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, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13466 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, 1555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13393 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, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13126 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, 585 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12874 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, 2910 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12802 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, 12321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12650 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, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12626 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, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12600 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 United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3447 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12469 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.



hit it and quit it
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12412 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 onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8615 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12279 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, 3596 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12191 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, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11927 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, 2910 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11860 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, 24310 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11716 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, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11607 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, 24310 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11529 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, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11312 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, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11149 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, 612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11108 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, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11089 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, 24310 posts, RR: 47
Reply 21, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11017 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, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10899 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, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10803 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, 24310 posts, RR: 47
Reply 24, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 10299 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
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10436 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 24):
Great, then only another hoop to jump through with Japan.

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 kettle black.


User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10304 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 12):
BTW all B787 customers are loosing money because of the steel case.

Care to elaborate on this ? This is the first time I have heard this.


User currently offlineSATexan From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10292 times:

Curious question. Does anyone know if other countries routinely audit the FAA and clear their practices?

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10232 times:

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 26):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 12):
BTW all B787 customers are loosing money because of the steel case.

Care to elaborate on this ? This is the first time I have heard this.

150 lb deadweight doesn't fly without burning additional fuel. No customer signed up for this additional weight until Boeing finds another battery design. Elan Musk, Hint hint.

Quoting SATexan (Reply 27):
Does anyone know if other countries routinely audit the FAA and clear their practices?

747megatop answered this question in reply 17. FAA & EASA have a pact, where auditors from other agency can participate during internal audits. Same goes for inspections.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9930 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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. Both JCAB and DGCA should open themselves up for audit by each other. Similar to how our FAA has working agreements/cooperations in place with other international counterparts and similar to how EASA has agreements in place with other counterparts - https://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/international-cooperation-working-arrangements.php . I am not a fan of Indian Beuracracy too but i agree to what SonomaFlyer said in reply 1 -

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1):
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.

There has to be a method in the madness and multiple redundant audits (and that too with differing standards and procedures) does not necessarily improve aviation safety. Maybe ICAO audits and safety standards need to be more streamlined and standardized so that once an ICAO audit of a member country is done, that certification carries weight and that country need not be audited again and again in every country that it is operating in. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the strictest standards in aviation safety and India should be held accountable to the strictest audits and standards there is (at the cost of even banning them from flying to other countries if found unable to meet those standards) but that does not mean they they or any other country for that matter start getting audited without any logical explanation and rhyme or reason especially when the same setup has been audited by at least 2 other agencies. (and yes i have read the other posts about ICAO regulations being the common denominator etc.; then, i still think ICAO certifications need to be more streamlined, standardised and improved..that should be the approach going forward).

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 24):
Anyhow, its not like India does not have its own unique set of regulatory burdens when it comes to many industries.

Well, how does it become "regulatory burden" like you have put it and "beuraucracy" like others have put it when India demands compliance with something and how does it become "aviation safety" and "strictest regulations" like others have described the Japanese when Japanese make the demands? To me it should be a 2 way street and JCAB and DGCA should come to a mutual working agreement and agree to auditing each other; otherwise it smacks of double standards. Like it or not that is the politics of aviation and so be it.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6094 posts, RR: 9
Reply 30, posted (6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9713 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Thread starter):
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.

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, this sends a very wrong message. If they really wanted to "take a stab" at Japan, the right answer was : "sure come over, meanwhile we'll return the courtesy and audit Japan !".



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):
Besides, when safety is involved, you always have to show you're ready to prove you're up to snuff, this sends a very wrong message. If they really wanted to "take a stab" at Japan, the right answer was : "sure come over, meanwhile we'll return the courtesy and audit Japan !".

   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 flying.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 32, posted (6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9614 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 13):
What's up will all this anti-Japan statements recently on this site.

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

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 19):
We definitely know someone who won't get Haneda international flight slot.

   that's probaby true now.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
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.

Exactly, and if anyone's been to Japan they'll see that everything here is about safety. Seriously. Safety is absolutely key here. Companies will shell out thousands of dollars just for the most advanced safety features. It's why you can have excessively skinny and narrow roads here without a high rate of auto crashes!



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9535 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):
Besides, when safety is involved, you always have to show you're ready to prove you're up to snuff, this sends a very wrong message. If they really wanted to "take a stab" at Japan, the right answer was : "sure come over, meanwhile we'll return the courtesy and audit Japan !".

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 it wants operate. Problem is Japan rubbed the wrong way. For 4 months Japan said AI cannot fly 787. So AI switched to 77L. After ICAO/FAA successfully cleared DGCA now JCAB wants to audit.

AI should say sayanora to Japan. If JL/NH feel safe they can fly to India otherwise they shouldn't. Japan also can kiss $8 Billion exports to India good bye. Japanese obsession about quality/safety is all BS. Toyota USA fiasco and Fukushima incidents prove it.

Indian Government is very diplomatic. Let Japan request CAAC (China) audit, and wait for the response. It will be a memorable one.

[Edited 2013-09-19 18:51:06]

User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9471 times:

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 to impose their own requirements above and beyond bare bones ICAO regulations.

Btw I hope you realize, the Japanese inspect French airlines also. I don't see France complaining. Even Australia CASA comes and inspects French airlines as well.

Its part of the global business. One has to comply with the regulatory authorities of various countries in the world where one desires to do business.

I am sure India requires a host of regulations on the business products of foreign entities which might be different then their home markets. But if they wish to do business with India they will comply right?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 35, posted (6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9460 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1):

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.

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 countries.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1):

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.

That does not mean much, the FAA audit probably was in line with the Part 129 certificate, which is related to the way Indian carriers operate into/out of the US. It does not cover other countries. The same airline can operate differently into different countries.

The other aspect will have to the actual authority, if the DGAC has issued the TCDS for the Indian 787s, it is also then responsible for issuing the ADs for the same. This might be a subtle way of identifying that India has not issued an AD for the issues that grounded many 787s. So the aircraft could potentially be going around "unsafe" by Japanese, FAA, EASA standards.

The core issue here has not been identified.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6):
Every aviation authority does their own audits.

Correct, and most authorities issue something equivalent to a Foreign Air Operators Certificate to international carriers that stipulate how they are to operate into their country.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 7):
Why is Japan demanding a safety audit in the first place? Have they asked for a similar safety audit from other countries?

They do.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
ICAO is the most basic baseline regulations the industry has.

They are ICAO SARPs, Standards and Recommended Practices, they are then adopted by member states in local regulations. ICAO is not a regulator.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2213 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9441 times:

An adequate response would have been for India's DGCA to audit Japanese Indian operations and all would be well. Reciprocity is standard in international relations.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 33):

Sounds like your knickers are all in a twist.   



oh boy!!!
User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 36):
An adequate response would have been for India's DGCA to audit Japanese Indian operations

Not just the Indian operations, think DGCA would probably want to audit JCAB fully including their Japanese setup. From what i understood JCAB wants to fully audit DGCA fully including it's setup in India; not just AI's Japanese operations.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8969 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 25):
Japan pushing a B788 customer on a battery fix issue comes out as pot calling the kettle black.

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 blaming Yuasa.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 23):
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.

What has that got to do with the topic at hand?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 24):
Anyhow, its not like India does not have its own unique set of regulatory burdens when it comes to many industries.

Exactly. Pot-kettle-black actually applies well here.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 28):
150 lb deadweight doesn't fly without burning additional fuel. No customer signed up for this additional weight until Boeing finds another battery design. Elan Musk, Hint hint.

Not the same thing as saying "every 787 operator is making losses" thanks to this.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 33):
AI should say sayanora to Japan. If JL/NH feel safe they can fly to India otherwise they shouldn't. Japan also can kiss $8 Billion exports to India good bye.

This arrogant attitude really does not serve any country well, especially one that still depends on imports for critical needs.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 33):
Indian Government is very diplomatic. Let Japan request CAAC (China) audit, and wait for the response.

China is very pragmatic in these matters, their response would be a mature one.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
Btw I hope you realize, the Japanese inspect French airlines also. I don't see France complaining. Even Australia CASA comes and inspects French airlines as well.

Exactly.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 38):
Stay on topic. Adults are having important conversation.

Some adults are trying to explain to others why some people (*hint*) should not repeatedly make arrogant and sweeping assertions without any basis in facts.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8865 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 38):

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 operate. If AI already decided to cut Japan service there is no need for audit. Do you think Australia allowed AI to start service after 16 years without a fresh audit?


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6726 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8851 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
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.

Maybe the more stringent nations should have their standards adapted as the default and do away with ICAO.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
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 to impose their own requirements above and beyond bare bones ICAO regulations.

Is this like not having anything to hide so anyone can come search your home and do a blood test?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 36):
An adequate response would have been for India's DGCA to audit Japanese Indian operations and all would be well. Reciprocity is standard in international relations.

Why, does India have a problem with Japanese a/c / ailine / infrastructure or should they do this just to be politically correct?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 38):

This arrogant attitude really does not serve any country well, especially one that still depends on imports for critical needs.

Both nations rely on imports, for Japan it may be more critical give the extent of their industrial base.

So far not many have questioned the continued moving of the goal post and the reason's for it.
Is it true that Japan denied AI 787 flights?
Did AI pull the 787 thes use the 777L's?
Is Japan now objecting to the 777L or now need to inspect something other than the actual a/c?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8838 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
So far not many have questioned the continued moving of the goal post and the reason's for it.

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 be something specific that has come up to cause concern. It is unlikely they would just randomly start doing this.

Perhaps it has something to do with India having being placed on the ICAO blacklist for safety oversight, which was only removed in April this year. http://www.livemint.com/Politics/f0T...moved-from-aviation-blacklist.html .

Maybe that spooked them -- if the most lenient of all audits could land India in the blacklist, would it pass Japan's standards?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8815 times:

In addition, this article sheds some light too... http://www.aviationpros.com/news/111...ists-several-areas-for-improvement . Seems the FAA audit found issues too.

Excerpt from the article: "Indeed, since Air India hasn't maintained documents of its first flights with the new 787 aircraft, and fumbled to provide details, FAA believed there was something amiss, according to a second DGCA official who also asked not to be identified.

"There was only a lack of documentation," said the first DGCA official. "There is a cultural gap too. We don't document everything. ""

"The official added that DGCA plans to induct about 100 officers to its headcount of about 350 and prepare training policies for its officials as part of its effort to address the issues raised by FAA."

[Edited 2013-09-20 05:53:01]

User currently offlineMats01776 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8804 times:

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-filings-by-Jet-Air-Ind.html

Quote:

...The United Nation’s International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao) had after an audit of the DGCA in December clubbed India among 13 nations with the worst air safety oversight. It removed India from its blacklist only in August after a compliance audit of DGCA’s mechanisms.
...Icao had in its December report identified a “significant safety concern with respect to the ability of this state (India) to properly oversee areas” under airworthiness and operations.
The concern on airworthiness related to approval of major modifications and repairs carried out on foreign manufactured aircraft and registered in India.
The concern on operations related to the procedure for grant of air operator permits to non-scheduled operators and the flight documentation systems of scheduled airlines.
Icao had clubbed India with 12 other nations including Angola, Congo, Eritrea, Haiti, Kazakhstan and Lebanon as having the worst air safety oversight.
That report resulted in Japan stalling Air India’s plan to start flights to Osaka and prompted the FAA to seek an independent audit, Mint reported on 21 August.


