Nepal’s air safety issue is a complex matter that extends beyond national security; it also impacts international relations and the country’s global reputation.
A superficial analysis of Nepal’s air safety issues is insufficient. This is a complex matter that goes beyond national security; it affects international relations and the country’s global image.
I have raised this issue multiple times in Parliament, which is why I am particularly invested in it.
What concerns me is that our discussion started from the point of Nepal being blacklisted by the EU.
However, the more pressing issue should have been: Where do we stand in terms of air safety in Nepal? Are we truly safe when flying on Nepali planes? I believe this is the angle that requires more discussion.
I find it troubling that the recent number of airplane accidents seems unusually high.
Of course, accidents also occur on the roads, and road accidents are more frequent. However, when people choose to fly instead of driving—because roads are in poor condition and flights offer speed—they should feel safer, not more at risk.
The EU’s blacklist isn’t just about preventing our planes from flying there. I had asked what the implications of being blacklisted really are. For example, some European insurance companies refuse to provide coverage for passengers flying with Nepali airlines.
Therefore, while it’s important for Nepal’s airspace to be removed from the EU blacklist, I believe that addressing air safety should be our priority. We need to focus on security first.
About a month and a half ago, I presented a motion of urgent public importance in Parliament. Unfortunately, the discussion was brief and didn’t result in any concrete answers. The Minister did not provide a detailed response.
My point is that, rather than simply separating the Civil Aviation Authority to make it look better to the EU and remove the blacklist, we should first address whether we are truly safe.
I urge everyone to consider these issues from the standpoint of safety, rather than focusing solely on administrative changes.
At that time, I raised about 10-12 questions in Parliament. For instance, in aviation, we have ‘VFR flights’ (Visual Flight Rules), where pilots navigate based on what they can see outside, and ‘Instrument Flight Rules’ (IFR), where pilots rely on navigational instruments.
When I spoke with several pilots, they mentioned that they should receive a ‘weather briefing’ before flying, but many do not. This lack of proper briefing is a serious concern. Without full knowledge of weather conditions, pilots cannot operate the aircraft safely.
Sometimes, the weather changes unexpectedly during the flight, and pilots may need to switch to IFR. However, in some instances, pilots decide to continue under VFR, which can lead to accidents.
My question is: who is responsible for ensuring that pilots follow safety protocols? The regulatory body must be strong, as this is a technical issue that requires oversight.
For example, there was a helicopter crash where the pilot reportedly flew into a cloud while taking off, thinking he could avoid it.
Why are we still allowing VFR flights in a country like Nepal, where weather conditions can change rapidly? IFR should be mandatory, especially when the weather is poor, yet it isn’t always enforced. My question is: why isn’t it?
Regarding the current discourse on airport expansion, pilots have pointed out that there is a lack of necessary navigation apps for flying the new aircraft being introduced.
While I agree that expanding airports is essential, we must first address safety concerns like these. Ensuring that pilots have the right tools to fly safely is a critical step that should not be overlooked.
I am reminded of the US-Bangla Airlines crash. There was confusion about the runway direction during the incident—whether it was ‘zero-two’ or ‘two-zero.’
The Air Traffic Control (ATC) communication was unclear, and it was revealed that the ATC was confused about the runway directions. This kind of miscommunication can lead to serious accidents. A plane, like a car, doesn’t stop instantly.
If ATC is unclear during critical moments, such as when a plane is about to land, it can cause a skid. The committee report may have concluded differently, but from what we can gather as ordinary people, it is clear that there was a failure in communication.
Therefore, it is imperative to increase the capacity and competency of ATC personnel. This is non-negotiable when it comes to ensuring safe air travel in Nepal.
Similarly, there is the issue of the VFR charts, which include important details such as the location of poles, wires, and other relevant features. These charts need to be regularly updated, especially when there are changes at the airport.
However, the VFR charts for our airports are not properly maintained or updated. There have been complaints that the VFR charts for helicopters are also not being updated as required.
This issue was raised in Parliament, but unfortunately, there was no concrete response. I have previously pointed out that pilots are not provided with proper weather information.
Despite the availability of advanced weather forecasting technology, pilots are not adequately briefed about weather conditions.
The Meteorological Department, which should be providing this information, lacks the necessary expertise. Even when advertisements are posted for meteorology jobs, there is a lack of applicants.
While the Meteorological Department may not fall under the Ministry of Tourism, it is still a ‘cross-cutting issue’ that connects to it.
My question is: What is being done to ensure that skilled personnel are retained in the Meteorological Department?
So far, there has been no clear answer to this. When I asked the pilots how they manage to fly without proper weather briefings, their response was, “You can check it on your own mobile and fly.”
If pilots can rely on their personal mobile phones for weather updates, then what is the purpose of the Meteorological Department? Isn’t the department established specifically to provide detailed weather information? This shows a serious weakness in the system.
Another issue I raised concerns the examination process. I asked the pilots if any of them had ever failed an exam. The answer was no. Is that normal?
Are there really no pilots who fail? It’s a strange situation, especially considering the high level of responsibility in aviation.
We, as Nepalese, tend to overlook such issues and accept them, but when lives are at risk, there should be no room for complacency in the exam process.
Aviation is not like social science, where failure might be more common. But when you ask people who have studied abroad about their exams, they will tell you that failure is a possibility. This suggests that we might have significant shortcomings in how exams are conducted here.
