Pilots flag gaps as DGCA tightens fatigue rules

Aviation watchdog DGCA is facing its toughest scrutiny yet from the country’s pilot unions, after a consultative meeting on November 24 revealed widespread concerns over how airlines are handling the rollout of the revised flight duty time limitations (FDTL) rules.

What was meant to be a routine review quickly turned into a blunt indictment of operator practices, with the unions alleging that the airlines were masking duty hours, tweaking rosters to appear compliant and repeatedly seeking relaxations that undermined the very purpose of the fatigue-management norms.

The DGCA met representatives of ALPA India, the Federation of Indian Pilots, the Indian Pilots Guild and the Indian Commercial Pilots Association following months of complaints that the phased implementation of the FDTL civil aviation requirements (CAR) was being diluted on the ground.

As per the minutes of the meeting, accessed by The Tribune, the regulator opened the discussion by acknowledging the rising number of representations from pilot bodies and said it wanted to “listen” to concerns relating to compliance gaps, variations sought by operators and the broader safety impact.

The pilot groups, however, made it clear that the sector had moved far beyond mere “concerns”. They said the revised fatigue rules were finalised nearly two years ago after extensive consultation and 22 clauses were even submitted to the court through an affidavit. Despite this long runway, they said the operators remained unprepared and continued to push for exceptions, creating a situation where the framework was strong on paper but weak in practice.

The unions accused some airlines of deliberately manipulating classifications for leave, deadheading, positioning and night-duty encroachment to make the rosters look compliant.

They said printed rosters were being altered frequently at a short notice, while the crew were at times assigned duties that masked real working hours or bypassed the intent of the regulation.

Such practices, they warned, stripped the CAR of its purpose and exposed the pilots and passengers to heightened fatigue-related risks. They demanded strict checks on operational practices, deeper audits and stronger enforcement to ensure no airline could “work around” the safety norms.

The representatives also condemned what they called a steady stream of operator requests for variations and exemptions, arguing that fatigue rules designed for safety could not be adjusted for convenience. They insisted that the CAR must be implemented exactly as notified and that exemptions should be considered only in extreme circumstances backed by clear mitigation.

Another major issue raised was the mismatch between CAR provisions and internal operator manuals. The pilot bodies said some airlines were still relying on internal roster policies that conflicted with or diluted the official rules, causing operational confusion and deviations. They urged the DGCA to immediately ensure that all manuals were harmonised with the CAR and that no internal guideline was allowed to contradict a safety regulation.

DGCA officials responded by acknowledging the allegations and promising a detailed examination of duty classifications, leave treatment, minimum crew requirements and deadheading procedures. The regulator maintained that variations were not issued casually and said they required operator justification and safety-based mitigation measures.

The DGCA agreed to review how exemptions are granted and to initiate targeted audits of roster planning and internal fatigue policies to ensure that the operators adhere to the CAR in letter and spirit.