|
| | | | | Comments On News Reports | | | [GoenchimXapotam] Fw: [Bangalore Issues] PRESS RELEASE : 22 May 2010: Mangalore Air Crash Tragic Fallout of Criminal Negligence of Planning and Regulatory Authorities
Comments:
Goa Su-Raj Party while condoling the 154 deaths of the ill-fated Air India Flight from Dubai at Bajpe Airport, Mangalore, sympathizing with the bereaved families and wishing speedy recovery to the survivors, takes a serious note of the way in which this airport expansion was carried out without due regard to the apprehensions of the concerned citizens who had predicted that such a scenario would happen if the authorities went about bull-dozing their way for this highly calamitous development. Ultimately, it is the innocent people who are facing the brunt of ill-conceived planning for the future.
We Goans are also facing the same disregard to caution presented by many a conscious and concerned citizens with regard to the building of the MOPA International Airport. The Goa Su-Raj Party hopes that the concerned Authorities at the highest level, including the incumbent government of Goa keeps this Bajpe Airport tragedy and its likely cause in mind and go about the job in a prudent manner. Needless to say that the Goa Su-Raj Party will want MOPA Airport to come up only if the expansion of the Dabolim Airport is constricted and gives rise to situations like the Bajpe Airport expansion has created against saner planning advices.
The Party commends the ESGINDIA group for their commendable and consistent cautionary work.
Sd/-
Floriano Lobo
Gen. Secretary Goa Su-Raj Party,
Hon. Gen. Secretary Goa Environmental Action Group.
Co-Ordinator PPS.
9890470896
www.goasu-raj.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Samir Kelekar
To: goenchimxapotam@yahoogroups.com ; interIIT@yahoogroups.com
Cc: suchetadalal@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 3:08 PM
Subject: [GoenchimXapotam] Fw: [Bangalore Issues] PRESS RELEASE : 22 May 2010: Mangalore Air Crash Tragic Fallout of Criminal Negligence of Planning and Regulatory Authorities
--- On Sat, 5/22/10, ESGINDIA wrote:
From: ESGINDIA
Subject: [Bangalore Issues] PRESS RELEASE : 22 May 2010: Mangalore Air Crash Tragic Fallout of Criminal Negligence of Planning and Regulatory Authorities
To: esglist@lists.esgindia.org, bangalore_issues@lists.esgindia.org, sec_kar@lists.esgindia.org, moef@lists.esgindia.org, parliamentarians@lists.esgindia.org
Cc: india_research_institutes@lists.esgindia.org, corporate_list@lists.esgindia.org
Date: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 2:09 PM
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 2nd 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 2nd 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
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 2nd 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
2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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
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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd Runway. Simply
put, the runway was built in comprehensive violation of
applicable laws, standards and direction of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
On
8th 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 2nd
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 2nd 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@esgindia.org
Arthur
Pereira
Trustee
Environment
Support
Group and
Spokesperson
Vimana
Nildhana
Vistarana Virodhi Samithi, Bajpe, Mangalore
Cell:
9449208264/9481439921
Email: arthurjpereira@gmail.com
1That
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..
2This 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@esgindia.org
Web: www.esgindia.org
|
|
| LIFE LINE |
Goa Su-Raj Party has been in existence since 31/08/2000.
|
|
|
