[Urbanstudy] Fwd: PRESS RELEASE : 22 May 2010: Mangalore Air Crash Tragic Fallout of Criminal Negligence of Planning and Regulatory Authorities

[ESGINDIA]

PRESS RELEASE : 22 May 2010


*Mangalore Air Crash Tragic Fallout of Criminal Negligence of Planning 
and Regulatory Authorities*



An Air India Express Boeing 737-800 aircraft arriving from Dubai with 
167 on board 2010 tragically crashed at Mangalore International Airport 
at 6.30 am today (22 May 2010). It is reported that the plane overshot 
the runway while landing and fell over a cliff resulting in this 
disastrous crash. Very few are known to have survived this horrific crash.


This was no accident, but the direct result of deliberate failure of 
officials at the highest level in the Director General of Civil 
Aviation, Airports Authority of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation and 
the Government of Karnataka for allowing this 2^nd runway to be built in 
criminal negligence of applicable norms and standards. Such a strong 
charge is being made as the likelihood of this kind of a crash (the 
worst case scenario) was predicted. A series of Public Interest 
Litigations were fought by the undersigned to stop the construction of 
this 2^nd runway in Mangalore airport on grounds that the design simply 
did not conform to the most basic national and international standards 
of airport design. The PILs also highlighted that the airport does not 
conform with the most minimum safeguards for emergency situations -- 
particularly during landings and takeoffs, and could not have emergency 
approach roads within a kilometre on all sides of the airport as required.


It is truly sad that because of the failure of key decision makers at 
the highest levels so many innocent lives have been lost. It is quite 
possible that many lives were lost as emergency rescue teams could not 
access the crash site due to the difficult terrain (a valley) for over a 
hour after the incident, even though it was proximal to the site.^1 
<#sdfootnote1sym>


Vimana Nildana Vistharana Virodhi Samithi (Local Communities Alliance 
Against Airport Expansion), Bajpe and Environment Support Group had 
repeatedly highlighted the high risk expansion of the Mangalore airport 
during the late 1990s. The expansion was proposed to enable flight 
movements of wide bodied aircrafts, such as Airbus A 320. Authorities 
were repeatedly informed that the proposal did not at all conform with 
the standards prescribed for runway design as laid down by the Director 
General of Civil Aviation, National Building Code of India and Ministry 
of Civil Aviation. Further, considering that the airport was proposed 
for international flights, a case was also made that the 2^nd runway 
could not conform with International Civil Aviation Authority standards 
due to terrain limitations.


No one in authority cared to listen to our fervent pleas. This even when 
we demonstrated through a variety of representations that that the site 
chosen for expansion at Bajpe was surrounded by deep valleys on three 
sides of the runway and did not provide for emergency landing areas as 
required.


This neglect of our legitimate concerns forced us to move the High Court 
of Karnataka in a PIL in 1997 (Arthur Pereira and ors. vs. Union of 
India and ors., WP No. 37681/1997). A key concern raised was that the 
2^nd runway in Mangalore could not meet the standards required in 
dealing with an emergency, particularly during landings and takeoffs -- 
a time when air crashes are most likely to happen.


The Airports Authority of India filed an affidavit in Court dismissing 
all our concerns and stated this, amongst other things:

"It is submitted that as regards the apprehensions of the petitioner 
that the Length and width of the runway is insufficient for a plane 
making an emergency landing, the same is without any basis. It is 
respectfully submitted that all the requirements as per the ICAO 
recommendation will be met and that there has been no infringement of 
any of the recommendation and limitation therein." (Copy of this 
affidavit dated 14 October 1998 is accessible at: 
http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/bajpe/docs/Statement%20of%20Objections%20of%20AAI.htm) 


On the basis of this affidavit, Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Y. Bhaskar Rao 
and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Farooq (as their Lordships then were) 
dismissed this PIL ordering as follows:


      "_It is stated that the fear of the petitioners that the runway is
      insufficient for any emergency landing of a plane is without any
      basis since before the project is to proceed, the authorities will
      be meeting the recommendations of the ICAO_. It is also stated
      that there is no basis for the allegations made by the petitioners
      to the effect that the various safety measures have not been
      followed. That on the other hand they will be getting all the
      relevant materials described by the petitioners which will be
      followed in letter and spirit without which the airport would not
      have been conceived in the first place.

