Surat Runway issue.pdf - Yeshwanth Shenoy

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

Yeshwanth Shenoy "Priyadarshini” Advocate Veekshnam Road Emakulam 682018 Mobile: 9967642195 E-mail: yshenoy@gmail.com 20 June 2018 To The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION Satarkata Bhavan, A-Bloek GPO Complex, INA New Delhi - 110 023 Dear Sir, Sub: Corruption by Senior AAI officials in extension of the runway at the Surat Airport I happened to read a news article which stated that you have directed the Chief Secretary to take action against the illegal construction around Surat Airport. I have been fighting for Aviation safety ever since IX 812 crash that killed 158 innocent souls. I have been fighting for Aviation Safety in India which also included “removal of encroachments into the Flight path”. Yes, in India we have graduated to encroaching Air Space too and this could not have happened without active connivance of government officials. There is hardly any airport, the airspace of which has not been encroached and this is thanks to the corrupt officials of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), The Airports Authority of India (AAI) and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). In short, no flyer in India is safe and as with obstacles, the life of even the people on the ground is endangered and we already have had accidents in which ground causalities also was recorded. Surat is a case which I can explain to you in the simplest language. Otherwise, the issue of ‘obstacles’ is a highly technical subject that cannot be understood without a proper study of the concept. I will explain the Surat issue in simple points so that you can digest the concept easily. 1. The extension of the Surat Runway was proposed somewhere in February 2015 by the Surat Airport Director. The basic reason was that there was a big hole right in the centre of the Runway which required repair. However, it may be noted that repairing hole or re-carpeting Runway does not bring as much money as extending a Runway. 2. The request for extension was met with the simplest question from the AAI HQ as to what is the ‘intended benefit’ to the Surat Airport. A copy of the e-mail dated 15 May 2015 from Mr.Vinod Jadli, AM ops to the Airport Director, Surat and others are annexed to this letter as Annexure-A. Please see point 1 of the said e- mail which clearly sought Justification as to how the Runway extension is going to benefit Surat Airport as larger aircrafts can’t anyway operate even with the extended length. 3. The DGM (Aviation Safety), WR, AAI wrote another letter dated 8 July 2015 to the Airport Director, a copy of which is annexed to this letter as Annexure-B. The letter again highlighted that no aircrafts larger than the ones already approved for in Surat can be operated even with the extended length of the Runway. Most importantly, the officer clearly states the need for the ‘obstacle survey’ and the requirement of demolition of buildings and in fact called to drop the plan of the Runway extension. 4. The ED (Ops) writes a letter dated 28 September 2015 to the RED (WR), a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-C to this letter. It is clearly pointed out that the latest data showed ‘obstacles’ and the officer clearly writes that action be taken to reduce the height of obstacle before the ‘proposed extension’. This is the proper and correct procedure that ought to have been adopted. 5. The ED (Ops) is a technical officer at the top level, just below-Board level employees of AAI. Therefore, it can only be the Chairman of AAI and other Board Members of AAI who could have overruled the ED (Ops) and the Aviation Safety Officer. 6. The fact that the Surat Runway was extended clearly indicates that the objections of these officers were overruled. It also clearly shows how AAI did not follow the procedure before extension of Runway. The Regulator, DGCA could not have approved the extension unless the procedure was followed in which the ‘obstacle’ map was the most crucial. In short, the extension of the Surat Runway was in gross violation of the Air Regulations and over and above the Safety of people. 7. Once the Runway was extended by 655 m, the threshold of the runway was displaced by 615 m because of the obstacles in the approach funnel, which in other words meant that for the cost of 655 m of the runway, the actual extension was a mere 40 m. This means that the government funds were misused only with an intention to line up the coffers of the corrupt as the AAI officials were very well aware that the extended runway could never be used. The only reason why an extension was done is to make illegal money from the works contract. 