Air India warned by watchdog over pilot scheduling breaches
India's aviation watchdog has issued a warning to Air India over "repeated and serious violations" of rules relating to flights from Bengaluru to London.
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) instructed Air India to remove three company executives from crew scheduling roles over the breaches, according to government reports, seen by the Reuters news agency.
A divisional vice president, a chief manager of crew scheduling, and a planning executive have been removed at the aviation agency's instruction.
The flights on 16 May and 17 May exceeded the allowed pilot flight time limit of 10 hours, according to the report.
It cited "systemic failures in scheduling protocol and oversights" and criticised the lack of strict disciplinary measures against responsible officials.
The report is unrelated to this month's crash of an Air India Boeing 787-8 that killed 241 people.
0:34
The Gatwick-bound flight, which was carrying 53 Britons, came down just after take-off from Ahmedabad airport in western India on Thursday, 12 June.
An investigation into the crash is ongoing.
1:57
On Thursday, authorities warned Air India for breaching safety rules after three of its Airbus planes flew despite being overdue for checks on emergency equipment of escape slides.
In a statement to Reuters, Air India said it has implemented the DGCA order, and in the interim, the company's chief operations officer will directly oversee the Integrated Operations Control Centre.
"Air India is committed to ensuring that there is total adherence to safety protocols and standard practices," it added.
The DGCA stated in its order that Air India had voluntarily disclosed the violations.
Last year, around half of the fines handed out by India's aviation agency were given to Air India or Air India Express.
The biggest fine was $127,000 (£94,370) on Air India for "insufficient oxygen on board" during some international flights.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ex-army chief Lord Dannatt lobbied ministers for millions to support commercial deal
A member of the House of Lords lobbied the government to get financial support worth millions of pounds for a commercial deal he was steering, documents reveal. It is the second time that Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British army, has potentially broken parliamentary rules that forbid lobbying. He is under investigation by the House of Lords authorities over a separate set of allegations, following undercover filming by the Guardian. The new documents reveal Lord Dannatt personally pressed ministers and a senior official to give political and financial backing to a venture he was chairing that was seeking to buy a Cheshire factory from a US owner in 2022. After the owner announced they intended to shut it down, Dannatt increased the pressure, urging the government to help. The crossbench peer made three key approaches. First, he contacted a minister he knew, asking for an introduction to the minister who was best placed to make the decision. Second, he sent an email pressing a civil servant to set up a meeting. 'My intervention is to elevate the discussion to ministerial level,' he wrote. Less than two weeks later, Dannatt and an executive behind the bid met Lee Rowley, the relevant business minister, to push for government backing. At issue is whether Dannatt broke the House of Lords rules that bar peers from lobbying ministers and officials in return for payment or financial incentive. Dannatt said he was not paid for engaging with the government. He said he helped a friend, a leading businessperson in the consortium, attempt to buy the factory as he believed it would save jobs and help the country. 'Put simply, I was helping a friend achieve an outcome very much in the national interest,' he said. Dannatt later received four payments during the period he was chairing the venture. He described these as 'honorarium' payments, but would not say how much he received. He was also the public face and 'chairman' of the 'embryonic' venture. Dannatt said his name and position added credibility to the discussions with the US company. 'I am not sure how else a retired four-star general who sits in the House of Lords could be described to the Americans,' he said, but he had agreed to take the title despite there being 'no board to chair, no meetings to attend or other business to conduct'. His involvement with the consortium, which was ultimately unsuccessful in its bid, ended in February 2023. Dannatt has been under investigation by the House of Lords authorities since March after the Guardian revealed he had offered to secure meetings with ministers for undercover reporters pretending to be commercial clients wanting to lobby the government. He had been secretly filmed telling the undercover reporters he could make introductions within the government and that he would 'make a point of getting to know' the best-placed minister. He is being investigated by the House of Lords commissioner for standards, the watchdog who scrutinises claims of wrongdoing in the upper chamber. Dannatt, 74, has previously denied the allegations, saying: 'I am well aware of … the Lords code of conduct … I have always acted on my personal honour.' He is one of five peers to face conduct inquiries after a months-long investigation by the Guardian. The Lords debate project examined the commercial interests of members of the House of Lords amid concerns their activities were not being properly regulated. It revealed that 91 peers had been paid by commercial companies to give political or policy advice. The new documents regarding Dannatt's communications with the government in June 2022 were disclosed under freedom of information legislation. At the time Dannatt was fronting a group of investors who wanted to buy a fertiliser factory in Cheshire. CF Industries, the US owners, planned to permanently close the factory after energy prices made it unprofitable. The consortium of investors argued that their proposal would save 500 jobs and keep important products used in the agriculture and hospitality industries within the UK. On 10 June 2022, Dannatt emailed a junior business minister he knew, asking if he could tell him who was the minister with responsibility for this area. 'If you could point me in the right direction, ideally with an introduction, and I can take it from there.