      Thus it can be seen that the expansion of Bajpe airport project is
      at the initial stage and the second respondent has in their
      objections mentioned above unequivocally stated that all the
      safety measures etc., stated by the petitioners in their writ
      petition will be followed during the progress of the project and
      nothing can be said before the lands are handed over to the second
      respondent. Considering these facts, _we are of the view that the
      petitioners have rushed to this court before commencement of the
      project itself and the writ petition is premature_. *It is not,
      therefore, necessary to consider the various grounds taken by the
      petitioners in the writ petition to allege that the respondents
      have been proceeding with the project in a casual manner*. /There
      is nothing to doubt about the statement made by the second
      respondent in their objection statement and we are sure that the
      respondents will be taking all necessary measures under the
      different enactments etc.., before proceeding with the project in
      question/. The writ petition stands dismissed." (Emphasis added. A
      copy of this order is accessible at:
      http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/bajpe/docs/1998%20Karnataka%20High%20Court%20Judgement.htm)



Even though alternative sites existed, the authorities proceeded 
obstinately to expand the airport yielding to pressures from business, 
real estate and hotel lobbies who benefited immensely from an airport at 
Bajpe. Politicians keen to make the expansion a part of their legacy 
overlooked all concerns raised. Even at the existing Bajpe alternative 
sites existed to expand the airport, that conformed with most safety 
norms, but this site was not pursued as it would affect large 
landholders and influential people. Consequently, nothing whatsoever was 
done to respond to the concerns we raised about the risks involved in 
the 2^nd runway.

The Airport Authority did not even have a proper feasibility study, and 
claimed that such a critical information detail would only be prepared 
after the land was acquired for the airport. Surely this amounted to 
putting the cart before the horse, for the study, even if eventually 
prepared, would have been tailor made to justify the decision to so 
expand the airport.

Distressed by such a turn of events and the absolute lack of compliance 
with applicable norms and standards, we appealed to the ICAO to 
intervene in the matter. The ICAO claimed did not respond and so we 
returned to the High Court with a fresh PIL in 2002. In this 
exhaustively researched PIL many significant concerns were raised and a 
case was made that the 2^nd runway could not conform with ICAO norms for 
the following reasons:

_"Minimum Area for Stop-way_: At page 155 of the said (ICAO) report, 
para 2-1 prescribes standards for providing the minimum area for a stop 
way and/or a clear way in the event an aircraft undershoots or over-runs 
the runway. For instance, if an aircraft has initiated take off, and a 
technical flaw requires emergency stop, the standard prescribes the 
minimum area that should be kept free to enable such a stop. In the 
instant case, the runway distance itself is about 2400 metres, and even 
if the area left is most cautiously utilised, what is left is only about 
300 metres on each end of the runway. By the prescribed standard, this 
is far below the required distance needed for an emergency stop way. 
*Therefore, the chances of an aircraft that has achieved the decision 
speed forcing an emergency stop are critically minimised, and the 
inevitable consequence could be that the plane would come crashing down 
the hillsides from a height of 80-100 metres on either side of the 
proposed runway.*" (Emphasis added. A copy of the PIL is accessible at: 
http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/bajpe/docs/Bajpe%20HC%20PIL%2020905%20May%202002.htm)^2 
<#sdfootnote2sym>



The High Court of Karnataka dismissed this PIL initiative by their order 
dated 27 May 2002 (WP 20905/2002) stating the following:

"No doubt, in an appropriate case, this Court can issue directions, if 
there is gross violation of fundamental rights or if the issue touches 
the conscience of this Court, _but not for personal gain or political 
gain._ The construction of 2^nd Runway and Terminal Tower in Mangalore 
Airport will otherwise be in the interest of public. Learned Counsel has 
not been able to show how the construction of 2^nd Runway and Terminal 
Tower in Mangalore Airport will be against the public interest. On 
consideration and in the facts of the given case no direction as prayed 
for can be issued in this PIL. The authorities concerned have to 
complete all formalities as per law before commencement of the project. 
Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear 
that *dismissal of this petition will not preclude the concerned 
Authorities to take all necessary precaution and to complete the 
formalities as per law before proceeding with the project in question*." 
(Emphasis added)



In a desperate effort to stop the Mangalore airport from so expanding 
and needlessly exposing innocent people to unnecessary risk, we went on 
appeal against the High Court order to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 
India. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled 07 February 2003 
in Environment Support Group and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. 
[SLP(C) 1172 OF 2003] as follows:

"_We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order._ Accordingly, 
the special leave petition is dismissed. *We, however, clarify that in 
constructing the Airport, the Government shall comply with all 
applicable laws and also with environmental norms.*" (Emphasis added. A 
copy of this order can be accessed at: 
http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/bajpe/docs/BAJPE%20SC%20ORDER%20070203.htm)


