International Civil Aviation Organisation

Why Nepal’s Challenges With Aviation Safety Are Unique

Topography has gifted Nepal with picturesque landscapes, but posits unrivalled challenges to flight operations.

A Yeti Airlines ATR 72-500 aircraft crashed in Pokhara in central Nepal on January 15 2023, killing at least 68 passengers on board. The aircraft was en route from Nepal’s capital Kathmandu to Pokhara, the country’s second largest city, situated under the picturesque Annapurna mountain range.

While the picturesque landscape of the country appeals to tourists, it poses significant challenges to aviation operators, who need to embrace and navigate the challenging environment.

The air crash on Sunday was Nepal’s worst aviation disaster since 1992. The country has been working to overcome its challenges in aviation.

A challenging landscape

Topography has gifted Nepal with picturesque landscapes, but posits unrivalled challenges to flight operations.

Nepal, situated between India and China, is home to eight of the world’s 14 highest mountains, including Mount Everest or Sagarmāthā. For flight operations, it’s an almost unrivalled, harsh environment with sudden weather changes that can make for hazardous conditions.

Airports built in mountainous regions often need to have shorter runways that can only accommodate turboprop-powered regional aircraft, rather than large jet airliners that can access larger cities in Nepal.

As a result, aviation carriers in Nepal have a variety of aircraft on their fleets. These craft vary in condition, presenting potential safety hazards.

The ATR 72 aircraft is one typical aircraft used by Nepali carriers. It is a turboprop-powered regional aircraft with a capacity between 44 and 78 passengers. These aircraft are manufactured by a joint venture of Airbus in France and Leonardo in Italy.

The aircraft involved in this crash had been in service for 15 years, a fairly typical age for an aircraft.

The final report on what happened to the tragic Yeti Airlines flight will take over a month to complete.

A picturesque landscape of snow capped jagged mountains seen from a distance, with a blue sky dappled with clouds

A growing and fast-changing industry

Nepal has welcomed private investment into its aviation sector since 1992. Yeti Airlines is one of 20 domestic carriers. The airline, headquartered in Kathmandu, flies to ten domestic destinations using ATR 72-500 aircraft. In addition, 29 international airlines operate into Nepal’s capital too.

With air travel in Nepal becoming more accessible and affordable, airport infrastructure development has remained far behind compared to the growth of air traffic. This has resulted in increasing congestion at airports, fare competition between airlines, and decreased safety records.

In fact, the country has recorded at least 350 casualties associated with aeroplanes or helicopters since 2000, which has raised questions about the effectiveness of its aviation safety regulations.

The aviation regulator in charge is the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal, a government agency established in 1998.

Working hard to improve

Nepal became a member of the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in 1960. This membership obliges the country to abide by international conventions, ICAO’s regulations, standards, and recommended practices in aviation safety.

While Nepal’s aviation industry has made significant efforts to improve safety, unfortunately the safety record still doesn’t match up with the requirements of other civil aviation authorities.

In particular, the European Union banned all Nepali airlines from operating in the bloc’s airspace in 2013 after ICAO raised a red flag. That ban still hasn’t been lifted, and Nepal remains on the EU Air Safety List.

Despite the tragic casualty record, Nepal has stepped up its efforts to improve aviation safety. The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal has been focusing on improving safety in Nepali aviation – such as building improvements at airports, upgrading safety equipment, and fostering a positive safety culture by encouraging hazard reporting.

Nepal’s considerable improvement in safety measures and compliance with international standards was recognised by ICAO in 2018. However, the country must continue work on its aviation reform to make its skies safe for everyone.

Chrystal Zhang, Associate professor, RMIT University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Indian Aviation Safety Body Rushes to Train Crash Investigators Ahead of UN Audit

Experts say the last-minute measures suggest that the purpose is not to strengthen the bureau but to satisfy the auditors that their concerns have been addressed.

New Delhi: With the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) beginning an audit of India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) from November 13, aviation experts have flagged serious concerns about the bureau’s strength and competence.

Since the bureau was constituted in 2012 with the mandate to investigate aviation accidents in the country, none of the eight investigators in the AAIB – out of a sanctioned strength of 19 – have received intensive training for their jobs.

