KATHMANDU: The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal has been found to be applying double standards to air safety regulations when it comes to imparting training to its inspectors on airworthiness, as well as flight operations.

The provisions of Rule 11 of civil aviation regulations prohibiting the registration of civil aircraft without the transfer of technology to CAAN personnel has been willfully used by CAAN top brass to neutralise prevailing safety regulations that prevent an airline staffer from possessing authorisation on more than two aircraft types, according to an aviation expert.

“While the purported rationale for the safety regulation intended to minimise commission of possible human error arising out of situations when a pilot or airplane mechanic switches task between two aircraft types, this rationale was consigned to the trash bin when specific inspector was repeatedly sent abroad for training on a wide range of aircraft spanning from small helicopters like AS350 to aeroplanes like A320 and B757 at the operators’ expenses,” he said.

This, on the one hand, leads to utter de-motivation of those whose chances were unfairly snatched, while on the other the important event for effecting technology transfer to a sensitive CAAN department gets subverted into a joy trip for the pampered one, a CAAN official admitted.

The safety philosophy of there being limits to an individual’s capabilities, for being proficient on multiple specialised tasks as reflected in the safety regulation, assumes a back seat when the individual happens to be a close relative of the director general, a senior captain working with a private airline told this daily on condition of anonymity fearing harassment.

In line with Nepal’s obligations to the International Civil Aviation Organisation for effective safety oversight of the airline industry, the regulatory authority, vested in the director general, is delegated to CAAN inspectors for ensuring proper maintenance, as well as flight operations of aircraft.

In order for the oversight to be meaningful, the inspectors need to be at least as qualified as the personnel they are surveilling. “The stipulated minimum 5,000 flight hours as pilot-in-command, an experience that can be garnered only after spending a decade on the flight deck, is evidently there to command respect of those being checked,” a senior captain added.

Admitting flaws in recruitment and training process, a senior CAAN executive revealed that none of six inspectors working with the regulatory body had more than 3,500 hours of flying experience. “Interestingly, the CAAN’s act of deputing a supposed flight inspector, with an expired pilot’s licence, for a two-month airbus type training at Toulouse reeks of ingrained malpractice, when considered in light of specific ICAO document on air operator certification that specifies the minimum qualifications for a flight operations inspector - current air transport pilot licence holder and experience of not less than 5,000 hours as pilot-in-command of air transport aircraft.”

The senior pilot further questioned the practice of CAAN hiring novices, who merely qualify as co-pilots, as senior officers in the flight operations division to serve as inspectors, who the document specify must hold a valid airline transport pilot licence. “It is obvious the vacancy is advertised with a view to hiring the relatives of those in places of influence while knowingly undermining the CAAN’s regulatory capabilities in the long run,” he added.