One hopes with the benefit of hindsight that the Director General of 
Civil Aviation or Airports Authority of India had complied with this 
order of the Supreme Court and ensured Mangalore airport was developed 
in full conformance with applicable laws, standards and norms. In case 
the current site was not feasible, they could have easily explored 
alternate sites, as such sites did exist -- within Bajpe itself, or even 
in Padubidri, between Mangalore and Udupi. Instead, the authorities 
preferred to view the Supreme Court order as a victory, as did the 
Karnataka Government and Mangalore Chamber of Commerce and Industry 
which had systematically campaigned for the expansion.



Without any further hesitation the 2^nd runway construction began in 
2004 and was commissioned in May 2006. No techno-economic assessment, 
feasibility study, or even an comprehensive Environment Impact 
Assessment was ever done for the 2^nd Runway. Simply put, the runway was 
built in comprehensive violation of applicable laws, standards and 
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

On 8^th March 2004, we wrote to Dr. Naseem Zaidi, Chairman (Addl. 
Charge) & Joint Secretary, Airport Authority of India, Ministry of Civil 
Aviation, Government of India, reminding him of the need to comply with 
the Supreme Court direction. In particular we highlighted that "such 
action would jeopardize passenger safety, put local communities to risk, 
needlessly dislocate people by acquiring land on a location that in no 
way could comply with the said provisions and thereby contributed to 
gross wastage of public money and resources." We did not get any response.



Six years later today we are mourning the unfortunate death of so many 
people who should have been alive. We are clear that this is no 
accident, but a direct result of the series of deliberate failures of 
officials and key decision makers at the highest levels of all 
authorities connected with the decision to allow the 2^nd runway to be 
constructed and commissioned. Of course all sorts of explanations will 
be on offer, but none of that can bring lost lives back or cure the 
tragedy that has wrongly befallen so many families.



India today is frenetically building airports all over, and for all 
sorts of flaky reasons. Such is the political, bureaucratic and 
corporate pressure to build and expand airports that anyone questing the 
rationale is quickly dubbed as a "busybody", "useless interloper", 
"promoted by vested interest" and raising "frivolous" concerns.



*To ensure such incidents do not recur, we demand that the Union 
Minister of Civil Aviation orders an impartial Commission of Enquiry 
into the causative factors of this crash, especially investigating the 
absolute lack of conformance with basic runway design standards and 
emergency approach measures.*


*As a small tribute to those who lost their lives in this tragic air 
crash, ESG offers to assist crash affected families to initiate a damage 
suits against the Government. We will also initiate criminal negligence 
proceedings against all authorities connected with the decision to 
commission the 2^nd runway at Mangalore in violation of the directions 
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We take these corrective actions in the 
hope they would serve as a deterrence against the lackadaisical approach 
to critical decisions by key decision makers.*



Leo F. Saldanha

Coordinator

Environment Support Group

Cell: 9448377403

Email: leo at esgindia.org <mailto:leo at esgindia.org>

	


Arthur Pereira

Trustee

Environment Support Group and

Spokesperson

Vimana Nildhana Vistarana Virodhi Samithi, Bajpe, Mangalore

Cell: 9449208264/9481439921

Email: arthurjpereira at gmail.com <mailto:arthurjpereira at gmail.com>



1 <#sdfootnote1anc>That such a crash has occurred at the Mangalore 
airport is unpardonable as a similar crash had occurred at this airport 
over a decade ago. Fortunately the plane did not tip over into the 
valley and all passengers, including Union Law Minister Mr. Veerappa 
Moily, were fortunate to escape..

2 <#sdfootnote2anc>This safety standard of ICAO also applies to air 
crafts when landing. It is truly sad that today's tragic air crash could 
be a consequence of the lack of conformance with this standard.


For further details, contact:
-- 
Environment, Social Justice and Governance Initiatives, Environment 
Support Group - Trust, 1572, 36th Cross, Banashankari II Stage Bangalore 
560070
Tel: 91-80-26713559-61 Voice/Fax: 91-80-26713316 Email: leo at esgindia.org 
Web: www.esgindia.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup/attachments/20100523/6b63794c/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Press_Release_Mangalore_Air_Crash_ESG_220510.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 182782 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup/attachments/20100523/6b63794c/attachment-0001.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: esgindia.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 346 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup/attachments/20100523/6b63794c/attachment-0001.vcf