Personally, I think DGCA's best course of action is to demand a reciprocal audit of JCAB and let the chips fall where they may.

[Edited 2013-09-20 06:02:14]

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8774 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 41):

ICAO/FAA findings are related to maintenance of General Aviation Aircraft mainly charter/corporate jets flying out of country. DGCA agreed to impose restrictions charter/corporate jets. Nothing to do with commercial aviation.

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
Is it true that Japan denied AI 787 flights?

Yes, Japan wanted documentation related to immediate flights after B787 battery fix. DGCA was not aware of this documentation at that time and they fixed the issue.

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
Did AI pull the 787 thes use the 777L's?

Yes. Right now it operates 3 weekly DEL-NRT on 77L and a daily HKG-KIX on a 77L. DEL-NRT doesn't make sense on a 77L and probably not even on a 788.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...6/history/20130920/1540Z/VIDP/RJAA
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...4/history/20130921/0005Z/VHHH/RJBB

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
Is Japan now objecting to the 777L or now need to inspect something other than the actual a/c?

No they are not objecting to 77L. JCAB just wants to audit DGCA.

AI can better use B788s some where else, so they are not interested in dealing with Japan as of now.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8773 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 44):

ICAO/FAA findings are related to maintenance of General Aviation Aircraft mainly charter/corporate jets flying out of country. DGCA agreed to impose restrictions charter/corporate jets. Nothing to do with commercial aviation.

Source? This is clearly not what is stated in the articles linked by me and others. Those articles clearly mention commercial airlines and aircraft operations.

[Edited 2013-09-20 06:19:19]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8725 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 46):
Source?http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...india/41436121_1_flights-icao-dgca
http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...tandards-charter-aviation-watchdog
http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...india

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 blackeye for the DGCA and Indian civil aviation. It is even more clear now why Japan is not comfortable. And I don't blame them at all.

[Edited 2013-09-20 06:31:24]

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 48, posted (6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8699 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 47):
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 blackeye for the DGCA and Indian civil aviation. It is even more clear now why Japan is not comfortable. And I don't blame them at all.

Granted you have different take on everything, based on following excerpts from news articles does it look like different issue.

"The United Nations' aviation watchdog has raised a safety alarm over charter aircraft operations in India. The Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has issued "significant safety concerns" over aircraft charter operations in India."

"Eon Aviation, whose planes were hired by the country's top politicians and high net worth individuals, was among the four companies examined last week by the DGCA and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). This was a part of the ICAO audit of the DGCA after the former had raised two significant safety concerns (SSC) on Indian aviation."


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8657 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 48):
Granted you have different take on everything, based on following excerpts from news articles does it look like different issue.

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 don't think you have bothered to read) that the ICAO and FAA audits involved scheduled airline operations, and the blacklist India was on included scheduled airline operations. There is NO way anyone with any comprehension skills can deny that.

Now EITHER separately OR in addition, there are issues that were found relating to charter / non-scheduled operations that you have pointed out. Makes the story even worse for the DGCA and Indian civil aviation oversight, does it not? How can anyone, even you, try to continue to spin that?

But seriously, I should not waste my time arguing with someone who recently referred to Qantas as a "paper airline" compared to Air India which is a "real airline". It is a parallel reality you appear to live in.

[Edited 2013-09-20 06:58:26]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12406 posts, RR: 100
Reply 50, posted (6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8662 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

Normally I would quote a half dozen posts. But eventually this audit will go through. India could audit the Japanese authority or ANA or JAL. But the scope must be defined, based off of a reason.

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
Why, does India have a problem with Japanese a/c / ailine / infrastructure or should they do this just to be politically correct?

That is the point. This isn't being done arbitrarily.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 44):
DGCA agreed to impose restrictions charter/corporate jets. Nothing to do with commercial aviation.

So is this a corporate jet charter issue?


Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 51, posted (6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8607 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 49):

-ICAO auditors looked into both commercial and charter ops.
-Significant Safety Concern findings were about charter operators.
-There was missing documentation related B787 battery fix and flights just after that. That issue was addressed long back.
-DGCA took corrective action by cancelling/restricting charter operators.
-DGCA passed ICAO audit
-FAA confirmed DGCA addressed all ICAO's SSCs during their audit.
-DGCA passed FAA audit.

Where is the confusion?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 50):
So is this a corporate jet charter issue?

ICAO Significant Safety Concerns were related to charter/corporate jet issues. With new found wealth Indians are buying business jets and flying to where ever they want without proper maintenance.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8529 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 51):
ICAO Significant Safety Concerns were related to charter/corporate jet issues.
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 51):
Where is the confusion?

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 ops.

Which is why the sub-headline of the linked article http://www.livemint.com/Politics/f0T...moved-from-aviation-blacklist.html says that the removal from the blacklist "will allow India’s major airlines, including Air India and Jet Airways, to expand overseas".

It may be the case that charter ops either still remains on the blacklist, or has now been added to it while commercial ops has been removed. But charter ops is not relevant to the discussion, and you should stop confusing the issue by going on about it.

The article further goes on to state:

"The UN aviation watchdog, which had clubbed India among 13 nations with the worst record of air safety oversight, has removed the country from its blacklist after a compliance audit of the Indian aviation regulator last week.

“They have issued an order which we have just received that they have found India compliant. They have removed us from significant safety concerns list,” director general of civil aviation Arun Mishra said in an interview.

The clearance will allow India’s major airlines, including Air India Ltd and Jet Airways (India) Ltd, to expand overseas.". "

The article also states that "Icao’s December audit led to Japan stalling Air India’s plan to start flights to Osaka and prompted the US regulator Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to seek an independent audit which will be conducted next month.".

The FAA audit has now happened, but Japan wants to do its own audit given this history. That is where we are now.

PLEASE read the articles before continuing to argue!


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8483 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
PLEASE read the articles before continuing to argue!

Well, you are quoting an article dated August, 29 prior to successful audits by both ICAO and FAA.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
Icao’s December audit led to Japan stalling Air India’s plan to start flights to Osaka

That is a misstatement. Look flightaware.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...6/history/20130920/1540Z/VIDP/RJAA
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...4/history/20130921/0005Z/VHHH/RJBB

Would you allow background check from a company you are not planning to work for. This is exactly same.

BTW, you are not going win the argument by talking me down. 20 years with Corporate America. Nothing scares me anymore.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 54, posted (6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8460 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 53):

He won the argument about ten posts ago.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8421 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 53):
Well, you are quoting an article dated August, 29 prior to successful audits by both ICAO and FAA.

Yes, I know. Does not change the point being made. Try to follow the logic stream of this thread.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 53):
20 years with Corporate America. Nothing scares me anymore.

That IS scary. For entirely different reasons.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 54):
He won the argument about ten posts ago.

Thanks, BW. I thought I had too. Therefore I am now done with this thread as clearly one cannot continue to argue a point that is blatantly obvious to all except one person.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8406 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 54):
He won the argument about ten posts ago.

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 reveal complete details and all sources he will be drifting forever.


User currently offlineMats01776 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8309 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Thread starter):
Interesting, it allowed audits from ICAO and FAA, but rejected JCAB.

An interesting bit of information that gives a perspective on the situation at hand - It appears that there is no existing "safety audit" agreement between India and Japan according to this article:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...dia/40656680_1_dgca-icao-air-india

Quote:
EASA wants details of safety concerns raised by ICAO over India. "They want
to know what India has done to allay them," said sources. While India has
audit agreements with US FAA and ICAO under which they can examine the DGCA,
there is no such pact with Japan and EASA.
Hence the latter have had to
limit their concerns to raising queries instead of sending teams to examine
the DGCA and its processes.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12406 posts, RR: 100
Reply 58, posted (6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 8204 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 failed but did so in a correctable way.

Considering how Japan is still waiting for records on the 787, records that would be an easy pdf send, its no surprise they are concerned on other aircraft.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 51):
With new found wealth Indians are buying business jets and flying to where ever they want without proper maintenance.

That works until some pop diva is lost in a crash. Its sort of sad how things work...

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
The article also states that "Icao’s December audit led to Japan stalling Air India’s plan to start flights to Osaka and prompted the US regulator Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to seek an independent audit which will be conducted next month.".

The FAA audit has now happened, but Japan wants to do its own audit given this history. That is where we are now.

And Japan doesn't have an audit agreement... So they will have to ask specifics on the 77Ls (or 787s, if approved).    While not ideal, by the letter of the law, I guess India could tell Japan "no!"

There is a reason the used 77Ls aren't selling. I speculate poor maintenance records. Japan does have a right to ask for specifics on planes flying to their country.

and as I read the links, the DGCA didn't pass.    They were given two years to correct. There is a big difference...

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3171 posts, RR: 9
Reply 59, posted (6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 8187 times:

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, it's corrupt, inadequately staffed and trained, and a sham at best. Even the Indian legislators have recognized this, and are in the process of fixing the DGCA.

And then we go all high and mighty and refuse a perfectly valid Audit request! Crazies...



Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlineAirIndia111 From India, joined Aug 2013, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 8183 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 44):
Right now it operates 3 weekly DEL-NRT on 77L and a daily HKG-KIX on a 77L.

3 weekly DEL-NRT and 3 weekly DEL-HKG-KIX. The DEL-HKG flight continues to ICN on the other 4 days.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 8139 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 58):
and as I read the links, the DGCA didn't pass.    They were given two years to correct. There is a big difference...

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 India. There was a previous ICAO audit got written up and given time to fix. DGCA fixed those. Both ICAO and FAA audits are cleared as of last week.

Two year time frame to get rid of DGCA and setup CAA.

I completely agree with you on corporate/charter jet situation. DGCA completely screwed up by not controlling them. Funny part is for some reason India + Airline + Problem = Air India.

[Edited 2013-09-20 13:16:05]

User currently offlinempdpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 986 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8092 times:

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 there aren't any other issues that were just missed.

In this situation it seems very possible that Japan saw how things with the 787 were handled and wanted to know more about everything as thought AI isn't using the 787 they could have issues with the 77L.

Just a thought



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31568 posts, RR: 57
Reply 63, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7768 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1):
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.

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 others.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 64, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7609 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 50):
Normally I would quote a half dozen posts. But eventually this audit will go through. India could audit the Japanese authority or ANA or JAL. But the scope must be defined, based off of a reason.

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 of which the IACO and IATA requires.

And the USA should note these safety standards are non-invasive (when it comes to the security lines at airports   )



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6590 posts, RR: 75
Reply 65, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7429 times:

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?

