyone know if other countries routinely audit the FAA and clear their practices?
28 DTW2HYD : 150 lb deadweight doesn't fly without burning additional fuel. No customer signed up for this additional weight until Boeing finds another battery de
29 747megatop : I think it is in the interest of both the Japanese and Indian authorities to jointly come to an agreement on this and establish a working agreement. B
30 Aesma : Of course India bans A380s for no good reason... Besides, when safety is involved, you always have to show you're ready to prove you're up to snuff,
31 Post contains images 747megatop : which is what i had mentioned in my earlier post. And they should further say that if you guys are not open for our audit then please don't bother fl
32 Post contains images PHX787 : Agreed. It's odd.... here's a small joke, if you were to ask a friend of mine he'd blame Koreans about it without explaining .... hahah that's probab
33 DTW2HYD : This approach makes sense with a country you want to do business. I am sure India will be open to an audit from EASA/CASA/GCCA or any other country i
34 mercure1 : Again, if India feels its aviation is up to snuff, open your doors and be happy to put on a nice show for the Japanese. They certainly are fully right
35 zeke : Every country has the right to prevent operators from entering their airspace under the safety banner. EASA and the FAA ban a number of operators and
36 Post contains images Pellegrine : An adequate response would have been for India's DGCA to audit Japanese Indian operations and all would be well. Reciprocity is standard in internatio
37 747megatop : Not just the Indian operations, think DGCA would probably want to audit JCAB fully including their Japanese setup. From what i understood JCAB wants
38 sankaps : DTW, you really need to stop making assertions without any basis. The fact is NO ONE KNOWS what caused to batteries to fail. Not even Boeing is blami
39 DTW2HYD : All nice talking points . Can you show me one example where a CAA allowed audit from another country to which none of its airlines planning to operat
40 par13del : Maybe the more stringent nations should have their standards adapted as the default and do away with ICAO. Is this like not having anything to hide s
41 Post contains links sankaps : The Japanese will not likely openly come out and say publicly why they are wanting to audit. Given AI has flown to Japan for 50 years or so, it must
42 Post contains links sankaps : In addition, this article sheds some light too... http://www.aviationpros.com/news/111...ists-several-areas-for-improvement . Seems the FAA audit foun
43 Post contains links Mats01776 : This article adds some historical perspective that was missing in the article referred to in the OP: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/Ztv...t-DGCA-fil
44 Post contains links DTW2HYD : ICAO/FAA findings are related to maintenance of General Aviation Aircraft mainly charter/corporate jets flying out of country. DGCA agreed to impose
45 sankaps : Source? This is clearly not what is stated in the articles linked by me and others. Those articles clearly mention commercial airlines and aircraft o
46 Post contains links DTW2HYD : http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...india/41436121_1_flights-icao-dgca http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...tandards-charter-aviation-watchdog ht
47 sankaps : I hope you realize that this is a completely different issue from the ICAO blacklist and FAA audit findings issue, and in fact is another HUGE blacke
48 DTW2HYD : Granted you have different take on everything, based on following excerpts from news articles does it look like different issue. "The United Nations'
49 sankaps : I think you are tying yourself up in knots. It is a matter of simple reading comprehension. It is pretty clear from the other linked articles (that I
50 lightsaber : Interesting... Japan has a right to audit, India has a right to limit the scope of the audit. I would like to know more of the details of the refusal.
51 DTW2HYD : -ICAO auditors looked into both commercial and charter ops. -Significant Safety Concern findings were about charter operators. -There was missing doc
52 Post contains links sankaps : Confusion is within your mind. The ICAO SSC Blacklist applied to ALL civil aviation ops. The FAA audit concerns also applies to ALL civil aviation op
53 Post contains links DTW2HYD : Well, you are quoting an article dated August, 29 prior to successful audits by both ICAO and FAA. That is a misstatement. Look flightaware. http://f