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion He promoted his UK-based consortium as a better 'economic and political alternative' to the closure of the factory. 'The alternative scenario is that a hedge fund buys the factory, sells off its assets and exits with a profit, allowing 500 workers to become redundant, the UK dependent on imported CO2 and no increase in fertiliser production thus the price remaining high.' An introduction to the right minister was made. Six days later, the peer emailed a senior official in the business department, saying: 'I am aware that [Dannatt's friend] has been talking with officials but my intervention is to elevate the discussion to ministerial level. There are some quite key issues at stake here relating to jobs in the north-west and the price of some key commodities.' On 27 June, Dannatt and Mark Law, his friend who was also leading the consortium, met Rowley, then a minister in the business department. The Financial Times has previously reported that the consortium sought a government loan of up to £10m to help restart the factory. The government refused, arguing that it was purely a commercial matter. The consortium later collapsed. Dannatt said he had not had any formal arrangements or contract with the consortium, nor had he discussed with Law what his future role might have been if they had managed to buy the factory. 'My motivation and purpose was to get a deal over the line, in the national interest,' he said. He said any assumption that he 'would have developed a substantive and remunerated role as chairman and taken an active role in the work of the company' was wrong. He added that if the bid had been successful, 'it would have been a very different matter'. As well as the continuing investigation by the House of Lords authorities, another watchdog has examined Dannatt's conduct. Last month, it cleared Dannatt of being paid by the consortium to lobby the government. Harry Rich, the registrar of consultant lobbyists, is responsible for investigating whether individuals have broken the law by failing to declare that they have received money from a third party to lobby ministers or Whitehall's most senior officials. However the House of Lords watchdog is considering the matter under a different set of rules which take a wider view of lobbying than the registrar of consultant lobbyists. The question now is whether, as the consortium's chair, he advocated for the venture on the understanding that he could at some point benefit personally. This could be a breach of the Lords rules. Dannatt has passed his correspondence with the Guardian about his involvement with the consortium to the House of Lords commissioner who is investigating his conduct when speaking to undercover reporters.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Serial rapist Zhenhao Zou facing second trial as more women come forward
Serial rapist Zhenhao Zou is facing a second trial with police and prosecutors preparing to charge the Chinese student with a second round of offences. Zou, 28, is already serving a minimum 24 years for attacking 10 young women in London and China. Sources say there have been discussions between detectives and lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service about at least one more trial for the Chinese student. Zou was sentenced on Thursday to life imprisonment, even offering to be chemically castrated in hopes of getting a lighter sentence. Since his conviction in March at least 24 women have come forward to British police, several of whom have made formal statements which could be admissible in a new trial. Zou came to Britain as a student, first in Belfast in 2017 and then in London. While a PhD student in mechanical engineering at University College London he was arrested in January 2024. He drugged and attacked women, videoing most of his crimes for his own sexual gratification which turned into the compelling evidence that saw him convicted. One source said: 'We expect more charges; we expect a second trial.' Detectives at the Metropolitan police fear the effects of the drugs used in the attacks could leave victims with no memory of the assaults. Officers suspect he could be one of the worst sexual offenders in British history after recovering videos of him attacking a further 50 victims. In total, there were 1,270 videos, 1,660 hours of footage, and 58 videos of Zou raping women, most of whom are still to be identified. There were also drugs, including those used to stupefy his victims. In court, he bragged of having sex with several women a month. The videos show a male, believed to be Zou, attacking a series of women. Some of the videos do not show the victims' faces, and about half are believed to have taken place in the UK, with detectives identifying which country attacks took place in by scouring videos for clues, such as the style of plug socket visible in the room. The drugs can render a victim motionless or barely able to speak, but they can also lead to bouts of euphoria. Despite the convictions against Zou for attacking 10 women, prosecutors want to be able to counter any defence in any new trial that the women were consenting. Sentencing Zou the judge, Rosina Cottage KC, said he would 'groom' victims over social media, and added: 'These women you treated callously as sex toys for your pleasure.' Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organisations. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 500 2222 in England and Wales, 0808 801 0302 in Scotland, or 0800 0246 991 in Northern Ireland. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Who's the boss? The ousted car sales tycoon versus his private equity investor
