The metros represent a better standard of infrastructure than the smaller airports, but privatisation of airports at Bengaluru, Delhi and Hyderabad and impending privatisation of others, pose their own problems in terms of exorbitant and escalating cost of operation for aircraft operators

The ascendant march of the Indian economy is inexorable and irreversible; experts predict that it would be the sixth largest in the world by 2020. There are visible portents of the ongoing growth all around us and the disparity between India and the developed nations we compare ourselves with is gradually diminishing. One jarring note in India’s growth story, however, remains the government’s apathy towards aviation in general and corporate aviation in particular. The contributive potential of corporate aviation to the growth of national economy remains largely incomprehensible to the establishment. As a result, the regulatory mechanism in respect of corporate aviation is indifferent; the tax burden prohibitive; and there is total lack of focus on dedicated infrastructure required to support corporate aviation.

The foremost impediment to any corporate ambition towards owning and operating an aircraft is its purchase. All aircraft, fixed or rotary wing, that catch the attention of a potential owner are produced outside India, as indigenous capability to do so is practically non-existent. Barring a few cases of transfer of ownership of business aircraft within the country, purchase of new or pre-owned aircraft from abroad involves import. The regulatory mechanism that governs the import process is so elaborate and complex that it could take up to a year from the time one decides to buy an aircraft to its arrival in the country. It may be stated in the defence of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) that the checks and balances put into place perhaps are necessary and appropriate to our overall corporate/national culture and security concerns. However, what is indefensible is the slumberous approach to paperwork. Since the exposure of the pilot’s-licence-for-money scam, the overbearing and intrusive presence of multiple investigating agencies has currently reduced the staff at DGCA responsible for paperwork to a paralytic state. Even otherwise, paperwork was agonisingly slow, underthe-table lubricants notwithstanding.

To add to the pain of prolonged wait is the sting of a hefty customs duty on an aircraft being imported. The duty is 18 per cent for corporate or private use and three per cent for use by an aircraft operator holding a non-scheduled operator permit (NSOP). The logic favouring NSOP is that its operations are for public use. Considering the fact that aircraft cost millions, an aircraft buyer ends up paying a large amount of money as customs duty. However, there is a simple circumlocutory duty-saving arrangement, import the aircraft under the NSOP category, a method which some corporate houses adopt to save on customs duty. A cursory glance at the list of 132 registered NSOP holders on DGCA website would indicate that many of those listed are associated with corporate houses not engaged with the aviation industry per se. Some of the aircraft registered under NSOP category available for charter, belong to big corporate houses whose main business is related to real estate, textiles, hotels, etc. Thus the dividing line between corporate aviation and NSOP is blurred. The number of aircraft registered under the corporate category is so few that the DGCA does not find it worthwhile to list.

Let us move on to the main pillar of aviation infrastructure, the Airports Authority of India (AAI) constituted by an Act of Parliament on April 1, 1995, by merging the National Airports Authority and International Airports Authority of India. The AAI is responsible for creation, upgradation and maintenance of civil aviation infrastructure in the country. However, privatisation of airports is now on the increase with Kochi having led the way. The total number of airports in India, large and small, is about 500, but the list of licensed ones numbers only 44 in the public category and 16 in the private one. Incidentally, a remarkable manifestation of the establishment’s indifferent approach towards aviation infrastructure is the fact that it is almost impossible to obtain an authentic list of airports in India. DGCA, which frequently forays into areas not directly defined in its scope of work (airline ticketing, for example), has not yet been able to draw up a directory for airports in India. A document of this nature is an urgent necessity so that authentic information on airfield data such as coordinates’ of airfield location, runway dimensions, aprons, navigational aids, watch hours and contact details, etc is available to aircraft operators. Scheduled airlines operate largely from and to metros, and when commencing operations to a new airport, go through a formal diligence process before sending by the first revenue flight. However, corporate aviation tends to be need-based and unstructured in terms of the airports visited. Thus, when a requirement arises to fly to an airport not visited for some time in the recent past, especially a small airport, there is a flurry of desperate activity amongst the operational staff and the crew to obtain the latest information on it. Occasionally, the source of information is another corporate (or NSOP) crew who may have visited that airport lately. This arrangement understandably is far from perfect and no substitute for authentic, updated database which can ensure safe flights if correct, and serve as evidence to facilitate investigation, if inaccurate. A corporate aviation pilot is unlikely to refuse to fly to a small or remote airport for non-availability of complete and updated database. However, if that lack of information were to lead to a mishap, he would almost certainly be blamed by the very agency that is responsible for documenting airport information for the benefit of all aircraft operators but has not been able to do so.

Regulation and strict diligence by DGCA is restricted largely to the larger airports primarily due to shortage of manpower. Thus inspections of smaller airports are few and far between and their fitness for operations is left largely to the discretion of the operators. Corporate flying is all about saving time (time is money) and quite often the passenger who is invariably a ‘big shot’ in the company if not the employer of the crew himself, is inclined to influence ‘go’ or ‘no go’ decisions. On occasions, the crew is compelled to land at airfields against their professional judgement, lest they are shown the door. While many privately owned or operated airports, some owned by corporate houses, are in excellent state, inability on the part of DGCA and AAI to ensure minimum standards of safety at all our airports across the board, remains sad and lamentable.