Air Carrier Safety Regulations and Obligations: A Global Perspective

An overview of air carrier safety regulations and obligations in India and across the world.
SS Rana & Co - Vikrant Rana, Nihit Nagpal
SS Rana & Co - Vikrant Rana, Nihit Nagpal
Published on
6 min read

The tragic crash of the Air India flight AI 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner en route from Ahmedabad to London that collided with a hospital just seconds after takeoff, recently claimed the lives of 241 people on board and several more on the ground. The incident has become one of the deadliest aviation disasters in Indian History. In response, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has launched annual audits of Air India’s operations, intensified inspections of similar aircraft models, and implemented stringent safety checks across the board.

Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)

The DGCA employs a multifaceted and comprehensive approach that focuses on inquiry, accountability and prevention. The responsibility to ensure that the cause of the crash is investigated in a thorough yet objective manner lies with the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). Additionally, multiple safety initiatives have been launched by the aviation authority, DGCA:

1. DGCA has introduced a series of robust safety and oversight initiatives aimed at improving the overall safety and regulatory compliance of the Indian aviation sector. A comprehensive “360-degree” audit has been initiated to evaluate all key aviation entities—both scheduled and non-scheduled airlines, MROs, airport operators, training institutions, and ground handling agencies. This audit includes on-site inspections and a thorough review of documentation to assess operational practices, management systems, and adherence to regulations;

2. Additionally, the DGCA has mandated enhanced safety inspections of Air India’s Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet, to be completed by June 2025;

3. Following a recent aircraft crash, the DGCA has also requested complete training and certification records of the flight crew and dispatcher involved, as part of the ongoing investigation;

4. Furthermore, all government-operated airports have been instructed by the DGCA to conduct comprehensive emergency response drills to ensure preparedness in handling real-time crisis situations.

The Montreal Convention, 1999

The Montreal Convention, 1999 was enforced on November 4, 2003 and has 141 signatories. It seeks to establish a modern, uniform legal framework for assessing international airlines liability in situations that involve issues related to delays, cargo damage, baggage loss, or passenger injury or death. The objectives of the Montreal Convention, 1999 are summarized as below:

1. Establishment of a Unified Legal Framework: The Convention seeks to provide a modern, standardized legal structure for determining airline liability in the context of international air travel.

2. Balancing Passenger and Carrier Interests: It aims to strike an equitable balance between protecting the rights of passengers and safeguarding the interests of air carriers, particularly in situations involving injury or death, delays, or the loss or damage of baggage and cargo.

3. Streamlining Legal Processes: By replacing the complex and outdated Warsaw Convention system, the Montreal Convention simplifies legal procedures, enabling passengers to pursue claims more easily and allowing carriers to better understand their obligations.

4. Facilitating Fair and Timely Compensation: One of its primary goals is to ensure that affected passengers receive appropriate compensation without the need for drawn-out court proceedings.

5. Implementation of a Dual Liability System: The Convention introduces a two-tier liability approach:

  • Strict liability for damages up to a specified threshold, regardless of fault.

  • Presumed fault-based liability for damages exceeding that amount, unless the carrier proves it was not responsible.

6. Strengthening Passenger Protections While Limiting Carrier Exposure: This dual system is designed to enhance passenger protection while placing reasonable limits on airline liability, offering both security and predictability.

7. Promoting International Legal Consistency: The Convention contributes to the harmonization of aviation law by encouraging consistent legal standards and documentation practices across jurisdictions worldwide.

Two Tier Liability Under Montreal Convention, 1999

Tier 1- Strict Liability:

The Airlines can be held strictly liable for proven damages in cases where a passenger dies or is injured despite the fact that the damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents or such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. Therefore, the airline is automatically liable for a fixed amount, regardless of whether they were negligent. The only exception that may be considered while adjudicating the compensation is that if the airline is able to prove the passenger's contributory negligence. 

Tier 2- Presumed Fault:

The Airlines can also be held liable to pay damages exceeding the first-tier limit on account of presumed fault, unless the airlines are able to prove the accident was not due to their negligence or other wrongful act.

Therefore, the First Tier ensures that passengers (or their families in case of death) are compensated up to a certain amount without needing to prove the Airline's fault and the Second Tier allows airlines to avoid unlimited liability by demonstrating they were not at fault for the accident.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), in accordance to the Montreal Convention, has updated liability limits for air carriers (effectively from December 2024).

Challenges and Limitations under the Montreal Convention 1999  

1. Jurisdictional Complexity: Determining the appropriate legal venue for filing claims can be challenging, particularly in cases involving international routes with multiple countries.

2. Limited Compensation Caps: The financial limits set for claims related to death, injury, baggage loss, or delays may not always cover the full extent of the actual losses, especially in high-value cases.

3. Exclusion of Domestic Flights: The Convention governs only international travel, leaving domestic air travel to be regulated separately under national laws, which can lead to inconsistencies.

4. Outdated Provisions for Modern Aviation: The Convention does not fully address modern aviation risks, such as cybersecurity threats or incidents involving unmanned aerial systems (drones).

5. Disputes Overcompensation Recipients: Determining the rightful beneficiaries of compensation—especially in the absence of a clear legal heir—can lead to conflicts among family members, such as spouses, children, parents, or extended relatives.

Judicial Trends

The Air France Flight 447 and Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 are the precedents of the big aviation disasters that have adhered to the same international regulations. In the2009 Air France AF447 case, families of American victims filed lawsuits in the US, as the Convention allows claims to be brought in a country where the ticket was purchased or where the passenger resided regardless of where the accident occurred. Similarly, Similarly, after Malaysia Airlines MH17 was shot down over Ukraine in 2014, the matter was adjudicated globally by virtue of the Montreal Convention, and most compensation claims were settled under the Convention, with Malaysia Airlines paying up to €130,100 per family. Dutch victims’ families filed claims in the Netherlands, and Australian courts applied Article 17 of the Convention, capping compensation unless further negligence was proven. These cases show that lawsuits typically proceed in the victim’s or airline’s country, and compensation is limited to the Convention’s set thresholds unless fault is clearly established. Claims against third parties, such as aircraft manufacturers or terrorist groups, fall outside the scope of the Convention and are pursued separately.

In light of the Air India tragedy, two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed in the Supreme Court of India. One PIL calls for the immediate grounding of all Boeing aircraft operated by Air India until a full safety audit is completed, along with surprise audits by DGCA and public reporting of findings. The second PIL seeks interim compensation of INR 50 lakhs for the families of the deceased, including the medical professionals from BJMC College, Ahmedabad. The families of the deceased used the Montreal Convention, 1999 to file their respective suits as the convention rigidly prohibits carriers from restricting their liability.

Conclusion and Way Forward

The Montreal Convention of 1999 helped bring international air travel laws up to date by setting clear and consistent rules for airline responsibilities and passenger rights. It made the process of claiming compensation more fair and transparent, helping passengers around the world get better protection. To make the Convention even more effective in the future, more countries should be encouraged to adopt it, and the rules should be updated regularly to match inflation and new challenges in aviation. Using modern technology and raising awareness among passengers about their rights can also improve safety and accountability. As global air travel continues to grow, the Convention plays an important role in building a safer and more passenger-friendly aviation system.

About the authors: Vikrant Rana is the Managing Partner of SS Rana & Co. Nihit Nagpal is an Associate Partner at the Firm.

Avik Gopal, Associate and Vyshnavi Epari, Intern at SS Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of the article.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com