8. What is the most unacceptable thing is what the corrupt AAI officials did thereafter to save their skin. Instead of accepting the blunder they have committed, they turned around and started issuing demolition notices to owners of buildings in the approach funnel on false/frivolous grounds including marking incorrect location while applying for heights. If this argument of the corrupt AAI officials have to be accepted then it clearly indicates that AAI is incapable of ensuring the Aviation Safety around the airport as it is the duty of the Aerodrome operator to keep the flight path and the air space around the airport away from ‘encroachments’. No building is ‘invisible’, its construction takes place over a few months and when AAI officials sat quietly over this, what right do they have to turn around and now shout. 9. The proper procedure ought to have been demolishing the obstacles before extension after properly compensating the owners under Sec.9B of the Aircraft Act, 1934. This was clearly advice to the authority by ED (Ops). Even today, if the AAI needs to demolish the already standing buildings, it ought to follow the procedure under Sec.9B of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and not make baseless allegations and snatch away the homes of the people or kill the real estate business by demolishing the homes they made with intent to sell. Taking away the homes of innocent people or killing the business of people who invested so much with an assumption that the regulatory authorities would have done their work is contrary to the promise of 'good governance’ promised by the PM hailing from the State of Gujrat. 10.1 will give another example from within the State on ‘obstacles’ that will expose the double standards of the AAI. In Rajkot, a building was given ‘illegal height’ by an officer against whom inquiry was held and the officer was found guilty and the officer was also penalized. However, the building still stands even when it is known ‘obstacle’. The officer is now the GM (ATC) of AAI at Ahmedabad airport in spite of being found guilty of illegally giving extra height. The same officer filed tons of false affidavits in the High Court of Bombay in the ‘obstacles’ case around the Mumbai airport. In short, the AAI has not taken action against known obstacles and even protected the corrupt officials. Surat is the first exception where the AAI suo moto issued demolition notices whereas the most busiest airports like Mumbai and Delhi are having thousands of obstacles. AAI will justify saying that the Aerodrome operator is different and not AAI. In that case, Thiruvananthapuram Airport is a great case where again the AAI is sitting on known ‘obstacles’ and in fact, surreptitiously helping builders in the Court. 11.1 have personally written about the menace of ‘obstacles’ and corruption to the vigilance officers of the DGCA, AAI and MoCA and nothing has come out of it. One reason for this is that the CVO of MoCA also happens to be the Chairman of the Appellate Committee for Height Clearances. The law states that the CVO should not hold any position which gives him discretionary powers and here is a CVO who has discretionary powers and who has been manipulating it and in fact has rendered most airports around the country ‘unsafe’. In spite of me being an advocate, it might look unreasonable that I didn’t continue to pursue my complaints. I must be honest and I tell you that it is difficult to do it when the whole system is a part of the ‘corruption’ ring. The Corruption in the Aviation system of this country is so organized and well oiled that it will put the biggest 'organised criminals’ to shame. I am absolutely certain that India will witness an air disaster involving its airspace or air carriers and questions will be asked and then all my documentation will come to haunt all those authorities who have ignored it. My belief of such a disaster is so strong because all safety parameters in Aviation are in the RED. In Surat, even one demolition without properly compensating the house owners / builders will be a travesty of Justice and the victory of the corrupt. The most sickening aspect is that the officials are demolishing homes just to hide their illegal gratification which could be say 10% of the work contract. So even assuming 10 crores were made by these officials, the affected people would have been more than willing to contribute and quench the thirst of such rogue officials. It would be inhuman to allow even one home demolished unless every official involved is booked and prosecuted. In the light of the above facts and the supporting documentation, I request you to initiate an inquiry immediately in the interests of Justice. I request you not to send this complaint to the CVO