Among other events, the bureau is looking into the bizarre incident of an Air India flight grazing the airport’s perimeter wall during take-off from Trichy and the crash of a Pawan Hans helicopter carrying seven people off the Mumbai coast.

According to sources in the civil aviation ministry, just ahead of ICAO’s audit, the authorities sent two of the investigators on the bureau’s payroll for training abroad. They also hired three new ones to bring the total strength to a “respectable number,” sparking speculation on the true intent of the move.

“The last-minute measures suggest that the purpose is not to strengthen the bureau but to somehow satisfy the auditors,” said S.S. Panesar, an air safety expert.

Also read: How a Chartered Plane Crashed in Suburban Mumbai

ICAO is scheduled to audit three sectors – AAIB, Aerodrome and CNS (communications, navigation and surveillance services) – from November 13 to 20.

Set up in 1944, Montreal-based ICAO is a UN specialised agency which conducts audits of its 192 member countries to ensure compliance with global aviation safety measures.

Non-compliance can downgrade India’s ranking in aviation safety, which might impact the launching of new international flights.

Govt letter appointing three investigators dated October 30 just a fortnight before the ICAO audit

Shortcomings highlighted in 2015 audit

Sources in the civil aviation ministry also divulged that the ICAO had audited the same three sectors in 2015 and red-flagged some serious shortcomings. However the government has failed to meet the sanctioned strength of investigators, organise their training, and make the body free from “interference of DGCA”, the Indian civil aviation regulator.

“This time, they will see whether their concerns had been complied with,” the source said.

Sources in the DGCA say that in 2015, just before the ICAO audit, investigators were shown a PowerPoint presentation regarding various aspects of aircraft accident investigation in the name of training.

“ICAO had objected to such a farce and asked the government to enrol the investigators for proper training courses,” as per the source. “Despite ICAO’s objection, investigators have been shown the same PPT once again just before the audit and two of the investigators are being sent for training abroad now.”

Also read: India Hires Female Pilots Much Above the Global Average

According to Panesar, the ministry has never prioritised improving the efficiency of the AAIB.

He believes that the government has ignored training AAIB investigators in the latest technology being used globally to investigate aircraft accidents. “As per my knowledge, none of the investigators have ever attended specific and relevant training,” he said.

Besides training, the independence of AAIB has also been a bone of contention between the government and ICAO. In 2015, the international body asked the government to make AAIB fully independent.

“All the eight investigators were transferred to AAIB from DGCA but they still draw their salary from DGCA and hold their identity as employees of the aviation regulator,” another source in DGCA said.

China Says Does Not Need Taiwan’s Permission to Open New Air Route

Beijing has taken an increasingly hostile stance towards Taipei since the election two years ago of Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party.

An aircraft flies over an apartment for migrant workers at Picun village on the outskirts of Beijing, China, November 28, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Jason Lee/Files

Beijing: The Chinese government said on Wednesday that it does not need Taiwan’s permission to open new air routes, after Taipei complained that a new route over the narrow Taiwan Strait that separates the two was a security and safety risk.

Beijing has taken an increasingly hostile stance towards Taipei since the election two years ago of Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party.

Tsai said earlier this month the opening of the air route, which runs close to two groups of Taiwan-controlled island groups off the Chinese coast, was an irresponsible act that threatens regional security and affects aviation safety.

Taiwan says this month’s opening of the northbound M503 route in the Taiwan Strait was done without informing Taiwan, contravening what the democratic government in Taipei said is a 2015 deal to first discuss such flight paths.

Speaking at a regular news briefing in Beijing, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesman for China‘s Taiwan Affairs Office, denied breaking the 2015 agreement and said Taiwan had been informed the route would be opening.

“But this does not mean that opening air routes needs Taiwan’s agreement,” Ma said.

There would be no impact upon aviation safety for Taiwan, Ma added, saying the route was needed to alleviate pressure on busy routes over southeastern China between Hong Kong and Shanghai.

The route was approved by the International Civil Aviation Organisation scientifically and professionally, he said.

“We should believe in science, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation,” Ma said.

Taiwan should have a correct view of this matter and stop looking for opportunities to make a fuss, he added.

China considers Taiwan a wayward province, and broke off official communication with the Taiwan government after Tsai took office in 2016.

China suspects Tsai wants to push for formal independence though, she has said she wants to maintain the status quo with China and is committed to ensuring peace.