Yes, Japan has audited other countries. Since 2007 the Indonesian DGCA has been audited by Japan at least twice!

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 7):
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.

Exactly! JCAB has audited my country and its neighbours... yes, they audited the regulators, growth countries are targetted because generally the concern is whether or not the regulator of that country has adequate manpower to provide adequate oversight... and India has been a borderline case for many years...

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

He doesn't.

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 19):
We definitely know someone who won't get Haneda international flight slot.

  

Quoting zeke (Reply 35):
The other aspect will have to the actual authority, if the DGAC has issued the TCDS for the Indian 787s, it is also then responsible for issuing the ADs for the same. This might be a subtle way of identifying that India has not issued an AD for the issues that grounded many 787s. So the aircraft could potentially be going around "unsafe" by Japanese, FAA, EASA standards.

This basically comes under "oversight capability", if India can't even endorse foreign ADs on aircraft used by Indian companies operating the affected aircraft, it raises questions.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 39):
Can you show me one example where a CAA allowed audit from another country to which none of its airlines planning to operate.

Based on a ICAO USOAP report in early 2007, FAA audited Indonesian DGCA in 2007, this resulted in Indonesia getting the Category II country status. This was then followed by an audit by EASA, which found the same findings, and later by the EUETC, after which the EU slapped a ban on airlines under our DGCA's coverage.
At that time, no Indonesian airlines were operating to the EU or USA, and no plans (apart from dream-plans) were in place.

Since, the Indonesian DGCA have been audited by Saudi's GACA, Japan's JCAB, Australia's CASA, EASA has made its rounds again, the FAA has until recently (which stopped due to US Govt budget cuts), the list goes on. Add on several national regulators of EU countries too doing their own individual audits...

FAA, EASA, JCAB and CASA are providing assistance to our DGCA to work on the audit findings, and Japan have also allocated a lot of aid budget for our DGCA improvements (not loans, aid)...

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
Why, does India have a problem with Japanese a/c / ailine / infrastructure or should they do this just to be politically correct?

Maybe they don't like a "fellow Asian nation" auditing them... and then offering them aid to help and improve.
It's a national ego thing.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 44):
Yes, Japan wanted documentation related to immediate flights after B787 battery fix. DGCA was not aware of this documentation at that time and they fixed the issue.

Which indicates lack of oversight capability. This is adequate ground for asking for an audit.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 48):
Granted you have different take on everything, based on following excerpts from news articles does it look like different issue.

Again, those indicate problems in oversight capability.
An audit pass by another entity would have made a good confidence sign that the problems are solved. Refusing it, does point at the possibility of hiding something.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 51):
-ICAO auditors looked into both commercial and charter ops.
-Significant Safety Concern findings were about charter operators.
-There was missing documentation related B787 battery fix and flights just after that. That issue was addressed long back.
-DGCA took corrective action by cancelling/restricting charter operators.
-DGCA passed ICAO audit
-FAA confirmed DGCA addressed all ICAO's SSCs during their audit.
-DGCA passed FAA audit.

Where is the confusion?

So why can the FAA audit and JCAB cannot? Is the FAA and JCAB not on equal footing?
Significant safety concern findings were about charter operators = points to a general oversight capability concern. Again, grounds for proposing an audit, JCAB wants to see if the concerns are effectively contained within the charter ops or it's by chance that it's contained at the charter operations. Furthermore, charter operations in countries with no significant General Aviation presence (which India is one of those) should be easier to oversight, hence concern on this reflects a larger potential problem. JCAB can ask for an audit to see if measures or restrictions are needed to prevent putting risks to the Japanese population. This is a similar excuse why FAA & EASA audits on other countries' CAA take place.

Why should India get given a special status and be allowed to say, "JCAB, we don't think you're good enough"?

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 56):
No he didn't.

Yes he did.



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineFCAFLYBOY From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 582 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7386 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 9):

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 safely? Very big headed statement IMO.

India should not back down, AI might not have got a lot right these last few years, but the 787 is a Boeing isse, not an AI or India issue. Good on them. If Japan make sanctions, expect India to make some twice as bad, and keys not forget India is now the bigger economy.


User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3432 posts, RR: 26
Reply 67, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7362 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting FCAFLYBOY (Reply 66):
and keys not forget India is now the bigger economy

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 air carrier to play by its rules-and regulations.

Out of curiosity: Is the ICAO standard (on the Boeing 787) more-or less exacting than that of the Japanese Civil Aviation Bureau?


Regards,

SA7700

[Edited 2013-09-22 02:57:29]


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7295 times:

Quoting FCAFLYBOY (Reply 66):
India is now the bigger economy
Quoting SA7700 (Reply 67):
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 air carrier to play by its rules-and regulations.

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 PPP-adjusted GDP. No one can buy oil or iPods or airplanes or arms using PPP-adjusted currency, for example).

2012 GDP :
Japan: 5.96 trillion
India: 1.84 trillion

Even the UK, with only 5% of India's population, has a bigger GDP than India at 2.44 trillion.

[Edited 2013-09-22 03:26:49]

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

Quoting Mats01776 (Reply 57):
It appears that there is no existing "safety audit" agreement between India and Japan

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 agreements. Not applicable in this case.

Auditing facilities/airlines is not same as auditing CAA. There are lot of irrelevant quotes and comparisons.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 65):
Why should India get given a special status and be allowed to say, "JCAB, we don't think you're good enough"?

The proper procedure for Japan is to get a copy of ICAO audit, ask for additional information through ICAO. They can even have Japanese representative as part of ICAO audit team.

EASA appears not to have a direct agreement with India, but EASA has an agreement with FAA and EASA auditors can tag along any FAA audit team.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 65):
if measures or restrictions are needed to prevent putting risks to the Japanese population.

Japan can ban AI, it can issue an advisory to its citizens not to fly AI, ask its airlines to stop flying to India, all perfectly valid options. Pestering a country without legal standing is not an option. And you think Japanese are the only ones care about their citizens safety and rest of world is giving a free ride to India. Two hints, TEPCO and Toyota USA.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 65):
Significant safety concern findings were about charter operators = points to a general oversight capability concern.

Do you know how many corrective actions India took to curtail charter/corporate operations. They cannot fly to international destinations any more. Cancelled licenses to at least four operators. It even banned visas to foreign business jet pilots. They can no longer get crew visa.

In summary, JCAB has no legal standing to DGCA and if AI doesn't want to continue service to Japan to cut loses there is no business reason.


User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3432 posts, RR: 26
Reply 70, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7096 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 69):
In summary, JCAB has no legal standing to DGCA and if AI doesn't want to continue service to Japan to cut loses there is no business reason.

Yes and the DGCA is responsible for implementing, controlling, and supervising airworthiness standards, safety operations, crew training in India not in Japan. In this case it takes two to tango and if AI wishes to serve Japan, they will have to come forward with some constructive alternatives or compromises for that matter.  


Regards,

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 71, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7087 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.

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 had just started improving. After years of neglect, Japan realised it was left behind in India, and that the Koreans, Americans, Germans, British, even the Swiss were ahead in terms of realising economic benefits from India.

Recent financial involvement of Japan in major projects like te Delhi metro, the Mumbai Delhi industrial corridor, the proposed Bangalore Chennai industrial corridor etc. EVen Japanese car makers like Toyota have significantly increased their investment in India.

Unfortunately, neither AI nor JL or NH are realising the economic benefit of this increased relationship. Mostly ASEAN carriers SQ, TG, MH, are benefiting, along with CX and KA.

Its a similar situation with Korea. Both KE and OZ have very limited service from India to ICN.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6):
Sometimes we have an audit every week.

I am surprised you guys managed to get your work done.   



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 72, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7045 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 69):
JCAB has no legal standing to DGCA and if AI doesn't want to continue service to Japan to cut loses there is no business reason.


A safety audit is a better outcome?


Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 71):
nfortunately, neither AI nor JL or NH are realising the economic benefit of this increased relationship. Mostly ASEAN carriers SQ, TG, MH, are benefiting, along with CX and KA.

Its a similar situation with Korea. Both KE and OZ have very limited service from India to ICN.

Long, Thin, low yield markets are notoriously difficult to make money on - non stop. Even China to India is still remarkably poorly served.

Once the Chinese get their hubs working, this will be a natural break between India and North East Asia.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7016 times:

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 70):
Yes and the DGCA is responsible for implementing, controlling, and supervising airworthiness standards, safety operations, crew training in India not in Japan. In this case it takes two to tango and if AI wishes to serve Japan, they will have to come forward with some constructive alternatives or compromises for that matter.

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 Japan is probably not on top their priority list. As they get remaining 19 x 788s they may show more interest in Japan among others.

DGCA is not a full fledged CAA. So India is gutting DGCA and setting up a new CAA. If I understand correctly DGCA's head is fired from the position. His tenure was extended by few months just to complete ICAO/FAA audits.

If India doesn't address real issues related to corporate/charter operations ASAP, it will loose Cat-I status and has to deal with lot more countries.

ICAO auditors are not from Mars,audit team is assembled with auditors from various CAAs for any given audit. If its concerns are so grave, JCAB could have sent its auditor as part of ICAO team.


User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3432 posts, RR: 26
Reply 74, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6986 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 73):
India definitely will

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]


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6726 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6949 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 73):
If India doesn't address real issues related to corporate/charter operations ASAP, it will loose Cat-I status and has to deal with lot more countries.

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 will they attempt to "suggest" that direct links at this time is not deemed appropriate?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12406 posts, RR: 100
Reply 76, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6929 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 there is in India. Every bank out there in the aircraft leasing market should be pushing for reform in India.

The inability of AI to produce paper for the 787s was a red flag.
The inability of AI to sell the 77Ls due to poor documentation is another red flag.

What else lurks. Is 6E keeping up their paper?
Is 9W?

For a nation that needs to borrow $88B+ per year, India sure has a different attitude on the Golden rule...
The FAA audit wasn't a pass by any measure.


Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 77, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6867 times:

Quoting FCAFLYBOY (Reply 66):
If Japan make sanctions, expect India to make some twice as bad, and keys not forget India is now the bigger economy.

I disagree. India is still a much smaller economy than Japan, but more importantly, economic wars hurt everyone.

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 67):
but that of a sovereign nation requesting a foreign air carrier to play by its rules-and regulations.

Actually, the JCAB asked for an audit of the entire Indian aviation sector not Air India alone. Something akin to the ICAO and FAA audit. Quoting from the original PTI report

Quote:
aviation regulator DGCA has rejected a request from its Japanese counterpart to carry out a safety audit of the Indian aviation sector.

No other country has asked for an audit, and frankly, the posturing could be to prevent setting an example which can open the floodgates from every country asking for an audit. Please appreciate the additional work required if all the civil aviation regulators of each country, want to audit of the Indian regulator. In this regard, India is holding its ground, rather correctly.