of the MoCA as the person himself is also named as an ‘accused’. I suspect the following officers to be directly involved in the same: (i) Mr.Guruprasad Mohapatra, Chairman of AAI (ii) Mr.Arun Kumar, Jt.Secretary, MoCA also the chairman, Appellate Committee on Height Clearances (ACHC) (iii) Mr J.S.Rawat, Jt. DG, DGCA, (iv) Mr.Kanu Gohain, former DGCA and technical member of ACHC (v) MrA.K.Dutta, Member (ANS), AAI (vi) Mr.S.Raheja, Member (Planning), AAI (vii) Mr.I.N.Murthy, Member (Ops), AAI (viii) The Airport Director, Surat (who ever responsible during that period). I assure you that the inquiry will not be difficult if you have the will to go after such sick minds that plot to demolish homes to save their own skin. All you need to do is to pull out all documentation as related to this runway extension and documentary evidence will alone be sufficient to pin them down. I assure you all cooperation from my end and I again assure you that while I fight against all obstacles around airports around the country, my stand is reversed only in case of Surat and that is because of the clear cut documentation that AAI went ahead with the extension even when they were aware of the gross violation of law and procedure and that the Surat Airport does not stand to gain anything as even with the full runway length no new type of aircraft can operate into Surat than what it already approved for operations. Yours Truly, Yeshwanth Shenoy Enel: 1) E-mail dated 15 May 2015 2) Letter dated 8 July 2015 3) Letter dated 28 Sept 2015 Copy to: 1) The Prime Minister of India 2) Comptroller and Auditor General 3) Chief Secretary, Gujrat Airport Director Surat From: Vtnod Jadti Sent: 15 May 2015 12:31 To: Airport Director Surat; RED WR. AAI, Western region Cc: ED(OPS), CHQ, AAI; Rakesh Singh; Vijay Yadav Subject: Re-carpeting and extension of runway at Surat Airport. Sir, Reference is made to Surat Airport letter No: AAI/SURA/APD/SC-3(ii)/SCARS-Rwy/2014-15/283- 290 dt. 24.4.2015 and telephonic discussion with Airport Director, Surat Airport. Submitted safety assessment documents are examined and observations are as under: 1. Airport has claimed that increase in length of runway will help to handle bigger aircraft but intended aircraft has not been clarified in safety assessment However, as per submitted documents , Runway 04-22 of Surat Airport is already designed to operate A-319, A-320 and A-321 type of aircraft. 2. HazLog for identified hazards No.6 to 9 at Concept/Design level are not enclosed. 3. Copy of approved SOW not submitted. 4. Calculation sheet , duly signed by appropriate authority, for siting of PAPI w.r.t. extended portion of runway. 5. No specific details given in Description of Project for closure of runway during re-carpeting work. 6. Action Plan/ Work Methodology for all phases not submitted. 7. Drawing showing all required clearances and necessary visual aids on extended portion of runway will be required. 8. It is not cleared whether Rwy 22 will be used for landing/ departure during work period at extended portion of Rwy 04 / pre-threshold area of Rwy 22. If yes, calculation for displaced threshold w.r.t. height of equipments may also be clarified. 9. Submitted drawings are not legible, Surat airport is requested to submit A-3 size colour drawing related with project work and required clearances, specially for extended portion. 10. Relevant para of CAR compliance check list may be submitted along with Execution level documents. 11.Comments / acceptance of airline operator i.r.o non availability of visual aids , revised procedures and restricted declared distances not included, 12. A line of confirmation from appropriate authority that location of revised threshold ( as per master plan ) was taken into consideration for issuance of NOCs i.r.o height clearance . 13. Requirement of necessary charts / drawings and revised declared distances at time of commissioning of extended portion of runway. Kind Attn: Jt. Gen MqrfAvn SafetvVWR: - ASD-WR is requested to ensure incorporation of above observations also before sending documents to CHQ for onward submission to DGCA. This is with approval of E.D (Ops), CHQ. Regards Vinod Chartder Jadli AM Ops Dte of Ops, CHQ 2 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA WESTERN REGION HQR& REF: AVNS/WR/GEN/15/ B g Dated: 08.07.2015 To The Airport Director, Surat Airport, Dumas Road, Surat-394550. Sub: - SCARS forms for recarpetting/strengthening and extension o f runway at Surat Airport. R e f:- (i). Letter No.AAI/SURAT/APD/SC-3 (II)/SCARS - Runway /20I5-16/978-985 dated 17.06.2015 from AFD Surat with its enclosures. (ii). The performance characteristics of CRJ-700 and ATR-72(operated by Alliance Air), B737-800 (operated by Spicejet) and/or A-321 