Responsible leadership is needed to guide CAAN and the aviation sector through a genuine reform process
Given the upcoming legislation aimed at restructuring the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN), which is set to be presented in the Parliament soon, it is crucial to highlight key points on aviation safety. Doing so will offer valuable insight into the current organisational setup, helping the parliament better understand the rationale behind the proposed changes. This approach will ensure a more informed and effective decision-making process regarding the new law and its potential impact on aviation safety and the broader aviation system.
CAAN was established in 1998. During the ICAO audits in 2013, rumours spread about individuals involved in safety audits under the guise of On-the-Job Training (OJT), seemingly for personal gain and experience. As a result, Nepal was placed on ICAO's significant safety concerns list. It was later revealed that some senior officials had planned to become full-fledged auditors, continuing to earn foreign currency even after retirement, despite Nepal not being fully prepared for such audits. These officials' prioritised personal interests over institutional needs, and their failure to properly communicate Nepal's situation to ICAO led to audits being conducted prematurely, tarnishing the country's aviation reputation.
A small tight-knit group of individuals, solely focused on flight safety, seemed to dominate the safety instructor and inspector training sessions. They acted as if flight safety was their exclusive domain, presenting themselves as experts with specialised knowledge. During their presence, the training sessions often became confusing and unproductive, with only a limited exchange of theories or experiences.
These so-called "experts" portrayed flight safety as a daunting, almost inaccessible concept, controlling it like a hidden, dangerous force. In reality, this group has held a monopoly over flight safety in Nepal for years. CAAN has struggled with a shortage of qualified personnel, and this issue has gone largely unnoticed by both the ministry and lawmakers. As a result, tragic accidents continue to plague the country.
Over time, the title "Flight Safety Expert" has been used to intimidate others in the aviation sector. Recently, this narrative has been promoted in the media, blaming specific individuals or leadership for accidents. This has fueled discussions about creating "divisions" within CAAN, with some believing that splitting the organisation is the solution to the sector's challenges.
The real solution, however, lies in improving the skills and performance of all aviation personnel through regular training, workshops and capacity assessments. Flight safety should be integrated into the culture of the entire aviation community, not just controlled by an exclusive group.
To make real progress, CAAN and other organisations must develop stable, long-term training plans that evolve with new technologies and trends. The lack of knowledge transfer, skilled personnel and succession planning in the aviation sector is unacceptable. What was once a new concept-flight safety-should have been expanded and integrated into the broader aviation community. Instead, it has remained isolated, contributing to the ongoing struggles in both the country and the aviation sector. Within the industry, there is a divide between "advanced" flight safety officers and those who have learned safety through self-study, a divide that has been nurtured by the same small group.
The public was initially led to believe that a division within CAAN would bring about meaningful change, but the real question is: Why, when this group was in power and had access to resources, did they focus on superficial matters like free helicopter rides and inaugurating non-functional airports, instead of addressing the core issues at hand? Despite having the resources and opportunities, their fear of losing them, along with pressure from trade unions and uncertainty about their retirements, led them to promote division as a supposed solution.
Furthermore, what kind of institutional progress did they leave behind, only for it to unravel immediately after their departure? Nepal's aviation sector, like much of the country, is mired in contradictions and conflicts of interest. From Mafia's investment in land, banks to helicopter operators managing insurance and hospitals, many sectors face governance challenges, and aviation is no exception. The question remains: Is unbundling CAAN truly the solution to the sector's issues?
How can an organisation that has struggled to implement effective laws be expected to function properly if it is split? Can the "consultants" fix these issues by issuing regulatory threats? Should the aviation sector take such risks?
CAAN leadership should focus on real structural reforms, ensuring transparency, accountability and effective laws at all levels. A skilled workforce capable of creating and enforcing regulations is essential, with independent auditors, inspectors and technical staff. Leadership in the aviation sector should be entrusted to individuals with a broad, long-term vision for flight safety. All employees should be held to high ethical and legal standards to prevent corruption or misconduct, and strict monitoring should be in place.
Yet, the very individuals who failed to address these issues are now freely vouching in the media, claiming that the solution lies in dividing the institution. Before moving forward with such a division, we must thoroughly assess whether this approach will truly address the root cause of the problems. Responsible leadership is needed to guide CAAN and the Nepalese aviation sector through a genuine reform process.
The division of CAAN by legislature whether driven by unseen motives or rooted in ignorance, will ultimately be judged by time.
Sharma is Deputy Manager of CAAN. The opinions expressed here are personal