China has in recent months stepped up its military drills around Taiwan, alarming Taipei. China says the exercises are routine, but that it will not tolerate any attempt by the island to declare independence.

(Reuters)

With the Paris Agreement, India Has Signed off on the First Phase of Its Climate Diplomacy

Its political manoeuvring may have saved the day, but India is ill-equipped to confront the long term effects of the accord.

India ratifies the Paris Agreement on climate change. The country's permanent representative to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin (left), shakes hands with UN deputy secretary-General Jan Eliasson while General Assembly President Peter Thomson looks on in a ceremony held at the UN Headquarters on 2 October 2016. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

India’s permanent representative to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin (left), shakes hands with UN deputy secretary-General Jan Eliasson while General Assembly President Peter Thomson looks on in a ceremony held at the UN Headquarters on October 2, when the country ratified the Paris climate accord. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

India’s signing of the Paris climate accord last week marks the beginning of difficult negotiations that heavily implicate its energy consumption and economic interests. The first signs are already visible: no sooner had the ink dried on New Delhi’s signature than enormous pressure brought to bear on Indian negotiators in Montreal to commit to emission reductions in the country’s aviation sector. The ongoing general assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in Montreal is expected to announce a “markets-based” framework to reduce “global aviation emissions” this week. The ICAO’s initial proposal to achieve “carbon-neutral growth” for air traffic by 2020 – a fancy way of asking countries to cap their emissions in four years – was emphatically rejected by the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) countries. Nevertheless, it appears an emissions reductions plan will emerge from the general assembly, moving this deadline to 2027, while seeking voluntary reductions from developing countries in the interim.

For India, which is poised to be the third largest aviation market in the world by 2020, the implications of the ICAO deal are significant. According to New Delhi’s official submission to the ICAO, India emits less than 1% of the total carbon emission from global aviation. Domestic flights are not likely to be part of the ICAO proposal, but any commitment to a cap on emissions will have the effect of locking down global aviation hubs. New Delhi is already playing catch-up with Dubai, Singapore and Hong Kong, and the National Democratic Alliance should not agree to any proposal that will limit the country’s emergence as a regional transit point. Just as important, new ICAO rules will make international air travel more expensive for Indian carriers, potentially limiting their spread to regional and global destinations.

Whether or not India signs up to this deal, the developments in Montreal reflect a fundamental shift in the way the world approaches climate treaties. No longer will Indian negotiators be able to seek refuge under the umbrella UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The standards of equity, “historical responsibility” and “common but differentiated responsibilities” that were born out of the Rio Declaration of 1992 have systematically slid over time, reflecting instead a call to arms for reducing “global” emissions. The Paris accord is the culmination of this shift in narratives, which India was late to recognise, but wisely took ownership at the eleventh hour.

In reality, the Paris agreement commits India to do little more than being part of a multilateral effort to reduce the “global average temperature” to below 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Any effort to further mitigate emissions is contingent on the flow of climate finance and the feasibility of technology transfers. The accord leaves ample room for countries to determine their national contributions, although its review/stocktaking process will keep capitals on their toes. Were the technology mechanism or climate fund envisaged in the agreement to fail to live up to their targets, India can claim a material change in the circumstances of the accord, which allows New Delhi to legally withdraw from its obligations. Indeed, the union cabinet while deciding to ratify the agreement has made precisely such an observation. All this is not to say India should oblige the Paris deal with a wink and a smile, but only that the agreement does not require the country to pursue any more mitigation efforts than it is currently implementing to counter the devastating effects of global warming nationally.

It is to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s credit that India could emerge from the Paris negotiations relatively unscathed. India’s negotiating line, which has survived bitter diplomatic battles over the course of the last decade, was not in doubt at the 21st Conference of Parties, or COP21. But that line was never sold as a political package to foreign capitals. Once diplomats stepped back and leaders like US President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande began to take ownership of climate change as a legacy issue, it became unsustainable for New Delhi to simply reiterate its red lines. Modi’s interventions and his shepherding of the International Solar Alliance in Paris helped rebrand India as a responsible player – this was a relatively easy task given the agreement’s modest objectives, but still needed political leadership that the PM provided.

