The recent government's decision to create an independent regulatory body is a step in the right direction, and if implemented correctly, it could be the beginning of a meaningful reform
Every time a plane takes off in Nepal, it carries the weight of a grim history than the passengers. Since 2010, over 360 lives have been lost in civil aviation accidents, yet the authorities still treat air safety as mere bureaucracy. In 2023, the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) launched the National Aviation Safety Plan (NASP), a three-year strategy promising improvement. For those who have followed Nepal's troubled aviation history, it felt like another well-packaged plan designed to tick boxes rather than real reform. Nepal's aviation sector has been in crisis for years, and the EU's ban on Nepali airlines since 2013 is just one symptom of the deeper problems that have plagued it.
Many of us may not realise that the EU ban was not placed on airlines but on the system governing them. The ban is not about the capability of our pilots or the competence of an individual airline; it is about the fact that Nepal's regulatory authority has repeatedly failed to meet international safety standards. The EU has made it obvious that they don't trust Nepal's aviation regulators.
Meanwhile, Nepali airlines continue to fly to destinations like India, Malaysia, the UAE and Japan, leading many to question why only the EU raises the issue. Because, other nations assess safety on a flight-by-flight basis and reviewing aircraft conditions. However, the EU looks at the system, ensuring that Nepal's aviation authority follows the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards. For over a decade, Nepal has failed this test.
Treacherous terrain and unpredictable weather conditions make flying in Nepal inherently risky. But the real dangers come from human errors, weak oversight and outdated infrastructure. Nepal's airspace is classified as Class C and G, meaning that while some areas have air traffic control support, the vast stretches of sky require pilots to rely solely on visual judgment.
CAAN's safety reports acknowledge that most aviation deaths in Nepal have been due to aircraft colliding with terrain, either due to disorientation, miscommunication or poor visibility. Yeti Airlines' Flight 691 crash in 2023 and the Tara Air Flight 197 crash in 2016 were both cases of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), a category that accounts for 93 per cent of all aviation deaths in the last decade. These tragedies highlight the urgent need for better navigation systems, improved pilot training and vigorous regulatory enforcement, none of which will be possible without deep structural reforms.
For years, CAAN has been mired in a blatant conflict of interest, serving as a regulator and an operator of the airports. This dual role has been one of the most significant barriers to improving aviation safety. An institution that profits from airlines cannot impartially enforce safety regulations. A regulator cannot function effectively if it is financially dependent on the industry it is supposed to police.
Corruption, political interference and inefficiency have made CAAN a weak and ineffective body. Despite repeated warnings from the EU, ICAO and aviation experts, yet little has changed.
Recently, the Nepali government has decided to separate the two roles. The decision to create an independent regulatory body is a step in the right direction, and if implemented correctly, it could be the beginning of a meaningful reform. But merely dividing CAAN into two entities is insufficient. The new regulatory body must be free from political interference, led by aviation professionals rather than government appointees, and given the autonomy to enforce strict compliance.
Leadership positions must be filled based on merit and expertise, not political connections. Significant investment must also be in air traffic control modernisation, pilot training programmes and infrastructure upgrades, particularly in high-risk areas where poor visibility and terrain pose constant threat.
Another burning issue is lack of an independent crash investigation body. CAAN itself is responsible for investigating accidents, the same entity that is tasked with regulating aviation and airports is also in charge of reviewing its failures. Reports are written, recommendations are made, but rarely are lessons implemented.
Air safety is not just about technology or policies; it is about accountability, transparency and a commitment to protecting lives over profit. A reactive approach has long plagued Nepal's aviation sector, with mediocre responses rather than proactively preventing them. If Nepal wants to regain the trust of international aviation bodies, it must move away from the vicious cycle of negligence and crisis management.
For decades, the conversation about aviation safety in Nepal has remained unchanged. After every major accident, there is public outcry, media coverage and official assurances that things will change. But every time attention fades, complacency sets in, and another tragedy strikes. If real change is to happen, it cannot wait for the next crash to serve as another wake-up call. The government's decision to separate regulatory functions is a moment of opportunity, but will mean nothing if not followed by bold action.
Nepali aviation stands at a crossroads. Will we continue to allow political inertia, weak governance and regulatory failure to define our skies or will we take this chance to build an aviation sector that is truly safe, reliable and respected globally? The decision will determine whether Nepal's skies remain a danger zone or finally become a symbol of progress.
Verma is an aeronautical engineer, entrepreneur, consultant and management teacher in Kathmandu