I notice you are from South Africa. Would the country's regulator accept an audit from India? Considering only about 1 or 2 flights a day, it is just not worth the effort.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 73):
DGCA is not a full fledged CAA. So India is gutting DGCA and setting up a new CAA. If I understand correctly DGCA's head is fired from the position. His tenure was extended by few months just to complete ICAO/FAA audits.

Sorry brother, you are wrong in your assumptions.

The reason the DGCA is being morphed in to the CAA is purely administrative. The DGCA stands for Directorate General of civil aviation. This means this is a department within a ministry, in this case MoCA, and is dependent on the parent ministry for its funding. This raises doubts on the independence of the DGCA, keeping in mind, AI is owned by MoCA as is the Airports Authority of India which not just operates airports, but also offers ATC and navigation services.

An Authority is a statutory body set up by an Act of Parliament. Thus independent of the ministry. As a civil aviation Authority they would derive funding directly by charging fees directly to airport, airlines, passengers, etc.

The DGCA currently comes from the ranks of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) bureaucracy. Arun Mishra had completed his tenure and was due to return to the cadre. His tenure at the DGCA was extended to complete the audits, something that would be difficult for a fresh IAS officer who has just assumed the position of DGCA, to do.

If you recall, Dr. Nasim Zaidi was DGCA, then returned to the cadre, and was posted as the Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, i.e. the senior most bureaucrat in the ministry. All these secretaries vie for the post of Cabinet Secretary who is the national equivalent of the Chief Secretary of a state.

An Authority is normally headed by a former IAS officer, or a head, who is not from the current IAS cadre. This allows for much longer tenures and hence longer term stability.

Sorry for the long explanation, but I hope this helps.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 78, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6839 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 75):
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 will they attempt to "suggest" that direct links at this time is not deemed appropriate?

Economic wars hurt everyone. Expect some behind the scenes negotiations and this issue being sorted out. Japan will not retaliate against AI. That will invite some action against JL and NH, an as I said, this does not help.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
Did any Japanese bank loose money on IT leases? That was a HUGE debacle showing how little oversight there is in India. Every bank out there in the aircraft leasing market should be pushing for reform in India.

Rules were amended two weeks ago. And it is not a debacle nor is it an issue of poor oversight. Leasing is a relatively new business method in India, and the law has to catch up with definitions. Lease-hold rights can be court-attached. My mother had leased land to a factory which defaulted to the banks. They attached her land since the lease-rights were an asset of the defaulting company. That lease concluded in 2011 but we had to run around and get a court-order for its release.

I agree it is painful, but this is multi-ministry. Law, Finance, Civil Aviation, so it takes time sometimes. We face similar issues in the US of law-lag, like legal-ethical when it comes to developments in modern medicine, and science?



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6761 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 77):
Sorry for the long explanation, but I hope this helps.

Thanks for the explanation, keeping aside all the intricacies of Indian bureaucracy does the new CAA have authority and resources to regulate the sector like FAA/EASA or just a name change.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12406 posts, RR: 100
Reply 80, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6580 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 78):
Rules were amended two weeks ago.

I would like to know more. If too far off topic, please IM me details.

This is an argument with many layers...

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinevvbkumar From India, joined Jun 2008, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6552 times:

Quoting Nimish (Reply 59):
Quoting SA7700 (Reply 70):

  

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 JCAB or for that matter any country that airlines from India fly to? And if it is the case of hurt ego's of bureaucrats, DGCA can respond by requesting the same from JCAB.


User currently offlineYLWbased From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 803 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6471 times:

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? 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.

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 separate audit.

YLWbased



Hong Kong is not China. Not better or worse, just different.
User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 83, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6172 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 79):
does the new CAA have authority and resources to regulate the sector like FAA/EASA or just a name change.

The CAA is not yet formed. The cabinet passed the proposed legislation, but it has to go before parliament.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 80):
I would like to know more. If too far off topic, please IM me details.

It was in the papers. Quoting from a story http://www.business-standard.com/art...duling-charges-113091300960_1.html I am sure there are others around this same subject in all the papers on that day.

Quote:
The Civil Aviation Ministry also decided to amend Aircraft Act and Rules to safeguard the interests of aircraft leasing companies. Aircraft leasing companies have increased lease rentals and are specifying stringent conditions for Indian airlines in view of the difficulties faced by lessors in re-possessing aircraft from the now grounded Kingfisher Airlines (KFA).

Shrivastava said global leasing companies are “wary” of doing business in India. "To ensure government's commitment to abide by the Cape Town Convention, we have decided to incorporate changes in Aircraft Act and Rules (1934) to satisfy the lessors," he said. Cape Town Convention is a global treaty to standardise transactions involving movable property like aircraft and their engines, railway equipment and space assets.

Airports Authority of India (AAI) had taken over several aircraft, including leased ones, to recover dues from Kingfisher Airlines. Banks and other lenders also contemplated similar moves and there were several court cases, with the leasing firms (which actually owned these planes) not able to get them back.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineSpiderguy252 From India, joined Feb 2009, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6051 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 9):

It's a bad move because Japan hates being snubbed diplomatically like this.

In this instance they were asking for the cake to be creamed on their faces, unfortunately.



Figure .09
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12406 posts, RR: 100
Reply 85, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5953 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 83):
Quoting from a story http://www.business-standard.com/art...duling-charges-113091300960_1.html I am sure there are others around this same subject in all the papers on that day.

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 the difficulties.

Quoting YLWbased (Reply 82):
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 separate audit.

This is interesting... both are within their rights.

We'll see who can be more stubborn the longest.  

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 86, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5743 times:

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 84):
In this instance they were asking for the cake to be creamed on their faces, unfortunately.

Jeeeeeeeez with the innuendos here   

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 85):

Quoting YLWbased (Reply 82):
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 separate audit.

This is interesting... both are within their rights.

We'll see who can be more stubborn the longest.

Are you talking about AI and JMOT?

If so, then JMOT will win....Japan's safety standards, as I've said all along, are absolutely top notch. Don't try to dodge them.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5695 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 86):
Japan's safety standards, as I've said all along, are absolutely top notch.

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 notch in safety and quality, so it is not off topic.

Myth 1: Japan cares about their citizens.
TEPCO, knowing about radiation leak since 2008 and even after US told to fix the problem, TEPCO ignored and didn't fix the leaks. Even if Tsunami is a natural disaster, TEPCO meltdown is man made (not my theory, read both international and Japanese reports). Retired TEPCO engineers knowingly sacrificed their life by entering the plant. Every one knows they are not going to live long. No nation which cares about their citizens safety will not send them on a suicide mission. It is still leaking radiation water and there is no fix until 2020. Millions of Japanese will suffer long lasting health problems, kids will be born with abnormalities, bottom line millions will die several generations will suffer miserable life.

On top of it TEPCO paid only half of the claims. So much for a rich nation. Because TEPCO didn't pay claims, as a safeguard India passed a Nuclear Liabilities Law to force companies to pay minimum liabilities. Now Westinghouse(US) is stuck in this mess to start nuclear ops in India. India has to issue a waiver to Westinghouse. Both India and US are mad at Japan.

Myth 2: Japan cares about other countries citizens
Toyota USA, First complaints about unintended acceleration were in 2003, Toyota's internal documents show it knows about the problem (check CNN article). When customers(in small numbers) complained it could have replaced the gas pedal, Toyota will never do that because it is like acknowledging the issue. In 2009 when NHTSA started digging into the problem after a California cop and family died in Lexus going 120 Miles without control. Even then Toyota blamed customers and floor mats. Only after NHTSA threatened they agreed to recall and fix gas pedal sensor.

Interestingly Audi had same problem 25 years back, so what Audi did, they programmed such that irrespective of your throttle position and cruise control position, if the driver taps the brake pedal engine power is cutoff. Even though this technology is available for more than a decade, Japanese auto makers never implemented. Who cares about safety and quality, Germans or Japanese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03m7fmnhO0I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWbqe8NAqnU
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/03/autos/toyota_lawsuit/index.htm
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/...ove-1-6-billion-toyota-settlement/
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/...amily-settles-lawsuit-with-toyota/

And you are complaining about AI endangering Japanese safety. Don't you think Japan should stop endangering millions at home and abroad before preaching an airline with 3 weekly flights.

Being secretive and caring about the quality are two different things. Japan may be a leader in quality 20 years back, not now.

[Edited 2013-09-28 09:22:01]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5562 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 87):
Urban myth. I gave two examples disproving this myth, you just come back repeat same talking point.

There is a difference between having high safety standards and exceptional examples where those standards are violated. The latter does not disprove the former.

If you are seriously suggesting Indian safety standards across industries and society in general are comparable or superior to Japan's, then there is no point debating this with you.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5532 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 88):
If you are seriously suggesting Indian safety standards across industries and society in general are comparable or superior to Japan's,

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" statement "Japan's safety standards, as I've said all along, are absolutely top notch." has no legs and he keeps repeating it on every thread with Japan in it.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6532 posts, RR: 55
Reply 90, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5422 times:

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 department just to entertain audit requests from overseas nations? What would Japan say if Burkina Faso demanded a safety audit of Japan's aviation standards?

Japan is perfectly entitiled to ramp inspections of visiting foreign aircraft and they should base their opinions of Air India on the results of these, plus the results of ICAO audits, to which Japan are a part of anyway.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5290 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 90):
Where does it end?


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 (ii) there are no other "triggering" events.

It should be noted that the audit request from Japan in this case was not random, it was apparently triggered by India's inability to provide complete paper trail on the 787s ADs and maintenance.


User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 92, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5199 times:

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 the DGCA and Indian carriers getting worried. That is that.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 91):
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 (ii) there are no other "triggering" events.

India did pass the ICAO audit, and the FAA audit, with no major defects.

Sorry, the following is not aimed at any one person. Even I am guilty of what I am pointing a finger at. Let us contribute positively towards a solution, not criticise from afar.

The US, Europe, and Japan have suffered significant aviation incidents and/or accidents. Why are the regulators of these countries not being questioned by the members of this thread?

The FAA has been criticised enough number of times for putting the airline/airframe industry interests above those of passengers resulting in avoidable accidents. Simplest examples are the DC-10 cargo door, and ValueJet crash. Yet, it was this same FAA, which apparently gave a hurried approval to the 787, whose approval of 787 changes were accepted at face value by all us. Did we even once question about the third party validation of the changes?

Yes the DGCA has short-comings, it is being addressed. It is not being addressed at the speed we would like, and I would question each member of this thread as to what you have done about it? Other than spouting our opinion on forums like this? Even I am guilty of this.