Turning to the EU, after a 2023 assessment audit, a report was released with 29 points highlighting areas for improvement. If you read these points carefully, it’s clear that the EU didn’t come here with an agenda to harm us.
Rather, the report identified weaknesses in several areas. For example, it noted deficiencies in Nepal Airlines, Shree Airlines, and other sectors of our aviation system.
The EU’s assessment was based on their sampling and evaluation process during their visit. There is no evidence in the report of any deliberate plot or humiliation.
The EU’s main concern is our internal weaknesses, and they have suggested improvements in specific areas. They have emphasized a key issue: a “conflict of interest” between our regulatory body and service providers. This issue is at the heart of our discussion.
Regarding the question of whether or not to separate the Civil Aviation Authority, some people argue against it, expressing concerns about how the two separate authorities would be managed.
While this is a valid concern, we must also acknowledge that in a country like ours, where professionalism is still developing, much of the work is often done based on personal connections and informal networks.
We have a culture that relies heavily on word-of-mouth and relationships. In such a situation, having the same entity control both the service provider and the regulatory body can lead to a clear conflict of interest. One entity controls the other, and that inevitably creates tension.
For example, Prakash Khatiwada’s relative was involved in the recent solar plane crash. According to regulations, no outsiders were allowed to be on that flight.
So why was he allowed to board? Why wasn’t there a proper inspection? If the regulatory body had been diligent in its checks, this issue would have been flagged. This highlights the weakness in our regulations.
What would have happened if that solar plane had crashed near an oil facility close to an international airport? What would have been the consequences for Kathmandu? I believe there are many such potential errors waiting to happen.
When it comes to separating the authority, in my opinion, the primary focus should be on making the system work professionally.
The idea of separation is being discussed, but if those arguing against it had addressed these issues quickly and efficiently, we wouldn’t be having this debate. If the regulatory body had been strong within the current structure, this question would not have arisen.
Whether it’s the plane crash in Pokhara, the helicopter incident in Mustang, or the plane crash with Saurya Airlines, we continually see the weakness of the regulatory body. Our regulation is extremely weak.
Nepal has a serious problem with aviation safety. I had raised 13 questions about this with the Minister. The EU’s findings are relevant—they audit and identify our weaknesses. Those findings should be printed and shared so that we can learn from them.
The EU’s blacklist isn’t just about preventing our planes from flying there. I had asked what the implications of being blacklisted really are. For example, some European insurance companies refuse to provide coverage for passengers flying with Nepali airlines.
If tourists arriving in Nepal don’t have insurance, why would they feel safe coming here? It paints a picture that Nepal is not a safe place to travel.
This blacklist is about many factors. The EU has listed them in their report, and instead of blaming them for plotting against us, we should focus on fixing those weaknesses.
For me, the EU is secondary. If we make improvements, even if the EU still blacklists us, that’s another issue. But first and foremost, our flights should be safe, and we should feel safe when we board an aircraft.
I’ll show you a photo of an airline’s tire. If it goes flat, it’s a shocking sight. One tire has grip, and the other doesn’t. Who is going to check this? These are the kinds of issues we are facing. This isn’t about employees protesting.
Some people have said we should protest, but I believe this is not the time for protests.
This is about sitting down seriously at the table and discussing the real issues. If we are wrong, we should acknowledge it. When you board a plane, do you ever think, “Will I survive this flight?” We have to fly with that fear hanging over us—that’s the sad reality. So, this issue is not about protesting; it’s about addressing the core problems head-on.
The policy of the Government of Nepal should not be influenced by anyone else. Policies should be designed to ensure safety, and laws should reflect that.
The laws enacted by the government should be fully respected. It’s not about protesting; it’s about focusing on how to strengthen our rules and regulations.
The reality is that we are very weak in terms of flight safety. We cannot simply blame the EU for this. If we strengthen flight safety and make our regulatory body robust, even if the EU blacklists us, it will be a separate matter. But our top priority should be ensuring that we can fly safely.
Unfortunately, protest culture in Nepal has become too strong, and the government has often been unable to take a firm stand. Laws should be upheld—end of story.
Nepal has a serious problem with aviation safety. I had raised 13 questions about this with the Minister. The EU’s findings are relevant—they audit and identify our weaknesses. Those findings should be printed and shared so that we can learn from them.
If the Nepali people believe the EU is trying to undermine Nepal for its business interests, then that’s one perspective. However, if the EU has pointed out our mistakes, especially in technical areas, those mistakes must be corrected. There’s no other way, whether it’s Nepal Airlines or other airlines.
Yesterday, when we presented a motion of urgent public importance in Parliament, I spoke about Nepal’s aviation security. Some MPs were focused on Nepal Airlines, but some of them lack clarity on the issue.
If there is confusion among MPs, then the general public is bound to be uncertain as well. This calls for much deeper research into the matter.
We’ve heard many opinions on this matter. Our party has not yet formed a specific stance on the separation of the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal.
We’ve discussed this issue with young pilots, engineers, former directors general, and airline company representatives. We’ll continue to have more discussions on this within the party.
The reality is that we are very weak in terms of flight safety. We cannot simply blame the EU for this. If we strengthen flight safety and make our regulatory body robust, even if the EU blacklists us, it will be a separate matter. But our top priority should be ensuring that we can fly safely.
(Views presented by Sobita Gautam, Member of the House of Representatives, during a debate organized by the Institute for Strategic and Socio-Economic Research (ISSR) on Friday at Durbar Marg.)
Comment