54 BestWestern : He won the argument about ten posts ago.
55 sankaps : Yes, I know. Does not change the point being made. Try to follow the logic stream of this thread. That IS scary. For entirely different reasons. Than
56 DTW2HYD : No he didn't. He is just linking first article of a quick Google search and keep switching the argument as thread forwards. As long as you don't reve
57 Post contains links Mats01776 : An interesting bit of information that gives a perspective on the situation at hand - It appears that there is no existing "safety audit" agreement b
58 Post contains images lightsaber : First, we should note in the links that India must improve the DGCA or they will be 'reassesed.' In other words, they didn't pass an audit, they faile
59 Nimish : As an Indian passenger, I welcome audits by the Japanese (and any country outside of India), because the DGCA is largely just a joke. From what I hear
60 AirIndia111 : 3 weekly DEL-NRT and 3 weekly DEL-HKG-KIX. The DEL-HKG flight continues to ICN on the other 4 days.
61 DTW2HYD : There are probably too many old news articles linked here in a rush to prove points plus Indian news pundits mixing up things, particularly Times Of
62 mpdpilot : One other thing to think about is that most aviation agencies act in the way that once they find one issue they start to dig deeper to insure that the
63 HAWK21M : Indian Operators use Aircraft type from FAA & EASA recognised countries.If ICAO has done their Audit too, I dont see why India needs to please ot
64 Post contains images PHX787 : not sure why though, or what they'd find. the Japanese aviation authorities, JL and NH all have top notch safety standards far and beyond the scope o
65 Post contains images mandala499 : Yes, Japan has audited other countries. Since 2007 the Indonesian DGCA has been audited by Japan at least twice! Exactly! JCAB has audited my country
66 FCAFLYBOY : Well then Japan should not get above its station and insist on a personal inspection, or does it not deem FAA or ICAO to be capable of completing it
67 SA7700 : With all due respect how is this relevant? This is not a question of "mine is bigger than yours" but that of a sovereign nation requesting a foreign
68 sankaps : Not only is it not relevant, it is not even true if you look at the actual GDP figures (as opposed to the highly subjective and frequently misleading
69 DTW2HYD : This explains there is no legal standing for Japan's request. Thanks for the good find. Japan might have audited other countries with which it has ag
70 Post contains images SA7700 : Yes and the DGCA is responsible for implementing, controlling, and supervising airworthiness standards, safety operations, crew training in India not
71 Post contains images BLRAviation : Yes, I agree it is not a happy situation, but let's face it, the Japanese bureaucratic system is legendary. It is bad because Indo-Japanese relations
72 BestWestern : A safety audit is a better outcome? Long, Thin, low yield markets are notoriously difficult to make money on - non stop. Even China to India is still
73 DTW2HYD : India definitely will. Right now AI has only eight 788s and their goal is to optimize their usage to cut loses (making profit is long way). Serving J
74 Post contains images SA7700 : Thanks for the reply. If actually implemented that would be great news. Take care and have a great week, SA7700[Edited 2013-09-22 08:41:55]
75 par13del : To nutshell, is India content to allow traffic between the two nations to be by Japanese carriers only until they can get their "act" together or wil
76 lightsaber : Let's think about this from the big picture. Did any Japanese bank loose money on IT leases? That was a HUGE debacle showing how little oversight ther
77 BLRAviation : I disagree. India is still a much smaller economy than Japan, but more importantly, economic wars hurt everyone. Actually, the JCAB asked for an audi
78 BLRAviation : Economic wars hurt everyone. Expect some behind the scenes negotiations and this issue being sorted out. Japan will not retaliate against AI. That wi
79 DTW2HYD : Thanks for the explanation, keeping aside all the intricacies of Indian bureaucracy does the new CAA have authority and resources to regulate the sec
80 lightsaber : I would like to know more. If too far off topic, please IM me details. This is an argument with many layers... Lightsaber
81 Post contains images vvbkumar : My 2 cents, I don't see any reason why DGCA should block JCAB's request. If the records and standards of DGCA are stellar then why fear an audit by J
82 YLWbased : Dude, do you even know how the industry works? Audit is a monthly sometimes weekly occurrence due to the fact that each authority carry out their sep
83 Post contains links BLRAviation : The CAA is not yet formed. The cabinet passed the proposed legislation, but it has to go before parliament. It was in the papers. Quoting from a stor
