Letter to the Director General

 The Director General, 

DGCA, Government of India

Sir, 

This letter is offered as an observation. I believe calm statements of fact tend to be more effective than raised voices. 

For much of my career, I trusted regulatory systems to respond fairly and predictably when requirements were met. Repeated interaction with the DGCA has shown that predictability exists, but not necessarily in alignment with documented procedures. The delays are admirably consistent, explanations are often limited, and outcomes completely unrelated to compliance.

This is not about a few individuals. The pattern suggests a system that has normalised inefficiency. Today files crawl and then after long delays, queries are raised by the concerned desk. These are without clear purpose, and digital portals continue to display "under process" without accountability. Progress, when it finally occurs, is often sudden and unexplained. It’s almost like the “Hand of God” and what the revered palms handled. Not one, but across processes, like issuance of computer numbers, licence endorsements, foreign licence conversion, and verification of Indian licences for overseas employment, the experience is similar. Applicants meet requirements, submit documentation, and wait. Their careers remain on hold. Then Informal suggestions appear from well wishers. These often expedite matters, after which all delays resolve promptly.

Today the role of Flight Operations Inspectors and Consultants appear limited largely to final clearances, with little authority to influence organisational correspondence or formally document systemic concerns. Almost all serve on contract or deputation. This arrangement achieves procedural completion but can never encourage institutional ownership. Hence responsibility becomes narrow, accountability selective, and silence efficient.

The “Digitalisation” of the DGCA was intended to improve transparency. In practice, it has removed visibility and stayed true to its word. The office works in digits and adds up to none. An applicant does not know who holds a file, why it is delayed, or when it will move. Confusion has become standardised. When regulation becomes transactional, standards erode. When oversight becomes procedural, safety weakens. Aviation failures are rarely sudden; they are usually the cumulative result of small tolerated deviations. Leadership silence is rarely neutral. In a system where tenure is temporary and responsibility dispersed, inaction sadly means acceptance. 

This letter is not written in anger. It is written with the expectation that the regulator can be respected for its standards rather than navigated for its processes. Pilots are trained to report risks before they manifest as outcomes. This letter is one such report.

Respectfully