regarding take-off run required. (iii).Telephonic confirmation from you that only CRJ-700 o f Alliance Air is presently operating at Surat airport. (iv) Email received bv me from Alliance Air office at Delhi after my telecon with them last night about the possibility of their operating aircraft on TORA o f less than 1905m. (Copy attached) Sir, With regai'd to your comments/clarifications on the points communicated by Ops Directorate o f CHQ vide email dt 15.05.2015, the following points are brought to your notice:- 1) The query at SLNo.l raised by Ops Directorate at CHQ, AAI vide the email dt 15.05.2015 is a valid one. As per the manufacturers1 manuals, for a CRJ-700, the take-off field length is 1516 m at MTOW; for ATR 72-600, the take-off distance is 1333m (4373 ft) at MTOW; for A-321. the take-off field length is about 2180 m and for B 737-800 that have operated so far at Surat airport, the current length of 2250 m has been found sufficient as per operators' confirmation to you. wr w r f e m , ^ - 400 09s . tr si -22-29217400 Office of The Regional Executive Director. Opp Porw-aci-a Sahar Rood. Vile Porte (E). Mumbai - 400 099. j ? w it its, - 400 099. tsr 91-22-25319300 ATS Complex. Near Sahar Cargo. Sutar Pakad; Road, Saner Mumbai - 400 099. Therefore, the proposed Phase - 1 o f extension by 655 m at the South-west end o f the Rwy 04/22 (beginning o f Rwy 04) will NOT facilitate operations o f A-321/B737-800 due providing an insufficient TORA of length 1873 m (655 + 1368 - 150) until the completion o f Phase-II o f removing and relaying of the portion Ch 1368-1585 m from beginning of Rwy 04. Further, the time period for the superfluous Phase - I (three months or more) is much longer than the actually required Phase ~ II (just one month). Hence it will save time and costs if the work of removing and relaying o f the portion Ch 1368-1585 m from beginning o f Rwy 04 is done instead o f wasting time and money on a futile extension o f Rwy 04 beginning, because, in any case, no A-321/B737-800 can operate with a TORA of less than 2180 m and after completion of the proposed Phase - 1, the TORA will be only 1873 m. Last night I got confirmation from the office of Alliance Air Dispatch at Delhi that there is only one flight operated by them in the mornings (six days a week - no flights on Thursdays) with scheduled departure from Delhi at 07.40 a.m. scheduled arrival at Surat at 09.20 a.m and scheduled departure from Surat at 09.50 a.m. There was a suggestion that during the work period o f removal and relaying of Ch 1368 m to 1585 m. in case the available TORA is only about 1218 m; Alliance Air could explore the possibility of using its ATR -72 with reduced load instead o f a CRJ -700 because the field length at MTOW for an ATR -72 is only about 1330 m. I request you also to coordinate with the AI officials at Surat to provide a RTOW chart to you for their ATR-72 instead o f a CRJ-700 for a TORA o f 3995 ft (1218 m). If that works, it will enable operations of the Alliance Air flights with ATR instead o f CRJ and the work on Ch 1368m -1585m can begin at 9.00 a.m or earlier daily and get done in lesser number of days. In case TORA of 1218 m is insufficient for ATR-72 also, the best alternative would be to inform Alliance Air o f the work on Ch 1368m to 1585m for about a month and let Alliance Air cancel its schedule for the period of the work, so that the work gets done at a faster pace and the other types of aircraft like A-321/B 737-800 of other operators also can start operating at Surat earlier rather than having operations of all flights of bigger aircraft be delayed for 18 months j ust to accommodate only one CRJ flight per day for six days in a week . 2 Moreover, in case the extension work for 655m southwest of Rwy 04 beginning is done, it will in turn mean that the heights of buildings in the approach path of Rwy 04 will have to be reduced by about 13 m (655 x 2/100 - 13.10, i.e by about 4 floors assuming the height between floors as 3m), u-pto a distance o f about 2965 m from the present beginning o f Rwy 04. The Type A obstacle Charts attached with your letter dt 17.06.2015 are based on Aeronautical Obstacle Survey o f 2007, as mentioned in those charts. Hence, as mentioned in the letter dt 04.06.2015 signed by Mr. Rajeev Mehta, Jt.GM (ATC), WR, a fresh obstacle survey has to be carried out to verify how many buildings/structures in the approach path o f Rwy 04 will infringe the limiting surfaces o f the revised take-off surface of Rwy 22 also and by how much. Only then it can be decided how many o f those buildings will have to reduce their heights. The owners o f those buildings might object to such reduction in heights and it might end up in prolonged litigation, because