My flag shows India, but I am a US citizen living in India. Most nay-sayers appear to be Indians living in the US. Progress is made by getting your hands dirty, by getting in the trenches and getting involved, not lobbing grenades from afar. Write to the Minister of Civil Aviation. Read more at http://civilaviation.gov.in

There is a portal for lodging grievances. http://pgportal.gov.in/Grievance.aspx

But I encourage you to write to the minister at Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safadarjung Airport, New Delhi 110003, India

Quoting sankaps (Reply 91):
It should be noted that the audit request from Japan in this case was not random, it was apparently triggered by India's inability to provide complete paper trail on the 787s ADs and maintenance.

It was the sloth of Air India in not providing the details NOT India. So the Japanese got irritated and refused to speak to AI directly, and instead only routed its communication through the DGCA.

[Edited 2013-09-28 23:13:51]

[Edited 2013-09-28 23:14:21]


I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5108 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 92):
India did pass the ICAO audit, and the FAA audit, with no major defects.

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 with several significant corrective actions identified that still need to be carried out - not enough to put it back on the blacklist, but certainly not good enough to sit back happy, saying "we passed".

It is analogous to a student who failed math one term, then scraped through the next term -- barely above the passing mark of 40 out of a hundred. He still remains weak at math.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 92):
It was the sloth of Air India in not providing the details NOT India. So the Japanese got irritated and refused to speak to AI directly, and instead only routed its communication through the DGCA.

AI is a govt-owned and run airline, and if AI does not appear to meet international standards of communications and record-keeping, I think it is fair to wonder if the government body regulating the airline and industry in India meets the standard.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 92):
Progress is made by getting your hands dirty, by getting in the trenches and getting involved, not lobbing grenades from afar. Write to the Minister of Civil Aviation. Read more at http://civilaviation.gov.in

Sorry, this is a discussion board, not an activist or political board. Those who post impressions and opinions do so out of personal interest, and in no way are obligated to stop posting their impressions and instead taking their issues to the ministry. If we extended that logic further, all of a.net would cease to have any discussions at all.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 94, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5099 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 92):
The FAA has been criticised enough number of times for putting the airline/airframe industry interests above those of passengers resulting in avoidable accidents. Simplest examples are the DC-10 cargo door, and ValueJet crash. Yet, it was this same FAA, which apparently gave a hurried approval to the 787, whose approval of 787 changes were accepted at face value by all us.

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 is the rate of failure? Is there a pattern that needs fixing? Those are the more relevant questions.

As for the 787, I have been one of the most vocal critics of it. But lessons have been learnt, government hearings held, and changes to the certification process are being put into place.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 92):
Did we even once question about the third party validation of the changes?

Sure, see above. Once the weakness if the process was identified, LOTS of questions were asked and corrective action taken.


User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 95, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5046 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 93):
AI is a govt-owned and run airline, and if AI does not appear to meet international standards of communications and record-keeping, I think it is fair to wonder if the government body regulating the airline and industry in India meets the standard.

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 submit what records to the Japanese regulator. From news reports its appears to be sloth, not a lack of records, but again this is speculation.

So why extend a failure of AI to the DGCA?

and by extension please elaborate on how you extend this failure to attach doubts on whether the DGCA meets standards? It is a known fact that the DGCA received records from both the FAA and AI in order to re-certify the 787 to fly again. Please share some conclusive fact based information so we too are enlightened.

And to correct some wrong impressions. Check the India safety ranking in 2006 http://aviation-safety.net/database/country/country.php?id=VT where it was below worldwide average in 4 out of 8 parameters and then compare to 2012 http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx where it is well above worldwide average in 7 of 8, and at worldwide average in one - organisation, and this is being further addressed by the creation of the CAA.

Interestingly, you can compare and find that India is ahead of, or, at part with, the US, and Japan in a few parameters.

I am no defender of the Government, either in India or in Japan, or the US, but let's not trash anyone without proper facts.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 96, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 87):
Myth 1: Japan cares about their citizens.
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 87):
TEPCO
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 87):
Myth 2: Japan cares about other countries citizens
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 87):
Toyota
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 87):
Toyota USA,
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 87):
And you are complaining about AI endangering Japanese safety. Don't you think Japan should stop endangering millions at home and abroad before preaching an airline with 3 weekly flights.

YOUR examples have NOTHING to do with the Japanese aviation industry standards, or the MOT. Neither of these examples fell under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation. TEPCO was under investigation for years but failed to do anything, and now is Nationalized. The Toyota issue was a design flaw by TOYOTA USA. They have been given a high degree of autonomy from Toyota's mainstay here in Japan, and again, TYO USA doesn't fall under the MOT governance.

Japan's policy of international isolationsim is sometimes questionable but understandable. They hold their own standards, which while sometimes are troublesome, bothersome, or should be changed, the safety standards are those which should be followed closely....by other countries, especially.

Japan doesn't care about its citizens? For god knows how long, they have always promised lifetime employment....they've kept it this way until they couldn't afford to anymore. And now, Mr. Abe is trying to change the policies in order to promote equal employment among Men and Women. I mean damn, Mr. Abe knows wat he's doing....you try to tell him he doesn't care about his own people.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 97, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 95):
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 submit what records to the Japanese regulator. From news reports its appears to be sloth, not a lack of records, but again this is speculation.

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 planning to fly the 787 to Japan, and instead puts the 777 on the route, it does lead to very legitimate questions about whether or not the records exist in proper form. An arrogant silence is not how bilateral discussions of this nature take place.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 95):
So why extend a failure of AI to the DGCA?

Because as stated before, both a government owned and run, and requests to the DGCA on this issues too were not fruitful. So again leads one to wonder what is going on? Is one protecting the other? Is one actually able to regulate the other? Especially keeping in mind India / the DGCA was until just last month, on ICAO's blacklist along with Angola, Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kazakhstan and Lebanon on account of air safety oversight.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 95):
and by extension please elaborate on how you extend this failure to attach doubts on whether the DGCA meets standards? It is a known fact that the DGCA received records from both the FAA and AI in order to re-certify the 787 to fly again. Please share some conclusive fact based information so we too are enlightened.

Then why not respond one way or the other to a standard request???

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 95):

And to correct some wrong impressions. Check the India safety ranking in 2006 http://aviation-safety.net/database/country/country.php?id=VT where it was below worldwide average in 4 out of 8 parameters and then compare to 2012 http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx where it is well above worldwide average in 7 of 8, and at worldwide average in one - organisation, and this is being further addressed by the creation of the CAA.

Check above again which 12 countries were on the ICAO blacklist for air safety OVERSIGHT until last month.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 95):
Interestingly, you can compare and find that India is ahead of, or, at part with, the US, and Japan in a few parameters.

Show me where the US or Japan was on an air safety blacklist at any point in history. I think that matters more than any other stats, as luck may have a large part to play that more serious incidents did not occur given recent history of fake pilot licenses etc in India.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 95):
let's not trash anyone without proper facts.

I think the facts above are enough, no one it trashing anyone this is self-inflicted damage that is being commented on.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4909 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 96):
YOUR examples have NOTHING to do with the Japanese aviation industry standards,

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 in aviation industry, if I have to argue just by numbers most people lost life on Japanese carriers. JAL 123 still has the record of 520 casualties. The AI 182 with 307 casualties is terror related.

Unless someone audits JCAB on how they certified GS Yuasa battery they are not off the hook. Similarly ANA/JAL may have replaced several batteries on their 787 before JAL incident @BOS to coverup GS Yuasa. Unless someone audits ANA/JAL no one will know the truth. As history suggests coverup is part of Japanese culture.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4860 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 92):
Did we even once question about the third party validation of the changes?

I think it is the wrong question. The right question is if any third party made a request and and was denied.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 91):
passes ICAO and FAA audits with no major defects to be remedied,

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 on something. Even best run companies have follow-up items. If you think that is apocalyptic, probably you were never part of an audit.

Did you notice any changes in Indian commercial carriers' schedule. Are there any new bans? While all this going on AI started new services to MEL/SYD and BHX with B787s. So US,Germany,France, UK and Australia do not care about aviation safety.

On the other hand you will notice significant changes related to GA. DGCA knows what the SSCs are and they have correct to keep Cat-1 status. They are not going to appease a.net members. Do you think every GA aircraft in USA has perfect maintenance records?

B787 ADs were executed by Boeing engineers. So JCAB doesn't trust Boeing engineers. Even if AI missing AD documentation, AI has two new B787s delivered post grounding. Japan can restrict old AI registrations.

Using 77L is a business decision, when AI can make more money on other routes with B787, why use it on a already loss making route. They have to keep 77L airworthy without wasting lot of money. So 77L and Japan are perfect match.

[Edited 2013-09-29 05:52:01]

User currently onlinegolfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 714 posts, RR: 2
Reply 101, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4695 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 95):
I am no defender of the Government, either in India or in Japan, or the US, but let's not trash anyone without proper facts.

  . 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 other parts of Indian aviation.

Anyways, firstly I really want to see this list of ICAO blacklist. Because I personally have searched a lot and haven't seen one. I have seen a "list" of audited countries that have unresolved issues but not a "Blacklist". A lot of people base a lot of conjecture on this media generated notion of a blacklist. If there really was one and India was blacklisted, I doubt Indian airlines would be flying to the U.S. and E.U.

Secondly, here is a comparison between Japan, India and the World average on how things stack up with the latest audited data. As you can India stacks very well against Japan in all regards especially areas related to operations and air worthiness. So it's a load of nonsense that Indian airlines are a disaster waiting to happen with very poor safety. India does fall short in areas of Organization and that was indeed the area of concern from the ICAO audit. India did take action against it and is already actively trying to set up a CAA.



Quoting sankaps (Reply 93):
It is analogous to a student who failed math one term, then scraped through the next term -- barely above the passing mark of 40 out of a hundred. He still remains weak at math.

  


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4730 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 100):


Once again, your comments display your complete lack of understanding of the situation, the underlying issues, and of the aviation business and how bilateral negotiations work in general and what protocols should be followed. But I will not waste my energy trying to explain to those who refuse to listen.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 103, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4700 times:

Quoting golfradio (Reply 101):
Anyways, firstly I really want to see this list of ICAO blacklist. Because I personally have searched a lot and haven't seen one. I have seen a "list" of audited countries that have unresolved issues but not a "Blacklist".

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://www.aviationpros.com/news/111...airlines-removed-from-un-blacklist

Quoting golfradio (Reply 101):
So it's a load of nonsense that Indian airlines are a disaster waiting to happen

So the "fake pilot" scam was also a figment of peoples' imagination? The one in which a DGCA official was arrested for taking bribes? http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/dg...-arrested-in-fake-pilot-scam-94250

Your graph shows more than one area where India scores low. What is the "pass mark" here, both in terms of score for an item, and in terms of how many items can have low scores? Absent this information, how can one see this report and say the concerns are unfounded?

After all, unless the media reports such as those linked above are made-up, there must be a reason the 13-country blacklist that India was on until August is being reported in reputed sources?

Quoting golfradio (Reply 101):
it's fashionable among Indian expats around here to diss AI and anything connected to AI and it extends to other parts of Indian aviation.

Sure, they must be writing and planting these stories in the media too.