This manoeuvre may have worked for the time being, but the fact remains Indian diplomacy is not equipped with a comprehensive strategy to tackle the long-term effects of the Paris agreement. By placing all major economies on an even keel, the climate accord has blurred the line between developed and emerging markets. Its impact will be felt most acutely in technology and trade negotiations happening across the world, either in the form of bilateral FTAs or mega-regional arrangements. To meet mitigation goals, developing countries would need green technologies that are patented in the US and Europe. Access to these technologies will come with riders attached, such as the recalibration of foreign investment directives and intellectual property rights regimes. The climate finance fund, even if it were to materialise, would only create a captive market for Western technologies. The WTO ruling against India’s domestic content requirement on solar panels illustrates the difficulty in managing both emissions reductions and affordable provision of clean energy sources. Just as industry-driven initiatives such as the US “Special 301” report are made to exert pressure on countries whose IP regimes are not “favourable”, the Paris agreement’s review mechanisms will nudge developing economies towards “greener” growth.

India cannot defend against such outcomes merely by holding on to its IP laws or insisting on domestic manufacturing requirements. It should continue to push for affordable access to technology and finance for developing countries and LDCs, without parroting norms of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. New Delhi’s proactive diplomacy in Paris offers it some political space to negotiate technology transfers under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and other agreements, with a view to meet mitigation targets. Rather than tweaking its domestic laws to meet mitigation targets, India should ensure the shoe is on the other foot, so that plurilateral economic deals reflect the promises of the Paris agreement. And lastly, New Delhi’s climate diplomacy should be “ally-proof” and hedge against an imminent split in the BASIC grouping: China has made significant concessions through bilateral climate deals with the US, and is unlikely to back India’s multilateral positions. With its change in government, Brazil is likely to follow suit.

The first phase of India’s climate diplomacy, which began in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit and lasted till the 2016 Paris agreement, is over. It emphasised the creation of norms of responsibility and a multilateral framework to tackle climate change. Now that this is in place, Indian diplomacy should place a premium on implementation. Through enabling market conditions and ready access to capital from regional financial institutions, India should avoid any serious disruption to its economic growth as it goes about meeting its mitigation targets.

Arun Mohan Sukumar is at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.

India Wants Aviation Carbon Cap to Follow Paris Pact

India has proposed key changes in an international deal to restrain aviation emissions so that measures by International Civil Aviation Organisation are in line with the Paris pact on climate change

India has proposed key changes in an international deal to restrain aviation emissions so that measures by International Civil Aviation Organisation are in line with the Paris pact on climate change.

Environmental impact of aviation. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Even as representatives from close to 200 nations meet in Montreal to hammer out a deal to contain aviation emissions, India has expressed its reservations on a global agreement unless some key concerns are addressed.

“(We’ll decide) once the nuts and bolts become clearer,” India’s aviation minister Ashok Gajapathi Raju told Reuters in Montreal. “Until then, our fears are that it is not equitable.” Representatives from almost 200 countries are meeting in Montreal since Tuesday to negotiate an agreement for the first-ever global ceiling on carbon emissions from international flights.

Delegates at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) conference will, for the next two weeks to October 7, work out a deal that makes the entire aviation sector carbon neutral by 2020 and then bring down emissions to 2005 level by 2050.

Around 60 ICAO countries, including the US and the EU nations, have indicated their support. Some including India, Russia and China have voiced concerns. The aviation industry internationally is responsible for 2% of global greenhouse emissions. If it were a country, it would have been the seventh largest polluter (similar to Germany), according to Carbon Brief, an information provider. In addition, there is the fact that air travel would most likely to double by 2030.

Aligning with Paris

India has been vocal in its opposition to measures that would increase costs. The proposed global market-based measures (GMBM) by ICAO must be aligned with the relevant provisions of the Paris Agreement, it has demanded with some other emerging countries, including Brazil and South Africa.

These provisions relate to the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) principle, which ask the rich nations to cut emission on priority because they have been historically bigger polluters. An offset programme, on the other hand, could impose an economic burden on developing countries trying to expand their aviation sectors.

“The interests of poor and developing countries should be taken on board in the development of the global market-based measures,” India’s environment minister Anil Madhav Dave had said when ICAO President Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu visited New Delhi in August, the Times of India reported.