it won’t suffice if we just displace the threshold of Rwy 04 to accommodate those buildings - as Rwy 22 is a precision approach runway (i.e it has ILS approach), the obstacle limiting surfaces, especially o f the missed approach segment and the take-off surface for the Rwy 22 side will also have to be taken into consideration. In view of the above, it will be better to discard Phase - I i.e extension upto 655m on the southwest side o f Rwy 04/22 at the design/concept stage itself and instead do only the removal and relaying of the portion o f the Rwy at Ch 1368 m to 1585 m from the beginning of Rwy 04. It will also cut down the overall time required to make the full length of present 2250 m of Rwy 04/22 fit for aircraft operations of all types o f aircraft upto A-321(only one month, as per your estimate). 2) Therefore, the concept of the extension of the Rwy to the southwest is to be dropped and it will suffice if you send the SCARs forms for only removal and relaying o f the portion of Ch 1368 m to 1585 m from beginning of Rwy 04 along with revised drawings and texts. The timelines also can be shortened accordingly. 3) One minor correction required is that in Step 7 o f Annexure - II for both design/concept level and execution level, the box showing name, position and signature o f person to whom preparation o f safety case was assigned, should be filled as “not applicable” because it is not a major change. 3 4) There is no need for the “CAR checklist’ because it is NOT a requirement as per the DGCA AD AC No. I o f 2012, The CAR checklist has been given in AAFs Aerodrome Licensing Manual just to be used as a guide for AAI personnel and submitting it to DGCA will be superfluous documentation. 5) The lack o f isolation bay is not at all a valid hazard for two reasons - the work areas are well clear o f the link to the isolation bay and even if that link were not available, the runway dumbels can always be used as isolation bays in an emergency - w hat can S urat APD/ATC do in ease a hijacked aircraft does land on the runw ay and the pilot does not inform ATC until after landing ~ will you be able to tell th a t pilot th a t due to w ork on the runw ay, he has to take-off and go to M um bai/A hm edabad etc ? Please read up on the rules o f handling of aircraft subjected to unlawful interference first before saying that isolation bay won’t be available. Hence, I request you to make suitable changes to the SCARs forms, drawings etc for work to be done only on Ch 1368m- 1585m from beginning o f Rwy 04 and send them for checking before I forward them to CHQ, AAI. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, DGM (Aviation safety), WR, AAI, Mumbai. Copy to> 1. The R.E.D. W R 2. ED (Ops), CHQ, AAI, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdurjung, RDelhi -110003 3. Guard file. 4 I Ginaif - FW: R ecarpeting/strengthening and extension o f runway at Surat... https://m ail.googie.com /m aiI/u/l/?ui=2& ik=i818d3cl86& jsveF=O eN A . Wlangala S. <m angalanarasim han@ gm ail.com > FW: Recarpeting/strengthening and extension of runway at Surat Airport. n j Mon, Sep 2 8 .2 0 1 5 at 3:05 Pradeep Shrivastava <spradeep@ aai.aero> p To: "Mangala S .“ <mangalanarasimhan@gmaii.com> Madam, Issue has been taken up with RED (WR) and APD, Surat Airport for removal of the obstacle infringing the various surfaces prior to the commencement of proposed extension of runway by 655m. 3ffeT7()l/WR/2015 28.09.2015 a-Sta <p i 4 mki0 F r ^ w , IcImhmtih w R)crt>t, Re-carpeting and strengthening of Runway at Surat Airport, Surat. Please refer letter No. O ps.701/W R/3788 dated 18.09.2015 addressed to APD, Surat (copy enclosed) enclosing therewith Approach Chart RW Y 04, based on the latest Survey Data, showing objects penetrating the approach surface along with the details of the obstacles which are calculated taking basic runway strip of 300 m into consideration. On analysis of survey data, it has been noticed that top elevation of various obstacles in approach funnel exceeds the permissible top elevation by 0.8m to 6.9 m which means that a portion of proposed extension of runway will be displaced. Thus proposed extension of runway will not give the desired result until and unless the obstacles are removed. In view of the proposed extension of Runway 04 by 655 m at Surat l of 2 4/30/2018, 8:06 A M Gmail - FW: Recarpeting/strengthening and extension o f runway at Surat... https://m ail. google, com/mail/u/1 /?ui=2& i k=I 818d3cl 86&jsver=OeNA. Airport, an early action regarding reduction in the height of obstacle, penetrating the approach surface of Runway 04, within the permissible limit is appreciated. The proposed extension of Runway may also be linked with removal of obstacle penetrating the