[Edited 2013-09-29 11:40:09]

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 104, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 102):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc


User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 105, posted (6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4105 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 102):
But I will not waste my energy trying to explain to those who refuse to listen.

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.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 101):
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 other parts of Indian aviation.

Actually, It is ironic, since I am one of the worst critics of AI.

Here I am, an American, living in India standing up for India, against Indians living in the US, trying to diss their motherland without truly understanding the fine nuances and politics behind the scene.

I dealt with these types five years ago in Skyccraper City on the issue of Bangalore airport.

I had posted a story with full details on the request of Bangalore airport to increase domestic UDF from Rs. 270 to Rs. 1,500. The AERA had invited comments and I had provided links to the documents. I do not know how many a.netters put in put in a comment to AERA or a well thought out counter-argument. Would not surprise me if it was zero.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 106, posted (6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4097 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 105):
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.

What has how BASA's are negotiated got anything to do with the comment I was responding to?

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 105):
Here I am, an American, living in India standing up for India, against Indians living in the US, trying to diss their motherland without truly understanding the fine nuances and politics behind the scene.

I am not an Indian living in the US, so perhaps your generalizations are a bit too sweeping. There is no "dissing" of the motherland, this is legitimate criticism of government organizations and regulatory bodies that are overly bureaucratic, unresponsive, frequently corrupt, and inefficient.

How about you respond to the many links I provided in reply #103 above to illustrate why us "bashers" take the position we do, rather than defending the indefensible?

[Edited 2013-10-03 14:14:11]

User currently onlinegolfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 714 posts, RR: 2
Reply 107, posted (6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4087 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 106):
How about you respond to the many links I provided in reply #103 above to illustrate why us "bashers" take the position we do, rather than defending the indefensible?

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 generated notion. So how about you, instead of pointing to more media links, point me to an officially published blacklist from the ICAO or any other regulatory body concerning Indian airlines or the DGCA?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

Quoting golfradio (Reply 107):
I said IMO, this blacklist is a media generated notion. So how about you, instead of pointing to more media links, point me to an officially published blacklist from the ICAO or any other regulatory body concerning Indian airlines or the DGCA?

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 of ICAO's files, and at the same time I have no reason to believe that ALL of the media reports are made-up unless there is compelling evidence to prove otherwise. Wouldn't you think the DGCA or ICAO would have put out a clarification if that were the case?

Incidentally, this ICAO blacklist concept also exists for, and is reported in other countries, see http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/...cklist-hampered-shelved-icao-audit .

So you think the Indian and Philippine media are in cahoots? The term "blacklist" may be an unofficial term, but the fact remains there is an ICAO audit results category that results in the prevention of airlines from a country from flying to, or adding new flights to, certain other countries.

For example Bangladesh was on ICAO's SSC (Significant Safety Concern) list for a few years, which prevented Biman from deploying their new 77Ws to the US as the US will not allow service additions from an airline from any country that is on the SSC list. It got out of that "blacklist" just last year.

[Edited 2013-10-03 14:20:58]

User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 109, posted (6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4042 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 103):
how can one see this report and say the concerns are unfounded?

Lets turn the question to you. As an accuser, please prove your accusation. How do you say these concerns are founded?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 103):
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://www.aviationpros.com/news/111...klist

Please appreciate Tarun Shukla is fed stories by a particular person at the Ministry who has a running battle with Rohit Nandan. So you will find a lot of "planted" stories which diss AI. This ministry official wants to run down AI so that he can get Nandan's job. For example, if you remember, I had brought up the issue of contradictory stories at AI. Nandan claimed in many media including Bloomberg that AI was reasonably well hedged against the rupee depreciation. While Tarun wrote a story to the contrary, probably fed by this person.

Look at the links. The first one says the FAA may be tough on its India audit. Well ...... India passed the FAA audit. If the audit was tough, you should be happy India passed. If it was not tough, then why refer to an inaccurate news report?

The second one has a sensationalist headline to grab eyeballs . Read the article carefully. Towards the end, it very cleverly skirts past its claim that Indian carriers could not expand. We all know AI was expanding its international routes before the ICAO audit was completed. The article goes on to say, India still faces the FAA audit and IF it fails Indian carriers will not be able to expand. And forget Aviation Pros. The original article from Tarun is here. http://www.livemint.com/Politics/f0T...moved-from-aviation-blacklist.html

But read the story

Quote:
The concern on airworthiness related to approval of major modifications and repairs carried out on foreign manufactured aircraft and registered in India while the concern on operations related to the procedure for grant of Air Operator Permit to non-scheduled operators and flight documentation system of scheduled airlines.

Repairs of FMA? Is this airlines or GA? Second one is clearly GA.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 103):
So the "fake pilot" scam was also a figment of peoples' imagination? The one in which a DGCA official was arrested for taking bribes?

No it is not. But do not paint everyone with the same brush. Do you not feel the issue was addressed? Have there not been cases of corruption in the US? in Japan? What is your comment on the FAA which, after an NTSB recommendation, was supposed to release an EAD for McDonnell Douglas to repair its cargo door on the DC-10, and it did not for over 7 years, resulting in the TK DC 10 crash which killed over 350+ passengers?

The one crash was the AIX Mangalore one. Pilot fatigue. But then, what about the US system which promoted fatigue in regional pilots and then allowed them to fly. Colgan Air, Q400 Buffalo. Why reserve the generalisation brush only for India?



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 110, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4021 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 108):
I do not claim to have access to all of ICAO's files,

But yet, you proceed to trash the DGCA and the entire Indian civil aviation industry, without any substantive proof or data, while demanding proof from the other side.      
Quoting golfradio (Reply 101):

In this reply, GolfRadio very clearly has shown an ICAO chart. Yet you challenge that chart on the basis of second hand media reports?    

You clearly are a smart person. Why abandon it here?  



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 111, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 109):
Lets turn the question to you. As an accuser, please prove your accusation. How do you say these concerns are founded?

For some reason always others have the burden of proof.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 107):
So how about you, instead of pointing to more media links, point me to an officially published blacklist from the ICAO or any other regulatory body concerning Indian airlines or the DGCA?

I asked the same question, I even suggested to file FOIA request with FAA about recent DGCA audit. I got reply #102.


User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 112, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4016 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 108):
Incidentally, this ICAO blacklist concept also exists for, and is reported in other countries, see http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/...cklist-hampered-shelved-icao-audit .

Please read the report FULLY before    all around.

Quote:
“Without the ICAO audit, the FAA and EU will not act upon any request of the Philippines for reinstatement to Category 1 and removal from the blacklist,” Cusi added.

The Philippines was downgraded out of Cat 1 by the FAA and EASA, not ICAO. But FAA cannot begin its audit till ICAO completes its audit. And in case you think politics is involved, this situation previously existed for a dear ally of the US, Israel.

India has always been in Cat 1 status. It was NEVER removed from Cat 1 either by the FAA or EASA, unlike the Philippines or Israel.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4013 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 109):
Why reserve the generalisation brush only for India?

Again that hoary "race to the bottom" defense. The rate or frequency of such incidents / violations that occur in India thanks to government and regulatory inefficiency is far higher than in developed countries. Have you come across something as egregious as FAA personnel taking bribes to issue fake documents for pilot licenses? Has the US ever been on ICAO's SSC or any other blacklist?

The DGCA indeed passed the ICAO and FAA audits in late August / early September 2013, but with several items that need to be remedied. Therefore it is perfectly understandable why another country with high aviation safety standards like Japan might want to check for themselves, given their experience trying to get information out of AI and the DGCA on the 787.

Incidentally I flew AI BOM-LHR yesterday, one of only 5 passengers in a 35-seat business class cabin. Great flight, great service! I have no issues with Air India other than it is heavily government subsidized entity eating taxpayer funds. My issues are more to do with the government bureaucracy. The ICAO blacklist was not against AI, it was the result of what ICAO deemed to be insufficient safety oversight by the DGCA.


User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4010 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
The inability of AI to produce paper for the 787s was a red flag.
The inability of AI to sell the 77Ls due to poor documentation is another red flag.

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 respective airlines there is not much of a demand for ULH A/C.

How many 77L orders are pending with Boeing ?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 115, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4004 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 110):
In this reply, GolfRadio very clearly has shown an ICAO chart. Yet you challenge that chart on the basis of second hand media reports?

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 chart where a "passing" grade is not identified). The "blacklist" in question is one that pertains to lack of sufficient safety OVERSIGHT by the DGCA. Clearly that chart does not deal with this specific issue.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 110):
But yet, you proceed to trash the DGCA and the entire Indian civil aviation industry, without any substantive proof or data, while demanding proof from the other side

Strange. Multiple very specific media reports relating to the issue, you choose to believe they are made up or motivated stories, and you want ME to prove those stories are true? Did I write the media reports? Why not write to each of those publications asking them for the proof?

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 110):
You clearly are a smart person. Why abandon it here?

I have the same question of you!  
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 111):
For some reason always others have the burden of proof.

The reason for that is simple and is explained above. But I do not expect you to comprehend the reasoning. One cannot rationally argue with people who point to the Japanese nuclear industry or Toyota to prove why the DGCA is better than Japanese aviation regulators.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 112):

India has always been in Cat 1 status. It was NEVER removed from Cat 1 either by the FAA or EASA, unlike the Philippines or Israel.

Once again, there are different kinds of restrictions. Cat 1 would have prevented AI or 9W from flying to the US altogether. The "blacklist" being referred to is not SSC, it is one that results from lack of sufficient safety oversight. Different repercussions for that. Cheers.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 116, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3999 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
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.

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 participate in their activities.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 117, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3982 times:

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 list is the US, with 59. #2 is India with 18. The US today has ~4,000 mainline passenger jets and ~2,000 smaller jets and commuter props . India has 371 mainline jets and less than 100 smaller jets and commuter props (and for most of the historical period that is covered by the data, India had far less aircraft proportionately than the US).

Some of you would claim the US has had more accidents than India, and is therefore less safe.

It is actually mind-boggling that India is #2 on this list despite the fact that until the 1990s, India's commercial aircraft fleet size was well under 100 aircraft.

[Edited 2013-10-03 15:06:30]

User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 117):
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 list is the US, with 59. #2 is India with 18. The US today has ~4,000 mainline passenger jets and ~2,000 smaller jets and commuter props . India has 371 mainline jets and less than 100 smaller jets and commuter props (and for most of the historical period that is covered by the data, India had far less aircraft proportionately than the US).

Some of you would claim the US has had more accidents than India, and is therefore less safe.

It is actually mind-boggling that India is #2 on this list despite the fact that until the 1990s, India's commercial aircraft fleet size was well under 100 aircraft.

What does that have to do directly with the topic on hand ?


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 115):
One cannot rationally argue with people who point to the Japanese nuclear industry or Toyota to prove why the DGCA is better than Japanese aviation regulators.

