Aviation regulator DGCA removes SpiceJet from its enhanced surveillance regime
The Hindu
Aviation watchdog DGCA has taken off SpiceJet from its enhanced surveillance regime, a senior official said on Tuesday.
Aviation watchdog DGCA has taken off SpiceJet from its enhanced surveillance regime, a senior official said on Tuesday.
The airline, which has been facing multiple headwinds, was placed under enhanced surveillance recently.
The senior DGCA official said that in view of the observations made in the past concerning inadequate maintenance and in view of the incidents during the monsoon season last year, SpiceJet was placed under enhanced surveillance.
"Accordingly 51 spot checks were conducted across 11 locations pan India, on the Boeing 737 and Bombardier DHC Q-400 fleet of aircraft, where in a total 23 aircraft were inspected and 95 observations were made by the DGCA teams," the official said.
The findings were of routine nature and were not considered significant by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).
"Suitable maintenance action was taken by the airline to address the findings in accordance with DGCA guidelines. As a consequence, SpiceJet has been taken off the enhanced surveillance regime by DGCA," the official said.
On July 11, PTI had reported about DGCA placing SpiceJet under the enhanced surveillance regime and on that day, the airline refuted any such development.
Pakistan coach Gary Kirsten stated that “not so great decision making” contributed to his side’s defeat to India in the Group-A T20 World Cup clash here on Sunday. The batting unit came apart in the chase, after being well placed at 72 for two. With 48 runs needed from eight overs, Pakistan found a way to panic and lose. “Maybe not so great decision making,” Kirsten said at the post-match press conference, when asked to explain the loss.
“We are judges and therefore, cannot act like Mughals of a bygone era ... the writ courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law,” the High Court of Karnataka observed while setting aside an order of a single judge, who in 2016 had extended the lease of a public premises allotted to a physically challenged person to 20 years contrary to 12-year period stipulated in the law.