various surfaces to ensure its full utilization. A copy of the Approach Chart along with details of the obstacle are enclosed for your ready reference. Copy to:- • EDfEnggHlL ‘ ED (Pig) ED (Arch) APD, AAI, Surat Airport, Surat • GM (AeroVWR, AAI, Mumbai ' PGM (Avn. Safety)/WR, AAI, Mumbai ES to Member (Pig) ES to Member (Ops) From: Mangala S. [mailto:mangalanarasimhan@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:05 PM To: Pradeep Shrivastava Cc; ED(OPS), CHQ, AAI; RED WR. AAI, Western region; Airport Director Surat; Vinod Jadli; S K Dwivedi Subject: Re: FW: Recarpeting/strengthening and extension of runway at Surat Airport, [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 2 of 2 4/30/2018, 8:06 A M Yeshwanth Shenoy "Priyadarshini” Advocate Veekshnam Road Emakulam 682018 Mobile: 9967642195 E-mail: yshenoy@gmail.com 20 June 2018 To not T^v * ±. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Dear Sir, Sub: Corruption by Senior AAI officials in extension of the runway at the Surat Airport In India, we have graduated to encroaching Air Space. Unlike encroachment of land, encroachment of Air space can have disastrous consequence that could see loss of thousands of lives. There is hardly any airport, the airspace of which has not been encroached and this is thanks to the corrupt officials of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), The Airports Authority of India (AAI) and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). In short, no flyer in India is safe and with ‘obstacles’, the life of even the people on the ground is endangered and we already have had accidents in which ground causalities also was recorded. The issue of ‘obstacles’ is a highly technical subject that cannot be understood without a proper study of the concept. Surat is a case which I can explain to you in the simplest language as the extension of Runway has not helped the development of the Surat Airport and the fact that the AAI officials are now attempting to demolish homes only with an intent to save their own skin. I will explain the Surat issue in simple points so that you can digest the concept easily. 1. The extension of the Surat Runway was proposed somewhere in February 2015 by the Surat Airport Director. The basic reason was that there was a big hole right in the centre of the Runway which required repair. However, it may be noted that repairing hole or re-carpeting Runway does not bring as much money as extending a Runway. 2. The request for extension was met with the simplest question from the AAI HQ as to what is the ‘intended benefit’ to the Surat Airport. A copy of the e-mail dated 15 May 2015 from Mr.Vinod Jadli, AM ops to the Airport Director, Surat and others are annexed to this letter as Annexure-A. Please see point 1 of the said e- mail which clearly sought Justification as to how the Runway extension is going to benefit Surat Airport as larger aircrafts can’t anyway operate even with the extended length. 3. The DGM (Aviation Safety), WR, AAI wrote another letter dated 8 July 2015 to the Airport Director, a copy of which is annexed to this letter as Annexure-B. The letter again highlighted that no aircrafts larger than the ones already approved for in Surat can be operated even with the extended length of the Runway. Most importantly, the officer clearly states the need for the ‘obstacle survey’ and the requirement of demolition of buildings and in fact called to drop the plan of the Runway extension. 4. The ED (Ops) writes a letter dated 28 September 2015 to the RED (WR), a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-C to this letter. It is clearly pointed out that the latest data showed ‘obstacles’ and the officer clearly writes that action be taken to reduce the height of obstacle before the ‘proposed extension’. This is the proper and correct procedure that ought to have been adopted. 5. The ED (Ops) is a technical officer at the top level, just below-Board level employees of AAI. Therefore, it can only be the Chairman of AAI and other Board Members of AAI who could have overruled the ED (Ops) and the Aviation Safety Officer. 6. The fact that the Surat Runway was extended clearly indicates that the objections of these officers were overruled. It also clearly shows how AAI did not follow the procedure before extension of Runway. The Regulator, DGCA could not have approved the extension unless the procedure was followed in which the ‘obstacle’ map was the most crucial. In short, the extension of the Surat Runway was in gross violation of the Air Regulations and over and above the Safety of people. 