84 Spiderguy252 : In this instance they were asking for the cake to be creamed on their faces, unfortunately.
85 Post contains images lightsaber : Thank you. That is an important and required step for the DGCA. All indications are there is a financing 'issue' in India and this will help reduce t
86 Post contains images PHX787 : Jeeeeeeeez with the innuendos here Are you talking about AI and JMOT? If so, then JMOT will win....Japan's safety standards, as I've said all along,
87 Post contains links DTW2HYD : Urban myth. I gave two examples disproving this myth, you just come back repeat same talking point. These examples prove that Japanese are not top no
88 sankaps : There is a difference between having high safety standards and exceptional examples where those standards are violated. The latter does not disprove
89 DTW2HYD : Never said that, I don't think India is preaching anybody on safety. India is not a dictatorship/pseudo democracy to fix things overnight. "PHX787" s
90 CX Flyboy : Whats next, accepting requests from every aviation department in the world requesting an audit? Where does it end? Does India have to form a seperate
91 sankaps : I would suggest it ends when the country in question (India in this case) (i) passes ICAO and FAA audits with no major defects to be remedied, and (i
92 Post contains links BLRAviation : IMHO we are missing the point. Japan asked India for an audit, India refused. The flights between India and Japan are not frequent enough to warrant t
93 sankaps : BLR, let us not forget that India was the only major country on the ICAO.s blackist very recently. The latest audit got it out of the blacklist, but
94 sankaps : Sure, but you forget that the US remains one of the safest countries for aviation in the world. Accidents happen, sure. Things can go wrong. But what
95 Post contains links BLRAviation : Again to correct wrong impressions, AI did not submit records. However, I for sure do not know, and I suspect neither do you, as to why AI did not su
96 PHX787 : YOUR examples have NOTHING to do with the Japanese aviation industry standards, or the MOT. Neither of these examples fell under the jurisdiction of
97 sankaps : When someone does not submit the records, and does not respond to standard and legitimate requests for records, even if to say we are no longer plann
98 DTW2HYD : Your comments always imply as a nation Japan cares more about lives, which it is not. So just restrict bragging to Japanese Aviation Industry. Even i
99 cmf : I think it is the wrong question. The right question is if any third party made a request and and was denied.
100 DTW2HYD : You can file for a copy of DGCA audit report with FAA under freedom of information act here. Have you seen any audit where auditors didn't write up o
101 Post contains images golfradio : . Well BLRaviaton, as you very well know, it's fashionable among Indian expats around here to diss AI and anything connected to AI and it extends to
102 sankaps : Once again, your comments display your complete lack of understanding of the situation, the underlying issues, and of the aviation business and how b
103 Post contains links sankaps : So reports such as these in multiple places are just made up then? http://www.livemint.com/Companies/nC...ias-aviation-regulator.html?ref=dd http://w
104 Post contains links DTW2HYD : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc
105 BLRAviation : Do take the time to explain to those of us willing to listen. Can you please help explain your knowledge of how BASA's are negotiated. Actually, It i
106 sankaps : What has how BASA's are negotiated got anything to do with the comment I was responding to? I am not an Indian living in the US, so perhaps your gene
107 golfradio : I never responded to your post because all you have been posting in this thread are links from popular media. I said IMO, this blacklist is a media g
108 Post contains links sankaps : I think if you believe these multiple, very specific media reports are untrue, then it is up to you to prove it. I do not claim to have access to all
109 Post contains links BLRAviation : Lets turn the question to you. As an accuser, please prove your accusation. How do you say these concerns are founded? Please appreciate Tarun Shukla
110 Post contains images BLRAviation : But yet, you proceed to trash the DGCA and the entire Indian civil aviation industry, without any substantive proof or data, while demanding proof fr
111 DTW2HYD : For some reason always others have the burden of proof. I asked the same question, I even suggested to file FOIA request with FAA about recent DGCA a
112 Post contains images BLRAviation : Please read the report FULLY before all around. The Philippines was downgraded out of Cat 1 by the FAA and EASA, not ICAO. But FAA cannot begin its a
113 sankaps : Again that hoary "race to the bottom" defense. The rate or frequency of such incidents / violations that occur in India thanks to government and regu
114 manny : How do you know that ? The 77L's for example serve a niche ULH market and given that a ton of ULH flights around the world are being stopped by their
115 Post contains images sankaps : BLR, you are clearly a smart guy, why is it that you seem to believe there is only ONE ICAO chart in the entire ICAO audit process (and that too a ch
116 Viscount724 : I expect you're referring to more recent years, but for the first 25 years or so after ICAO was created the USSR was not a signatory and did not part
117 Post contains links sankaps : Incidentally take a look at this http://www.airfleets.net/crash/stat_country.htm. It counts hull losses in each country for modern aircraft. #1 on the
118 manny : What does that have to do directly with the topic on hand ?
