Explainer: Pilots vs regulator over allowing longer Air India flying hours

INDIA’S aviation regulator is flying straight into legal turbulence. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the very agency meant to safeguard flight safety, now stands accused of undermining it. By granting Air India a rare relaxation in pilot duty-hour limits for its Europe-bound Boeing 787 flights, the regulator has set off a storm of outrage and possibly a contempt of court battle.

The DGCA insists the concession, allowing pilots to fly up to 10.5 hours instead of 10, and stretching the Flight Duty Period (FDP) from 13 to 14 hours, is temporary and unavoidable. With Pakistan’s airspace closed, it says, Air India’s longer routes need flexibility. But pilot associations have launched an all-out offensive, calling the move unsafe, unlawful, and contemptuous of court directions.

“If the watchdog starts bending its own safety rules, who’s really flying the plane, the regulator or the airline?” a senior pilot asked pointedly.

Contentious exemption

Under the exemption, effective for Air India’s winter schedule, the DGCA has cleared longer hours for nine European routes. It says no training flights will be included and pilots will get an extra hour of rest. Air India must also file monthly fatigue reports. But pilot unions dismiss this as eyewash, a bureaucratic cover for commercial expediency.

The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), representing over 6,000 aviators, has accused the DGCA of “blatant violation” of its own affidavit to the Delhi High Court. In that February 19 affidavit, the regulator promised a phased rollout of new fatigue norms, the CAR 2024, with full enforcement by July this year. The High Court had accepted that assurance, making it binding. Any deviation, the court noted, could be challenged. The FIP now says DGCA’s latest order breaks that commitment.

“This exemption is unjustified, unsafe, and contemptuous of judicial directions. Air India pilots are flying well below monthly limits. There’s no ‘extreme circumstance’ here that justifies relaxing safety caps,” said FIP president Captain CS Randhawa.

He pointed out that Air India even has surplus pilots on flexible contracts. “Why risk fatigue when you can roster an extra crew?” he questioned.

The risk factor

Fatigue has long been one of aviation’s most quietly dangerous factors, impairing judgement and reaction times, often invisibly. The new Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) introduced under CAR 2024 were meant to fix this, using scientific data to limit flying and duty hours while mandating minimum rest periods. Pilot unions argue that the DGCA’s selective leniency tears apart that safety framework.

“Every minute added to a pilot’s duty is a minute taken away from alertness. By allowing Air India this leeway, DGCA signals that fatigue science can be set aside for operational comfort. That’s a dangerous precedent,” said one ALPA-India representative.

The regulator’s defence rests on operational necessity. Officials claim that with Pakistan’s airspace still closed and winter winds lengthening flight times, the relaxation helps maintain punctuality without disrupting schedules. Yet pilot groups insist this explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The DGCA could have instead mandated three-pilot operations for longer sectors, a standard international practice to offset fatigue on extended flights.

The legal question

Did the DGCA defy a court-backed assurance? The Delhi High Court had explicitly recorded that the regulator “shall be bound” by its February affidavit. It also noted that any breach would give petitioners the right to move court again. The FIP plans exactly that, a fresh contempt plea asserting that DGCA’s action violates the court’s own directions. Randhawa said the FIP will move the high court in the coming days. “The draft has been finalised,” he told The Tribune.

The issue runs deeper than one airline or one winter schedule. Can safety rules meant to prevent human error be treated as flexible clauses of convenience?

Pilot associations say they have lost faith in the regulator’s independence. “DGCA’s job is to protect lives, not timetables. Once you start treating safety norms as negotiable, you are no longer regulating, you are facilitating,” said Randhawa.

As the row escalates, one question echoes through the cockpit and courtroom alike: was this truly an operational necessity or has the DGCA allowed commercial convenience to climb into the pilot’s seat?

The answer will decide whether this episode is a technical footnote or a landmark moment exposing cracks in India’s aviation safety oversight.