The Montreal meeting is expected to draw in enough countries that will agree to participate in the initial voluntary phase till 2027 that covers more than 80% of the emissions. Several countries with fast-growing aviation sectors, including Brazil and India, are most likely to wait until the deal becomes mandatory in 2027. This is in a scenario when they agree to participate in the agreement in the first place.

If an agreement is reached in Montreal in October, it will be the first global carbon-reduction deal for an entire industry. The broad contours of the pact are also supported by aviation trade groups. Industry leaders are pushing nations to join the agreement, which would require the companies to offset their emissions growth by funding environmental initiatives. The measures may eventually cost the aviation players around USD 24 billion every year, according to a Bloomberg report.

The 15-year agreement will not force airlines to cut pollution. Instead, companies will compensate for emissions growth from 2020 by buying credits that back renewable energy development, forest preservation and other similar measures. According to estimates by airlines, the annual industry-wide cost may be USD 23.9 billion by 2035 or 1.8% of projected revenue, Bloomberg said.

Although environmentalists have largely supported the proposed deal, they criticise the fact that it is voluntary for the first six years. Many of them also say that the proposed low cost of environmental offsets could let companies off easy.

The article was originally published in the website of India Climate Dialogue.

Immunity to International Finance Corporation Dilutes the Right of Indians to Seek Justice

The International Finance Corporation has funded projects in India that have caused large scale violation of environmental and social laws.

A fisherman casts his net into the Kathajodi River in Cuttack district, about 25 km (15 miles) from Bhubaneswar December 8, 2012. Credit:Reuters/Stringer/Files

In a recent move, India has extended the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of 1947), which confers legal immunity akin to the kind enjoyed by foreign missions and diplomats, to the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector lending arm of the World Bank Group.

The United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of 1947) gives effect to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in India. Some of the few organisations the Act provides protection to are the International Civil Aviation Organisation, World Health Organisation, International Labour Organisation, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Universal Postal Union, International Telecommunication Union and World Meteorological Organisation.

This list of organisations is not exhaustive and has been extended to more organisations over the years through government notification.

The Act provides jurisdictional personality to the institution that it is granted to. It also provides immunity to the officials of the organisation in case of any disputes of a private nature and disputes involving any official of the organisation. This will provide immunity to the organisation and its officials against legal action in India.

The problem of an abuse of the immunities by the United Nations or specialised agencies is addressed not by municipal legal action, but through consultation, arbitration or in the case of failure of such process, by the International Court of Justice.

Past projects funded by World Bank Group

The Sardar Sarovar Project was conceived as the first in a series of some 30 projects that were designed to develop the Narmada basin in the 1980s and was supported by the World Bank’s government lending arm – the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).

The bank’s support for the scheme took the form of a 10-year Dam and Power Project and a companion three-year Water Delivery and Drainage Project. Both projects were processed in parallel and were approved in 1985, two years before India’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change cleared the project.

In 1991, massive protests against the project led to an unprecedented independent review by the World Bank. The Morse Commission, appointed in June 1991 at the recommendation of the World Bank, conducted its first independent review of a World Bank project. This independent review stated that the “performance under these projects has fallen short of what is called for under bank policies and guidelines and the policies of the government of India”.

It further strongly criticised the bank and the borrower for paying inadequate attention to resettlement and rehabilitation, and to environmental protection. In order to save face, the World Bank put conditions for improving the state of rehabilitation. A day before the deadline, having failed to meet the conditions, the Indian government pulled out of its loan agreement with the World Bank. The World Bank’s participation in these projects was cancelled in 1995.

Since then, the World Bank has funded a number of problematic projects in India. The IFC has in the recent past been involved with some of the most environmentally and socially damaging projects.

The Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP) sponsored by Coastal Gujarat Power Limited in the coastal region of the state has been under the scanner for displacing fish workers and impacting their source of livelihood.

In June 2011, a complaint, representing the various potentially affected fishing communities, was filed with the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the grievance redressal body of the IFC. The complaint raised issues related to the project’s social and environmental impact on fishing communities, specifically: deterioration of water quality and fish populations, blocked access to fishing and drying sites, forced displacement of fishermen, community health impacts due to air emissions and destruction of natural habitats, particularly mangroves.

The complainants also believe that the impact to their fishing communities were not adequately identified and mitigated, and the cumulative impact of the project was not adequately assessed.

The CAO audit report validated the concerns raised by the community and an inadequate action plan was formulated, which was rejected by the community and is being monitored right now.