119 DTW2HYD : That was my argument with someone who claims "As a nation Japan is top notch" when it comes to quality & safety standards. BTW same member agreed
120 DTW2HYD : 3000 FAA safety inspectors are furloughed now, don't know for how long... Apples and Oranges?
121 Post contains links manny : So Japan eventually climbs down from its unreasonable demands. Excerpt: Japan allows Air India to fly Dreamliners there "Japan wanted to have a safety
122 747megatop : So this finally puts to rest the argument in this thread. Some have asked me if i know how the industry works and justified JCABs request for an audi
123 Post contains images sankaps : It relates to the hoary argument "but the US has had serious crashes too". Brings actual numbers and implied rate into the equation, so that one does
124 Post contains images BLRAviation : I am in full agreement with you, especially since I am in India, not an Indian citizen, but my tax-Rupees are being wasted propping up this bloated i
125 qf2220 : If there is nothing to hide, an audit shouldnt be feared.
126 BLRAviation : As I said about a month ago, This was too small an issue in the overall Japanese-India economic relationship.
127 manny : This is the most boneheaded argument! I am sure if the cops wanted to come into you home and turn it upside down you would allow them in without warr
128 manny : This can be argues away. But since its off tangent and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread I will leave it alone!
129 Post contains images sankaps : Wise choice, in more ways than one!
130 qf2220 : This is not what an audit is. In my experience, rarely is an organisation left in a worse state after an audit and i think to suggest that an auditor
131 VTORD : I think the problem here is the way the Indian authorities handled the communication part after Japan requested the audit. There is no problem per sa
132 PHX787 : The economic relationship between Japan and India is actually quite strong. We are only talking about this audit issue....and as someone right above m
133 Post contains links Mats01776 : From a certain view point, one could sympathize with the plight of DGCA for having to respond to incessant stream of requests for safety audits from e
134 DTW2HYD : Generally India doesn't snub anybody. Could be wrong timing with all GA issues and DGCA reorg. Even if Japan allows AI B788s service to Japan doesn't
135 Post contains images 747megatop : Very well said. I was in fact about to respond with the same analogy but you beat me to it.
136 Post contains links ojas : http://www.travelbizmonitor.com/japa...air-india-to-fly-dreamliners-21917 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ers-there/articleshow/23480303.cms Ja
137 sankaps : Concerns of the safety of the 787 in general, or AI's 787s? (I assume it is the latter since Japan already has plenty of 787s operating in their coun
138 ojas : Regarding AI's 787 of course, relating to the fix that was done by AI engineers themselves.
139 PHX787 : Then why did they snub Japan? Are you so sure? My sources tell me back-room deals were announced, especially when PM Abe was talking with Indian lead
140 sankaps : Exactly. It was not just a random, arbitrary request, and one can understand Japan's sensitivity to 787-related issues given they were are brunt of t
141 DTW2HYD : Passenger Load Factor 40. May be India thought its the best case to stand its ground and send a message. Now any country will think twice before goin
142 ojas : Oh there were absolutely no back end deals. The whole drama within those 20 days was nothing short of hilarious. Needless to say, the fact remains, J
143 Post contains links sankaps : Absolute nonsense. This is the arrogant attitude that results in India always shooting itself in the foot and then hobbling about in one place and ge
144 DTW2HYD : Japan has no legal standing to request such audit. If they want to audit, they should amend bilateral agreement. Until then they have to rely on ICAO
145 sankaps : Please read what I posted carefully. I am not saying India (which is really the country always preaching, just ask the UN!) should have just agreed.
