CAA: stay home, stay safe?

PIA's journey from 'great people to fly with' to 'sadly no one wishes to fly with', is a five-decade story. It mimics the systemic institutional derailment (especially of state-owned enterprises) across the board. The recent so-called fake licenses fiasco in the aftermath of the ill-fated aircraft crash in Karachi has given an opportunity to straighten the weak and often-conflicting regulatory and operational environment the airline industry is functioning in.

The institutional overlap and conflict of interest starts with Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is entrusted with the dual role to act as both a regulator and an operator - it is a rarity in the world. Even in places such as the UAE where airlines, aviation regulator, and airport operators are all state run, the organizations and roles are run independently. They operate under separate SOPs, while also maintaining checks and balances on each other. That is missing in Pakistan. Moreover, CAA is mostly run by retired (or serving) armed forces' personnel. In most parts of the world, there is a clear distinction between military and civil aviation for both tactical and commercial reasons which is also missing back home. Any analysis of the current situation must take these systemic flaws into account.

The pilot licences' misappropriation story started after CAA shifted its regulatory peg from Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) in the US to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), a few years ago. There is a difference in written examination for acquiring Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) in both regimes. Under FAA, Commercial Pilot License (CPL) holders need to take 1-2 written exams, while the requirements under the EASA are much rigorous.

That laid the foundations of the dubious licensing regime. Pilots that were reluctant to take long written exams, attempted to cheat the system. Those who already had ATPL licenses under FAA regime did not need to comply with the new regulations. It is important to note that the process of obtaining CPL remained unchanged. Even the pilots that were successful in acquiring dubious ATPL licenses (by avoiding long written exams) had to regularly undergo simulator test training - usually every six months.

Hence, the use of the term 'fake license' is wrong. The government handling of the issue was far from perfect. It has caused international repercussions - from ban on PIA to operate flights into Europe - to CAA licensed pilots (ATPL) being grounded in other regulatory jurisdictions.

Like other scandals (IPPs, sugar, wheat etc.) it is fundamentally the regulator who has been charge-sheeted. PIA is an airline, while CAA is the licensing issuing authority. It is the CAA which should be in the line of fire. Some say that PIA is pushed into public scrutiny to build a case for privatization. To avoid controversy, CAA must be held accountable as a priority. This is even more critical because the fate of CAA licensed pilots and engineers working in other jurisdictions such as the UAE hangs in the balance. This is an immediate crisis that long drawn proceedings of PIA's privatization will not resolve.

CAA's role is pivotal for the development of the aviation industry and to ensure safety protocols for commercial airlines. Unfortunately, Pakistan is lacking in both. The cherry on top is that airports' management is also in the hands of CAA. Airports create economic activities and often create the first impression on foreigners visiting the country. Yet, it is no secret that most airports in Pakistan are poorly managed.

There are very few small airports in big urban centers. The international airports are inefficient and unattractive. There are hardly any shopping outlets or eateries. The government needs to privatize these or run them in public-private partnership mode - as recommended under Aviation Policy of 2015. The government should focus on bringing private partners in airports management rather than selling real estate assets of PIA in a depressed market.

The foremost function of a regulator in the airline industry is security and safety. No doubt it is the responsibility of airlines (such as PIA) to ensure full compliance of the applicable standards. But without a strong regulator, airlines (as commercial operators) may slack in that department. There is an example of improved depositors' protection in the banking industry after the strengthening of the regulator (State Bank of Pakistan). Earlier, there was a long history of banking scams in Pakistan. Similarly, strengthening CAA can ensure better safety for air commuters.

The recent PIA crash is not a one-off accident, and airline crashes in Pakistan are not limited to PIA. The frequency of crashes is increasing. There have been nine airline crashes in the past twenty years on Pakistan's soil. That is too high a number compared to any other jurisdiction. What did the airlines and the regulator learn from these unfortunate accidents? Did CAA and PIA develop systems to prevent future accidents? Did they make training and testing more stringent?

Nonetheless, PIA cannot have a clean chit either. The airline is in bad shape. It has been making huge losses and its safety and commercial standards are not up to the mark. The commercial sense in routes and timings is missing. Overstaffing is another issue. Airline's 60 percent business is from domestic flights, even though its fleet is suited for long-distance travel. In short, it is a mess. It is a no brainer that PIA's operations should be in private hands. But is it the best time to sell? Not really, as airline is the worst hit industry due to COVID-19 and a distressed sale may cause more harm than good. For now, patience is a virtue for PIA, while reforms, especially of the regulator, should be the order of the day!