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 Japan couldn't control TEPCO for years, a company within Japan, which can affect millions of Japanese. But JCAB wants to control DGCA, because it is menace to aviation sector.

You don't need to prove news articles written by someone else, you can get audit report from FAA to prove your case.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 117):
Incidentally take a look at this http://www.airfleets.net/crash/stat_country.htm. It counts hull losses in each country for modern aircraft.

It is number hull loses in a given country nothing to do with country's fleet size or safety standard. If we apply your logic Asiana 214 is USA's fault.

JAL 123 with 520 fatalities is still the deadliest single-aircraft accident in aviation history.



[Edited 2013-10-03 16:42:20]

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 115):
The "blacklist" in question is one that pertains to lack of sufficient safety OVERSIGHT by the DGCA.

3000 FAA safety inspectors are furloughed now, don't know for how long...

Apples and Oranges?


User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3867 times:

So Japan eventually climbs down from its unreasonable demands.

Excerpt:

Japan allows Air India to fly Dreamliners there

"Japan wanted to have a safety talk with the DGCA before giving the nod to an Indian carrier for flying for any new type of aircraft there. However after doing an audit of the DGCA August, ICAO dropped its safety concerns for India. After that there was no point in having safety meetings with individual countries as ICAO represents all the countries. This would have been an endless process," said a senior official.

Indian aviation authorities conveyed this stand in plain terms to their Japanese counterparts during an ICAO meet in Canada last week. Following this stern message from India, Japan finally agreed to give AI the nod to fly the Dreamliners there.


Link to the article:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ers-there/articleshow/23480303.cms


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3811 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting manny (Reply 121):
Quoting manny (Reply 121):
So Japan eventually climbs down from its unreasonable demands.

Excerpt:

Japan allows Air India to fly Dreamliners there

"Japan wanted to have a safety talk with the DGCA before giving the nod to an Indian carrier for flying for any new type of aircraft there. However after doing an audit of the DGCA August, ICAO dropped its safety concerns for India. After that there was no point in having safety meetings with individual countries as ICAO represents all the countries. This would have been an endless process," said a senior official.

Indian aviation authorities conveyed this stand in plain terms to their Japanese counterparts during an ICAO meet in Canada last week. Following this stern message from India, Japan finally agreed to give AI the nod to fly the Dreamliners there.


Link to the article:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ers-there/articleshow/23480303.cms

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 audit of DGCA. My only response on that is...well, if something is being done the way it is being done for so many years does not make it correct. The ICAO audit needs to be overhauled and international audits of the highest standards need to be put in place, with the respective aviation authorities of all countries being awarded internationally recognized categories (and yes i realize that ICAO already awards categories CAT1, 2 etc) after the audit. Countries can then choose to either allow or disallow certain categories from operating in their airspace. Multiple redundant audits and differing standards between countries do nothing to imrove aviation safety.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 123, posted (6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3660 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 118):
What does that have to do directly with the topic on hand ?

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 not point to rare exceptions elsewhere to justify much more common lapses in another place.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 119):

You don't need to prove news articles written by someone else, you can get audit report from FAA to prove your case.

No. Those who question the veracity of news articles have the burden of proof. The core argument is not over the FAA report or latest ICAO report, it is whether or not India was really in any kind of safety concerns "blacklist" prior to the latest audits.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 119):

It is number hull loses in a given country nothing to do with country's fleet size or safety standard. If we apply your logic Asiana 214 is USA's fault.

Again, pointing to the exception to defend the indefensible. Any data set will have exceptions our outliers, but over a large enough data set and time period, a statistically valid pattern emerges.

Quoting manny (Reply 121):
However after doing an audit of the DGCA August, ICAO dropped its safety concerns for India. After that there was no point in having safety meetings with individual countries as ICAO represents all the countries. This would have been an endless process

Great! So this at least proves that there WERE significant-enough safety concerns (which put India in the so-called "blacklist") until late-August 2013, ie until a few weeks ago.

But perhaps this news report is made up too, and we need to write to the authors or to the DGCA to demand proof that Japan has dropped its demand???  

[Edited 2013-10-04 00:28:31]

User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 124, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3461 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 113):
I have no issues with Air India other than it is heavily government subsidized entity eating taxpayer funds.

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 inefficient organisation just so that it can continue to be abused for the benefit of the few.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 113):
My issues are more to do with the government bureaucracy.

Another point of agreement. Though, having interacted with the bureaucracy, I am slowly growing to appreciate how to use it correctly to solve problems.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 115):
The "blacklist" in question is one that pertains to lack of sufficient safety OVERSIGHT by the DGCA. Clearly that chart does not deal with this specific issue.

That is the chart ICAO ranks countries against each other and the global average. Incidentally, that chart is AFTER the ICAO audit. I had posted the link to the Air Safety Network where chart was also available before and after. Also a request, why use a completely negative term "blacklist" which we know to be a media invention, and we all know how objective and non-sensationalist media is.  
Quoting sankaps (Reply 115):
Cat 1 would have prevented AI or 9W from flying to the US altogether.

I think you have it wrong. Non-Cat 1 would not prevent flights. It would subject existing flights to greater scrutiny and lack of expansion.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineqf2220 From Australia, joined Aug 2013, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3447 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 7):
Why is it a very bad move by India?

If there is nothing to hide, an audit shouldnt be feared.


User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 313 posts, RR: 14
Reply 126, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 121):
So Japan eventually climbs down from its unreasonable demands.

As I said about a month ago,

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 78):
Expect some behind the scenes negotiations and this issue being sorted out.

This was too small an issue in the overall Japanese-India economic relationship.



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

Quoting qf2220 (Reply 125):
If there is nothing to hide, an audit shouldnt be feared.

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 warrant. After all I assuming you have nothing to hide.


User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3405 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 123):
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 not point to rare exceptions elsewhere to justify much more common lapses in another place.

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!


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 129, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 128):
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!

Wise choice, in more ways than one!  


User currently offlineqf2220 From Australia, joined Aug 2013, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3373 times:

Quoting manny (Reply 127):
I am sure if the cops wanted to come into you home and turn it upside down you would allow them in without warrant.

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 would do this is just as boneheaded. The comparison is not equal.


User currently offlineVTORD From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Quoting qf2220 (Reply 125):
If there is nothing to hide, an audit shouldnt be feared.

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 say in "pushing back" on the request.

I work for a packaging company and audits are a way of life - AIB, EPA, OSHA, ISO you name it. We recently go audited by a big coffee company as part of a supplier audit and there were some findings. The customer wants to come in again and audit to make sure it is being done the way they want it. We are pushing back saying we will implement corrective action, provide proof of corrective action and documentation of continued practice but there is no need for another audit.



Get your facts first. Then you may distort them as you like.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 132, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3224 times:

The economic relationship between Japan and India is actually quite strong. We are only talking about this audit issue....and as someone right above me just said, if there's no problem or nothing to hide, then there's no reason to object to the audit.


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMats01776 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

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 entities from abroad. I would assume that DGCA must respond to every one of these requests in some way due to India’s contractual obligations to an international organization or a bilateral agreement.

Having said that, since each audit request would have different sets of check list line items, different sets of standard for acceptability in qualifications, and different teams of inspectors, one successful completion in one audit does not guarantee a success in another.

I may be wrong, but I am assuming that DGCA has every right to refuse the safety audit request from Japan.
But the justification for the refusal should not be “because we passed two other audits recently”, since each audit is a slightly different animal from another.

BTW, I began reading the “Directorate General of Civil Aviation : SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES MANUAL”:

Quote:
PREFACE
The Surveillance Procedures Manual has been prepared for use and guidance of
DGCA officers in the performance of their duties with respect to the surveillance
requirements. It is designed to provide foundation for promoting safety through
regulation and a proactive safety oversight system, as envisioned. The provision of
this manual shall apply to the surveillance activities on all operators, service
providers and other organization approved by DGCA.
http://dgca.nic.in/Surv_Enf/Surveillance_Procedures_Manual.pdf

A fascinating read it is.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 134, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2893 times:

Quoting Mats01776 (Reply 133):
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 entities from abroad. I would assume that DGCA must respond to every one of these requests in some way due to India’s contractual obligations to an international organization or a bilateral agreement.

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 make sense.

DEL-NRT route on a 77L(8F/35/J/195Y) has a LF of 40. Not sure how a B787(18J/238Y) is going to help the LF. It may cut loses little bit, but LF may go down further which is not good because next LF is one of the KPI to get next bailout payment.

DEL-HKG-KIX(Currently on 77L) may turn profitable with a B788 at least on DEL-HKG leg.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2678 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting manny (Reply 127):

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 warrant. After all I assuming you have nothing to hide.

   Very well said. I was in fact about to respond with the same analogy but you beat me to it.


User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2919 posts, RR: 24
Reply 136, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2612 times:

http://www.travelbizmonitor.com/japa...air-india-to-fly-dreamliners-21917

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ers-there/articleshow/23480303.cms

Japan has finally allowed Air India to fly its Boeing 787 Dreamliner to the country, dropping its condition for a “safety talk” on Indian aviation standards, as per a TOI report by Saurabh Sinha. The national carrier had for many months been seeking nod to fly its B787 to Japan.

While I'm no expert here, but I suppose given Japan has dropped the "safety condition"; we know who is having the upper edge.

Here is the version of the version of the people well placed in the entire episode ...

1) ICAO had concerns over the safety of the B787 WHICH IS WHY the Japanese were apprehensive about letting them fly into their country. They never expressed their concerns earlier.

2) However once they cleared the ICAO audit, Japan still insisted on conducting their own audit. The Indian side explained the same to the Japanese counterpart, however the Japanese did not agree

3) The matter escalated to a level for India rejected the same.

And now we have the Japanese themselves ready to drop that condition. Didn't take India more than a month to "convince" the Japanese about the same.

Since this discussion has gone too far, for those interested just PM me to know the details of the words exchanged during the negotiations at the ICAO meet.



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 137, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2565 times:

Quoting ojas (Reply 136):
1) ICAO had concerns over the safety of the B787 WHICH IS WHY the Japanese were apprehensive about letting them fly into their country. They never expressed their concerns earlier.

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 country). What were the grounds for the concern? I think that is the crux of the issue.


User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2919 posts, RR: 24
Reply 138, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 137):
or AI's 787s? (I assume it is the latter since Japan already has plenty of 787s operating in their country). What were the grounds for the concern? I think that is the crux of the issue.

Regarding AI's 787 of course, relating to the fix that was done by AI engineers themselves.



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 139, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2414 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 134):
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 make sense.

Then why did they snub Japan?

Quoting ojas (Reply 136):
While I'm no expert here, but I suppose given Japan has dropped the "safety condition"; we know who is having the upper edge.

Are you so sure?

My sources tell me back-room deals were announced, especially when PM Abe was talking with Indian leaders a few weeks ago.