7. Once the Runway was extended by 655 m, the threshold of the runway was displaced by 615 m because of the obstacles in the approach funnel, which in other words meant that for the cost of 655 m of the runway, the actual extension was a mere 40 m. This means that the government funds were misused only with an intention to line up the coffers of the corrupt as the AAI officials were very well aware that the extended runway could never be used. The only reason why an extension was done is to make illegal money from the works contract. 8. What is the most unacceptable thing is what the corrupt AAI officials did thereafter to save their skin. Instead of accepting the blunder they have committed, they turned around and started issuing demolition notices to owners of buildings in the approach funnel on false/frivolous grounds including marking incorrect location while applying for heights. If this argument of the corrupt AAI officials have to be accepted then it clearly indicates that AAI is incapable of ensuring the Aviation Safety around the airport as it is the duty of the Aerodrome operator to keep the flight path and the air space around the airport away from ‘encroachments’. No building is ‘invisible’, its construction takes place over a few months and when AAI officials sat quietly over this, what right do they have to turn around and now shout. 9. The proper procedure ought to have been demolishing the obstacles before extension after properly compensating the owners under Sec.9B of the Aircraft Act, 1934. This was clearly advice to the authority by ED (Ops). Even today, if the AAI needs to demolish the already standing buildings, it ought to follow the procedure under Sec.9B of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and not make baseless allegations and snatch away the homes of the people or kill the real estate business by demolishing the homes they made with intent to sell. Taking away the homes of innocent people or killing the business of people who invested so much with an assumption that the regulatory authorities would have done their work is contrary to the promise of ‘good governance’ promised by the PM hailing from the State of Gujrat. 10.1 will give another example from within the State on ‘obstacles’ that will expose the double standards of the AAI. In Rajkot, a building was given ‘illegal height’ by an officer against whom inquiry was held and the officer was found guilty and the officer was also penalized. However, the building still stands even when it is known 'obstacle’. The officer is now the GM (ATC) of AAI at Ahmedabad airport in spite of being found guilty of illegally giving extra height. The same officer filed tons of false affidavits in the High Court of Bombay in the ‘obstacles’ case around the Mumbai airport. In short, the AAI has not taken action against known obstacles and even protected the corrupt officials. Surat is the first exception where the AAI suo moto issued demolition notices whereas the most busiest airports like Mumbai and Delhi are having thousands of obstacles. AAI will justify saying that the Aerodrome operator is different and not AAI. In that case, Thiruvananthapuram Airport is a great case where again the AAI is sitting on known ‘obstacles’ and in fact, surreptitiously helping builders in the Court. In the light of the above facts and the supporting documentation, I request you to register atleast a PE immediately and investigate the matter. I name the following officers to be the ‘accused’: (i) Mr.Guruprasad Mohapatra, Chairman of AAI (ii) Mr.Arun Kumar, Jt. Secretary, MoCA also the chairman, Appellate Committee on Height Clearances (ACHC) (iii) Mr.J.S.Rawat, Jt. DG, DGCA, (iv) Mr.Kanu Gohain, former DGCA and technical member of ACHC (v) Mr.A.K.Dutta, Member (ANS), AAI (vi) Mr.S.Raheja, Member (Planning), AAI (vii) Mr.I.N.Murthy, Member (Ops), AAI (viii) The Airport Director, Surat (who ever responsible during that period). I assure you that the inquiry will not be difficult if you have the will to go after such sick minds that plot to demolish homes to save their own skin. All you need to do is to pull out all documentation as related to this runway extension and documentary evidence will alone be sufficient to pin them down. I assure you all cooperation from my end and I again assure you that while I fight against all obstacles around airports across the country, my stand is reversed only in case of Surat and that is because of the clear cut documentation that AAI went ahead with the extension even when they were aware of the gross violation of law and procedure and that the Surat Airport does not stand to gain anything as even with the full runway length no new type of aircraft can operate into Surat than what it already approved for operations. Yours Truly, yesnwanm snenoy Enel: 1) E-mail dated 15 May 2015 2) Letter dated 8 July 2015 3) Letter dated 28 Sept 2015