The Tata Mundra UMPP is not the first instance where the IFC has funded projects in India that have caused large scale violation of environmental and social laws, even by IFC’s standards. In Orissa, the GMR power project, which is funded by the IFC through a financial intermediary – Infrastructure Development Finance Company – has been responsible for a grave environmental and social disaster. A complaint regarding this was filed with the CAO, raising concerns about the disclosure of project information, environmental and social risks and human rights violations.

In Tata’s tea plantations in Assam and West Bengal, where the IFC investment comprises an equity investment of $7.8 million, there have been serious issues regarding labour law violations. A complaint was filed with the CAO by concerned NGO’s on behalf of tea workers raising concerns about the labour and working conditions at three different plantations.

In their complaint they specifically cited long working hours, unpaid compensation, poor hygiene and health conditions, and a lack of freedom to associate among plantation workers. Furthermore, the complainants have questioned the worker share-buying programme, contending that workers have been pressured into buying shares, often without proper information about the risks of such an investment. In all the above cases the CAO has gone ahead and given an audit report reinforcing the contentions of the complainants.

A complaint on IFC’s technical assistance to Vizhinjam port in Kerala is pending with the CAO.

Sabotaging the interests of its people

Immunity is oddly being granted to the IFC at a time when the people in India have, for the first time, taken a major step towards holding large financial institutions accountable.

The local fishing and farming community members from the villages affected by the Tata Mundra UMPP, filed a class action lawsuit in a US court holding the IFC responsible for causing the loss of their livelihoods, destroying their land and water and for creating a threat to their health by funding the coal-fired power plant in Gujarat.

Though the appeal was dismissed in the lower court, for the people it was a chance at seeking justice. A new appeal has been recently filed in a higher court in the US. This is the first time that a case is filed against a member of the World Bank Group anywhere in the world.

Immunity to the IFC in India has snatched away a medium to seek justice from the people who are affected by IFC funding within the Indian jurisdiction. Also, the move to extend the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act to an institution like IFC, which funds only private sector projects, seems not without a motive. By making this move, the government of India has opened a new door to lowering the environmental and social safeguard implementations, by taking away the rights of the affected people for holding IFC answerable for its investments.

Also, this underhanded way of bringing financial institutions under the Act is of serious concern. For any citizen, the judicial system of a nation is the most reverent space for seeking justice. By making this move, the government of India has gone ahead and compromised with the constitutional rights of its own citizens to seek justice in their own land and has made it easier for international financial institutions like the IFC to get an easy pass for the devastation that their projects have caused.

How can any institution be above the law of the land?

Israel’s New Airport Could Cloud Ties With Jordan

Jordan has expressed concern about the possible losses its tourism industry could incur as a consequence of the new airport.

A plane flies overhead as an Israeli soldier stands guard near the Israeli-Egyptian border August 19, 2011. Credit: Reuters/Ronen Zvulun

Jerusalem/Amman: A new airport planned by Israel near its border with Jordan is clouding the usually businesslike relationship the two neighbours have built since making peace in 1994.

Due to open next April, Ilan & Asaf Ramon Airport at Timna, in Israel’s desert south, will be 10 km from Jordan’s King Hussein International Airport. They will serve Eilat and Aqaba, the adjacent Israeli and Jordanian resort cities on the Red Sea.

Citing worry the proximity could spell dangerous disruptions to its air corridors, Amman last year complained to the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

Israel said Ramon would abide by ICAO regulations and pose no safety risk. The ICAO later said Israel and Jordan were addressing the matter directly “as one would expect from two countries with a peace treaty and a wide scope of cooperation in many fields”.

Israeli transport minister Yisrael Katz played down the dispute with Jordan, one of two Arab states with full ties with Israel.

“There is no confrontation,” he told Reuters in an interview. “There have been discussions (and) it was agreed that we will hold a professional-level meeting. The (Ramon) airport will open, and there will be coordination of air traffic.”

Jordan sounds less upbeat, however.

“We do not want to stand in the way of Israeli projects, but we have our concerns regarding our own airport, and there is also the matter of keeping the spirit of our peace agreement,” said a Jordanian official who declined to be identified.

The official was referring to a proposal, discussed in conjunction with the treaty, of building a joint Israeli-Jordanian airport.