Quoting ojas (Reply 136):
1) ICAO had concerns over the safety of the B787 WHICH IS WHY the Japanese were apprehensive about letting them fly into their country. They never expressed their concerns earlier.
Quoting ojas (Reply 138):
Regarding AI's 787 of course, relating to the fix that was done by AI engineers themselves.

Thats what the concern was about in the first place. That's why they placed the safety audit. No one needed to hear directly from the Japanese; it's quite obvious what this was about.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 140, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 139):
Thats what the concern was about in the first place. That's why they placed the safety audit. No one needed to hear directly from the Japanese; it's quite obvious what this was about.

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 the receiving end of it.

So was it that they first asked for some 787-related documentation, and when AI failed to respond, it escalated to a request for an audit? So it will triggered by lack of sufficient communication or response?

Curious to know what ICAO's concerns had been exactly in the first place re AI and the 787.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 141, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 139):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 134):
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 make sense.

Then why did they snub Japan?

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 going after India. Probably Japan is the only country India could snub.

"DEL-NRT route on a 77L(8F/35/J/195Y) has a LF of 40. Not sure how a B787(18J/238Y) is going to help the LF. It may cut loses little bit, but LF may go down further which is not good because LF is one of the KPI to get next bailout payment."

DEL-HKG-KIX(Currently on 77L) may turn profitable with a B788 at least on DEL-HKG leg.

We have to wait until Winter schedule to see how this plays out. I don't think AI will get one extra passenger because of B788. Japanese will use NH/JL. My suggestion would be AI to drop Japan completely and code share with NH/JL.

[Edited 2013-10-08 04:38:51]

User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2919 posts, RR: 24
Reply 142, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 139):
My sources tell me back-room deals were announced, especially when PM Abe was talking with Indian leaders a few weeks ago.

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, Japan took their demands back and now everything is on track.



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 143, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 141):
May be India thought its the best case to stand its ground and send a message. Now any country will think twice before going after India. Probably Japan is the only country India could snub.

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 getting left behind.

Since 2000, Japan has been the #3 FDI investor in India, after Singapore and the UK (excluding Mauritius, as inflows from Mauritius are mainly from offshore offshoots of Indian companies). Japan is even ahead of the US.

Anyone with any sense and knowledge of India's economy knows just how important FDI is to India. So sticking it in the eye of Japan just to score a point is the stupidest, most immature thing one can do. Japan's GDP is $6 Trillion, India is $1.8 Trillion, despite being many time the size and population of Japan.

Don't believe my stats? See http://dipp.nic.in/English/Publicati...istics/2013/india_FDI_July2013.pdf

Therefore the only message India sent through this episode is that it is think-skinned, arrogant, bureaucratic, and unreasonable, and does not know how to conduct itself in diplomatic or bilateral matters with friendly countries. Which is frankly one of the reasons FDI in India has been sharply falling, foreign investors just don't think it is worth the trouble.
The right way to have handled this would have been to respond to Japan's request politely through official channels, explaining India's point of view, and suggesting another audit was not necessary. Not an arrogant and bureaucratic silence. That is now how bilateral relations between mature countries, friendly countries, are handled.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 143):
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 getting left behind.

Since 2000, Japan has been the #3 FDI investor in India, after Singapore and the UK (excluding Mauritius, as inflows from Mauritius are mainly from offshore offshoots of Indian companies). Japan is even ahead of the US.

Anyone with any sense and knowledge of India's economy knows just how important FDI is to India. So sticking it in the eye of Japan just to score a point is the stupidest, most immature thing one can do. Japan's GDP is $6 Trillion, India is $1.8 Trillion, despite being many time the size and population of Japan.

Don't believe my stats? See http://dipp.nic.in/English/Publicati...istics/2013/india_FDI_July2013.pdf

Therefore the only message India sent through this episode is that it is think-skinned, arrogant, bureaucratic, and unreasonable, and does not know how to conduct itself in diplomatic or bilateral matters with friendly countries. Which is frankly one of the reasons FDI in India has been sharply falling, foreign investors just don't think it is worth the trouble.
The right way to have handled this would have been to respond to Japan's request politely through official channels, explaining India's point of view, and suggesting another audit was not necessary. Not an arrogant and bureaucratic silence. That is now how bilateral relations between mature countries, friendly countries, are handled.

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. There is no need for India to bend rules for some one who is always preaching.

BTW, India does bend rules for friends. Last week India issued a Nuclear Liability waiver to US Corporations and awarded a $28 Billion contract to Westinghouse.

Japan has no friends in the region, China will very happy to show where they stand, last thing for Japan needs is to pick a fight with India.

[Edited 2013-10-08 05:55:04]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 145, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 144):
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. There is no need for India to bend rules for some one who is always preaching.

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.

What I said was "The right way to have handled this would have been to respond to Japan's request politely through official channels, explaining India's point of view, and suggesting another audit was not necessary. Not an arrogant and bureaucratic silence. That is now how bilateral relations between mature countries, friendly countries, are handled.".

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 144):
BTW, India does bend rules for friends. Last week India issued a Nuclear Liability waiver to US Corporations and awarded a $28 Billion contract to Westinghouse.

Make up your mind, what is important in bilateral and international relations is consistency. Japan has actually been a better friend of India than the US in terms of FDI.

Your example above is an example of short-sightedness, and makes one despair. Waiving safety regulations / nuclear liability in exchange for a contract? What does India want, another Bhopal?

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 144):
Japan has no friends in the region, China will very happy to show where they stand, last thing for Japan needs is to pick a fight with India.

Very mature. Reflect upon just how Japan is not a friend of India when you next drive from Delhi to Noida on the only two world-class bridges in the NCR, built with Japanese assistance.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 146, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2238 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 145):
Your example above is an example of short-sightedness, and makes one despair. Waiving safety regulations / nuclear liability in exchange for a contract? What does India want, another Bhopal?

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 screwed up, different countries took different measures, Germany decided to shutdown all Nuclear power and India passed Nuclear Liability Law.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 145):
Very mature. Reflect upon just how Japan is not a friend of India when you next drive from Delhi to Noida on the only two world-class bridges in the NCR, built with Japanese assistance.

Why would I care, I have been in Michigan for last 20 years. I don't waste time on domestic travel when I visit family. As an Indian origin in US, I care only about US and India.

Having said that, it is nice to see India snub somebody.

[Edited 2013-10-08 07:31:26]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 147, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 146):
Why would I care, I have been in Michigan for last 20 years. I don't waste time on domestic travel when I visit family. As an Indian origin in US, I care only about US and India.

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.

And judging from your comment above, perhaps you only care about the corner of India that you travel to.  
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 146):
Having said that, it is nice to see India snub somebody.

I think this says it all. Unfortunately, your kind of "caring" hurts India much more than it helps it.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 148, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 147):
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.

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 shortcoming impacts me, so I call out as I see it. This is not Japan where you are not supposed to talk about your country's shortcomings.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 149, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 140):
So it will triggered by lack of sufficient communication or response?

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 into many problems all the time because of communication differences. It's not all smooth sailing here in japan, especially for us gaijin lol

The Japanese have this thing called "honne and tatamae," "Real feelings vs those expressed."

For internationals, I honestly believe using the true feelings about something, but at the same time not being confrontational, is the best way to do business.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 141):
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 going after India. Probably Japan is the only country India could snub.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 143):
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 getting left behind.

What kind of message would India stand to send?

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 144):
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. There is no need for India to bend rules for some one who is always preaching.

DTW2HYD, seriously, you're not making any sense at all. Of course they have a right to request an audit- Japan is a sovereign nation, and if you wanna play cards, with a stellar safety record, high standard of living, large purchasing power, a million and one multinational corporations, a harmonious society....I can go on and on. Japan is not bending the rule.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 150, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 149):
DTW2HYD, seriously, you're not making any sense at all.

Seldom does.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1370 posts, RR: 2
Reply 151, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 149):
Of course they have a right to request an audit-

They don't, read post #57. Only FAA has such right.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 149):
Japan is a sovereign nation, and if you wanna play cards, with a stellar safety record, high standard of living, large purchasing power, a million and one multinational corporations, a harmonious society....I can go on and on.

This myth is busted time and again.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 152, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 151):
This myth is busted time and again.

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 coming to me almost every day asking me for advice on Japan. People trust my view of Japan and its relationship with other nations, and I've also helped so many people out who have come to visit Japan.

Japanese tell me I know more about their own country than they do.

SO before you go telling me I'm wrong, you better back it up with some valid points that arent just the snuff that Chinese state media drivels out of their rear-ends.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 152):
I wish instead of scoring points "snubbing" Japan, India took time to learn some good things from the Japanese.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 145):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 144):
Japan has no friends in the region, China will very happy to show where they stand, last thing for Japan needs is to pick a fight with India.

Very mature. Reflect upon just how Japan is not a friend of India

Actually, I've said this before, India and Japan really have a good relationship, outside of this brief issue. There has been no records that I can recall of major snubbing. My business teacher actually is hosting an Indian businessman next week for a week-long symposium on how good the friendship between Japan and India is.

That flight with the 737 fitted out with biz class seats exists for a reason, you know!

And in regards to China? They're pissing more people off in this area than Japan. Korea seems to be along just for the ride, and from my view, only jumped on this anti-japan bandwagon just to get more moolah from PRC.

Southeast Asia, the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, and Taiwan all love Japan.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2127 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 143):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 141):
May be India thought its the best case to stand its ground and send a message. Now any country will think twice before going after India. Probably Japan is the only country India could snub.

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 getting left behind.

Since 2000, Japan has been the #3 FDI investor in India, after Singapore and the UK (excluding Mauritius, as inflows from Mauritius are mainly from offshore offshoots of Indian companies). Japan is even ahead of the US.

Anyone with any sense and knowledge of India's economy knows just how important FDI is to India. So sticking it in the eye of Japan just to score a point is the stupidest, most immature thing one can do. Japan's GDP is $6 Trillion, India is $1.8 Trillion, despite being many time the size and population of Japan.

Don't believe my stats? See http://dipp.nic.in/English/Publicati...istics/2013/india_FDI_July2013.pdf

Therefore the only message India sent through this episode is that it is think-skinned, arrogant, bureaucratic, and unreasonable, and does not know how to conduct itself in diplomatic or bilateral matters with friendly countries. Which is frankly one of the reasons FDI in India has been sharply falling, foreign investors just don't think it is worth the trouble.
The right way to have handled this would have been to respond to Japan's request politely through official channels, explaining India's point of view, and suggesting another audit was not necessary. Not an arrogant and bureaucratic silence. That is now how bilateral relations between mature countries, friendly countries, are handled.

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 clearly spoken. Let's leave it at that. No matter what we think, India has clearly sent a message that it cannot bend over backwards for every country that wants to audit it's agency. Not one single post in thsi thread addresses how multiple audits improve air safety other than the general reply that "that is how the industry works. Audits are an every day affair". I have mentioned in an earlier post that just because it is being done that way does not make it right.