In many ways, Peter Waddell is lucky to be alive, let alone a multimillionaire. His backstory involves him wandering the streets of Glasgow after parental abuse left him in a children's home during the 1970s. And yet Waddell went on to build a used car empire called Big Motoring World, accumulating an estimated £500m fortune, a historic home on the outskirts of London and a string of performance cars. But now the 59-year-old faces another challenging chapter, which is threatening chunks of his fortune. The used car salesman has brought an employment tribunal claim as well as a high court case against private equity investors in his company after he was ousted from Big last year. His exit, in April 2024, was triggered after an investigation found he had made sexist, racist and abusive comments towards colleagues – allegations that he contests. However, Waddell goes further than simply denying the claims, raising questions about how private equity firms interact with founders once the financiers have invested in their companies. His court filings allege he was prevented from responding to the accusations, and that they were used by his 'capricious' investors who 'prejudged and in fact determined the outcome of [an] independent investigation as a means of securing Peter Waddell's exclusion from Big'. Now it looks likely that a court will have to assess whether Waddell's alleged behaviour demanded he be sidelined from the business he created. A surprising second question will also be in play: does Waddell's ousting make him a victim? When entrepreneurs give interviews about their big career break, they often tell tales about dropping out of university to launch a startup or hustling for jobs they were barely qualified for. Waddell's tale is very different. The businessman, who is autistic, has dyslexia and is partially deaf, for which he now wears two hearing aids, has a story that involves being physically abused by his mother. 'She scarred my whole body, attempted to cut my hands off and smashed my head,' he said in a recent interview. From toddler age onwards he spent most of his childhood in a children's home. From there he graduated to living on the streets, describing himself as a 'tramp'. Homeless and desperate for warmth during one particularly biting winter day, Waddell wound up at Glasgow's Buchanan bus station where he shielded himself from the cold behind a pile of suitcases in the boot of a parked coach. The door was slammed behind him and the teenager finally emerged in London. In the capital he recalls landing a job at a minicab office and eventually ploughing his earnings into buying cars at auction, which he lined up in parking spaces along the road near a flat he had managed to rent. This was the genesis of Big Motoring World, which grew to a company with 525 employees, revenues of £371m and profits of £6.6m, according to the company's 2021 annual accounts. Those figures attracted investors and in April 2022 Freshstream, a private equity group, acquired about a third of the business, with the option of eventually buying out Waddell's remaining shares. The businessman planned to retire to Spain and enjoy his string of homes, luxury cars and helicopter. But it didn't work out like that. Within two years the used car market had stalled and the two parties were at war. With the business beginning to struggle, Freshstream started to doubt whether it wanted Waddell running Big and so began to explore potential avenues. Freshstream's contract gave it 'step in rights', where it could take action against Waddell if the business underperformed. It also possessed a nuclear option: removing Waddell from his company if he had committed a grave offence that might affect Big's value – a 'material default event', in the jargon. At the start of last year, Freshstream and the company's management opened an investigation into accusations concerning how the founder spoke to staff, customers and business partners. The allegations that emerged were shocking. The claims, some of which were historical and were not formally dealt with by the company at the time, included 'extremely serious racist abuse and sexual harassment of female employees', according to defence filings submitted to the high court by a Freshstream holding company. 'Serious instances of racism including allegedly referring to Hindu people as [the car marque] 'Hyundais',' the Freshstream papers add. 'Serious allegations of sexual harassment including allegedly … telling a female cleaner: 'I bet you'd like to suck my dick?'' The papers also allege that Waddell called 'senior members of the management team the 'C word'' and suggested 'he would 'give it to them up the arse''. In total, Freshstream investigated 27 allegations, some of which Waddell denies and some of which he claims were taken out of context. 'The allegations are fake,' Waddell told the Guardian. 'We will prove it in the court case.' Waddell's high court filings deal mostly with process, with the tycoon stating that he was not allowed to defend himself during the group's internal investigation, which he alleges was set up to oust him. Waddell's claim says it is difficult for him to 'easily read and digest information'. He had been signed off work by a doctor for four weeks with a heart condition on 28 March 2024, the court papers say, and was invited five days later – on 2 April – to an 'investigation interview' that would take place on 9 April. At the interview, 764 pages of evidence were to be considered. Waddell's lawyers requested more time but the company pressed on without him, on the basis that there would be an 'intolerable risk' to the business in delaying. The investigation's final report, which was written by the employment lawyer Nicholas Siddall KC, runs to 138 pages. In it, Siddall suggests he was instructed to come to a conclusion in the absence of any response by the accused; he also seems to raise questions about why the company had concluded there would be an 'intolerable risk' in granting Waddell extra time in which to respond. 'Plainly I had hoped to interview PW [Peter Waddell] in order to receive his version of events,' the KC's report states. 'However, my instructions … were clear. I was not informed of the intolerable risk which [Big Motoring World] would face, and in any event I do not consider it is a matter for me to interrogate the reasons of those who instruct me.' Siddall found, having interviewed 22 sources, that a 'material default event' had occurred in 15 out of the 27 allegations. Waddell was out. All of which means this row – along with a separate claim about how Waddell came to invest some of his fortune in a Freshstream fund – looks likely to be fought out in the high court, probably next year. But whichever way the judge leans, other entrepreneurs have made comparable allegations. The Guardian has spoken to four other British founders of startup businesses who wished to remain anonymous but make similar claims that various investors had attempted to oust them from their companies. None of these allegations were ever tested in court. In Waddell's case, that seems about to change.