Katz said such a facility was an “option” that had gone unexercised. Opened in 1972, King Hussein underwent expansions after the 1994 peace accord to meet what the airport’s website said was the rising demand of air traffic. Katz said Israel was therefore free to open Ramon on its side of the border.

Tourism

Jordan’s concern, he suggested, was over the prospective loss of tourists to Israel. Ramon will have a 3.6 km runway able to accommodate the largest airliners while King Hussein’s runway length is a more limiting 3.1 km.

King Hussein currently handles around four to six takeoffs and landings a day. Israel is planning for ten times that capacity at Ramon.

“The thing is, this (Ramon) is a big international airport, representing a mass of tourists, which is seen as possibly competing with them in tourism and such things,” Katz said.

“We will propose to them that large planes that can’t land there (King Hussein) will land here. I have no problem with people going to Aqaba from there (Ramon). They can cross at Arava crossing,” he said, referring to an overland border terminal north of Eilat, a 15 km drive from Ramon.

Peace with Israel was never popular among ordinary Jordanians, many of whom are Palestinian and Amman officials sometimes lament what they see as the sluggish dividends from economic cooperation with their richer neighbour.

One Jordanian official based in the Aqaba area accused Israel of building Ramon airport to “market Petra” – the nearby archaeological wonder in Jordan – for excursions by tourists who would spend the bulk of their vacation in Eilat.

“We are protecting our national tourism industry from any invasion and from selling it illegally,” said the official, who also requested anonymity.

“Now we have imposed on those coming from the (Arava) crossing to either pay sixty dinars ($85) for a one-day (visa) or spend two nights in the kingdom, with the fee refunded,” the official said.

Eilat is currently served by a small municipal airport whose planned demolition will free up real estate within view of the beach.

Named after an Israeli astronaut lost in the 2003 space shuttle disaster and his eldest son, who died in a 2009 air force accident, Ramon is envisaged as an emergency alternative to Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv, Israel’s main international gateway. Ben Gurion was briefly shunned by most foreign carriers due to incoming Palestinian rockets during the 2014 Gaza war.

(Reuters)

Global Airport Trade Group Opposes New Checkpoints Outside Terminals After Attacks

The UN’s ICAO last week discussed creating a new standard that could push countries to come up with security rules for public sections of airports.

A passenger plane flies over a barbed wire fence as it approaches Sydney airport in this February 23, 2010 file photo. Credit: Reuters/Tim Wimborne

Montreal: The United Nations’ aviation agency should avoid creating new checkpoints outside airport terminals as it draws up proposed global guidelines to improve security in the wake of recent attacks on travellers, the head of Airports Council International said on May 27.

Angela Gittens, director general of the global airport trade group, said she did not want external checkpoints, which are being debated as a way to deter attacks on airports, to become part of a proposed global security standard for public areas because the additional lineup could create a new target.

The UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) last week discussed creating a new standard that could push countries to come up with security rules for public sections of airports. Security in these so-called landside areas is run by a patchwork of local and state authorities, depending on the country.

“Most airports were not built to have people congregate at doors,” Gittens said in her first interview on the proposed standard. “And every time you stop people, you’re interfering with what airports were supposed to be doing. You’re trapping people in a line where if something did happen these people would not be able to scatter.”

Montreal-based ICAO sets standards that its 191 member states typically adopt as regulatory requirements.

The agency’s council would vote on any proposed changes to airport security only at year’s end, or in 2017, two sources familiar with the confidential talks said on condition of anonymity.

While global security guidelines already exist for closed areas limited to passengers with boarding passes, the ICAO has not set standards for public sections of airports. Even before a March attack on a Brussels airport, the agency was already discussing ways to improve security after a Metrojet plane crashed in Egypt last year.

A US congressional panel heard this week that more than 70,000 American Airlines customers missed their flights this year and 40,000 checked bags failed to be loaded on scheduled flights because of airport screening delays.

One of the sources said the agency had proposed giving guidance on security to member states, but would allow individual countries to draw up their own national security rules for airports.

ICAO spokesman Anthony Philbin said in an email on May 27 that it was “far too premature” to comment since the agency was only considering proposed changes.

“They are trying to broaden that to say it’s not just the access to the flight, it’s the safety/security of the passenger before that,” he said.

(Reuters)