Clear Skies, Cloudy Rules: DGCA and the Limits of Regulatory Flight Control

Turbulence, Anxious passenger, and Captain Policy Pundit

Anxious Passenger: 

So… what keeps us safe up here?

Pandit (adjusting his seat):

Ideally? Physics. And Policy. Regulatory and economic policy, to be precise.

The kind that ensures your emergency gates work, your black box doesn’t become a black hole for accountability,  and your pilot didn’t watch “Top Gun” as training material. 

Enter the DGCA-India’s regulator-in-the-sky.

No, no, not “Decisions Generally Come Aftermath.”

But mostly, it’s about people who ask questions like you. 

Because when the sky shakes, we don’t just blame turbulence, we check the checklist. 

Same goes for the regulatory state.

Q1: "DGCA is a regulator, right? Then what is the role of these regulators in preventing these crashes?

Thank you for asking. We need to ask such questions.

We know that on 12 June 2025, Air India Flight 171 crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, killing all 271 on board. It was India's deadliest crash in over a decade. For the first time, India opened a commercial flight’s black box on home soil, under the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau. 

So, what is DGCA’s role exactly?

That’s the question. DGCA-the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, is our civil aviation regulator. It licenses airlines, certifies pilots, audits aircraft, and ensures safety standards. But structurally, it’s an attached office under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Not autonomous. Not statutory. Not insulated.

Director General of DGCA, who heads the agency, is appointed by the Central Government, typically through the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).

While the post has occasionally gone to aviation experts, it is often filled by bureaucrats from administrative or revenue services, currently held by a 1996 IAS officer Faiz Ahmed Kidwai. The leadership is administrative; the regulatory core is technically manned by air safety officers, flight operations inspectors, and aircraft engineers. This hybrid model blends bureaucratic oversight with technocratic execution.

But without full independence, this structure creates blurred lines- where policy, enforcement, and oversight may all sit within the same room.

Compare this with the FAA in the US which is an independent authority answerable to Congress. Or EASA in Europe, which coordinates across 27 member states. India’s DGCA, meanwhile, operates from within the very ministry that once owned Air India. Until 2022, it was regulated and reported to the same boss.

DGCA exercises delegated legislative authority under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Aircraft Rules, 1937. It issues Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs)- technical rules covering pilot licensing, airworthiness, safety standards, etc. These CARs are legally binding, but only if they stay within the powers granted by Parliament.

So yes, we have a regulator. But when the referee wears the team jersey, fouls are just… training errors.

Q2: "Okay, but can DGCA punish anyone?"

They can. And sometimes, they do.

After repeated lapses, DGCA grounded 90 SpiceJet pilots in 2022 who trained on a faulty simulator. They fined Air India ₹90 lakh in 2024 for crew violations. Show-cause notices are flying faster than flight paths.

But here’s the turbulence: many sanctions are symbolic. Or delayed. Or quietly buried.

The US FAA, for example, publicly lists its enforcement actions, issues tiered penalties, and conducts risk-based audits. In India, fines are rarely public, delays are routine, and deterrence is weak.

A penalty regime should be like a landing checklist- clear, mandatory, and unforgiving if skipped.

Q3: “Do they at least check if safety rules are worth the cost?”

That’s called Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) which is a regulatory basic in most mature democracies.

In aviation, CBA helps answer: “Is it worth spending ₹20 crore on new sensors to avoid a one-in-a-million risk?” It weighs direct costs against statistical lives saved, reputational loss, and system resilience.

DGCA, however, has no formal CBA framework.

A CAG report flagged:

• ₹405 crore wasted on leasing aircraft while purchased ones sat idle.

• ₹3,415 crore passed to passengers due to contract mismanagement.

• No documented CBAs. No accountability.

  
  

Meanwhile, FAA regulations undergo Regulatory Impact Analysis. EASA applies risk-based filters to every major decision. In India? We skip straight to the circular.

Safety without cost-awareness creates waste. Cost-cutting without safety leads to tragedy. The balance is the regulator’s job.

Q4: “Who oversees the DGCA?”

This is the institutional blind spot.

Unlike SEBI (for markets) or TRAI (for telecom), DGCA is neither autonomous nor parliamentary. Its chief is a bureaucrat, appointed by the Centre. It reports to a political ministry, not to Parliament or an oversight board.

This is a conflict of interest by design.(this is repeated above as well)

In the US, the FAA operates under the Department of Transportation but with functional independence and a legal mandate for public accountability. In India, DGCA’s regulatory priorities often mirror ministry convenience, not aviation risk.

If safety is a public good, then its oversight must lie beyond political whim.

Q5: “Do stronger regulators actually make air travel safer?”

Yes. Unequivocally.

According to ICAO’s 2024 Global Safety Report:

• Africa’s WACAF region saw 3.78 crashes per million departures.

• India saw 542 enforcement actions in 2023.

• Nepal, after the 2023 Yeti Airlines crash, was blacklisted by ICAO due to regulatory failures.

Enforcement is not about volume, it’s about impact. About saying: “This failure won’t happen again.”

Final Descent: What must change?

If India wants its aviation sector to match its global ambitions, DGCA needs a full systems upgrade. Not in staff strength or forms. In structure.

Key reforms:

• Make DGCA a statutory authority insulated from political pressure.

• Mandate Cost-Benefit Analysis for all safety-related regulations. 

• Publish tiered penalties with full public transparency.

• Create a Parliamentary Aviation Oversight Committee to audit enforcement.

Because passengers don’t board flights with faith in fate, they board with trust in a system.

Stay grounded, even at 35,000 feet.