146 DTW2HYD : There is no waiver on safety regulations, waiver is only on the maximum liability amount. This liability act was a result of TEPCO fiasco. Once Japan
147 Post contains images sankaps : Judging from your posts on a.net across multiple threads, it appears you care only about India, as you have repeatedly snubbed / insulted the US too.
148 DTW2HYD : Any comparison to US shortcomings you want to portray as snubbing US, because it is convenient for you to argue without any valid points. A US shortc
149 PHX787 : That's the touchy thing with dealing with the Japanese, you gotta be pretty concise with your speaking. They have a tendancy to misread things. I run
150 sankaps : Seldom does.
151 DTW2HYD : They don't, read post #57. Only FAA has such right. This myth is busted time and again.
152 PHX787 : I'd ask for your proof but you seem to ignore one fact: I LIVE here, AMONG the Japanese, and I'm an expert on Japan, with many Airliners members comi
153 747megatop : sakaps, DTW2HYD and others, is there any point in continuing this spat just to score points? Japan has withdrawn it's request for an audit and has cl
154 Post contains images manny : Thanks for sparing me. There is a HUGE difference. That was your client. They could ask you business to take a hike! This is between two civil aviati
155 sankaps : The thread also deals with the right way to decline such requests if one feels an audit is unwarranted, through transparency and polite but firm dipl
156 ojas : Ref to my post #136, the Japanese withdrew the safety talk without any pre condition. To sum it up, Japan were forced to retract their stance. I do u
157 Post contains links lightsaber : We've debated this so long Japan is allowing India to fly 787s to Japan: http://www.travelbizmonitor.com/japa...air-india-to-fly-dreamliners-21917 And
158 PHX787 : Again I'll repeat myself- Japan can request ANYTHING it wants in the name of safety. Southeast Asia? Philippines? Hawaii and Guam? If China as much a
159 Post contains images 747megatop : Ain't happening buddy. If that happens by dinnertime; then pretty much we folks this side of the pacific and a billion people on that side of the pac
160 Post contains links DTW2HYD : Just to be clear if you are talking about aviation safety there is no legal standing. If you are talking about Japanese safety culture, here is a som
161 ojas : Absolutely not. I repeat, they were FORCED to withdraw their stance.
162 Post contains images bizmark03 : This is how I was, when I started reading this thread. PS: I don't even feel bad putting this on here, considering how much off topic this thread has
163 747megatop : First off you still did not answer my question and sidestepped it entirely. There is no definition written in concrete about what the thread should be
164 sankaps : What was your question? Fully agree, I don't see why you are belabouring this point. Right way is responding to bilateral requests, even if it is to
165 Post contains links Mats01776 : I stumbled upon this article that is related to this topic. Air India B787s 'banned' from Japan Exerpt: What should have happened was for JCAB to requ
166 manny : The article is from 19th August. Old and outdated piece of info.
167 sankaps : Does not change the sequence of events that had occurred upto that point, which are still very relevant to the discussion.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FAA Fines JFK/LGA/EWR/TEB For Safety Violations posted Mon Apr 8 2013 12:58:51 by LAXintl
Skymark Japan Applies For A380 Service To The US posted Wed Jan 2 2013 13:28:15 by LAXintl
Air India Summons Boeing Brass For Poor 787s posted Sat Nov 24 2012 02:49:43 by deaphen
FAA May Fine AA $162.4mil For Safety Violations posted Tue Aug 7 2012 09:45:41 by LAXintl
India Eyes Foreign Investment For Ailing Airlines posted Tue Jan 17 2012 11:59:28 by RoseFlyer
Request For SIA Flight Attendant posted Mon Jan 9 2012 03:34:02 by thecakeisalie
FAA Fines Colgan Air $1.9Mil For Safety Violations posted Thu Sep 15 2011 14:34:19 by LAXintl
Air India Finalizes $840mn Compensation For B787 posted Sun Dec 5 2010 03:25:26 by ojas
VX's Route Authority Request For Mexico posted Mon Jul 19 2010 18:26:46 by bt824
FAA Fines US & UA For Safety Violations posted Wed Oct 14 2009 21:46:45 by DTWLAX