AAI officers wanted to shut down Juhu runway to help buildings stand tall

Even as aviation authorities are making a bid to revive the Juhu aerodrome certain officials it appears are taxiing in the opposite direction MiD DAY is in possession of documents that indicate an unholy nexus between some Airports Authority of India AAI bigwigs and the buildersrsquo lobby endeavouring to shut down one of the runways at the aerodrome for furtherance of building projects The records suggest the officials attempted to mislead the appellate committee of aviation ministry Government of India through their report stating that runway 1634 of Juhu aerodrome is not fit for operations In response to this the aviation safety department of AAI said that the two officials ndash JMS Negi now retired but working as a consultant for special projects and VK Dutta ndash have blatantly lied in their report to the committee Busy strip Runway 1634 caters to about 40 per cent of the totalu00a0daily operationsu00a0at the Juhu aerodrome PicSuresh KK Quick study The plan of shutting down runway 1634 first started with a study conducted under the then executive director air traffic management ATM AAI JMS Negi As per Negirsquos report mdash dated May 6 2011 mdash that also carries the copy of his study lsquoAeronautical Study of Horizontal Surface HISJuhu Airport Mumbairsquo on different runways reads that Juhu aerodrome runway 1634 was not specified as operational runway as per the airport directory since no declared distances were provided The study further confers about runway 1634 coming into the approach and takeoff path of Mumbai airport runway 09 and that therefore it was not feasible to use 1634 for operational purposes in any combination Closure report The recommendations made inu00a0the report read that approach surface of the runway need not be considered for the purpose of NOC as the runway cannot be used in any arrangement with respect to Mumbai airport PicSuresh KK The recommendations made in the report further read that approach surface of the runway need not be considered for the purpose of NOC as the runway cannot be used in any arrangement with respect to Mumbai airport It suggests that for this function a special committee may be constituted to examine the issue and take final decision The proposals of Negi were sent to the appellate committee of ministry of civil aviation for further approval According to the letter issued to chairman AAI by under secretary Government of India on May 12 2011 the counsels of Negi were fit to be accepted ldquoI am directed to refer to the meeting of the appellate committee held on May 6 2011 on aeronautical study report of different cases Considering the recommendations and the findings of the study report the committee is of the opinion that recommendations made by AAI in the Juhu study report may be acceptedrdquo reads the letter of Syed Imran Ahmed under secretary to the Government of India Second hand On June 6 2011 general manager ATMNOC AAI Vijayinder Kr Dutta wrote a letter to the regional executive director with reference to runway 1634 The letter reads ldquoIt has been intimated by the planning directorate of corporate headquarters CHQ that runway 1634 at Juhu is nonoperational and they do not envisage operationalisation of the runway However runway 1634 may be used as a helicopter night parking stand Further an aeronautical Study of Inner Horizontal Surface of Juhu Airport was conducted by AAI CHQ and the following recommendations have been made The approach surface of the runway 1634 need not be considered for the purpose of NOC as the runway cannot be used for operation in any combination with respect to Mumbai airport The recommendations have been accepted by the appellate committee in the ministry of civil aviation vide letter dated 12th May 2011rdquo Further a letter was sent by DGM Aero at western region headquarters AAI to airport director Juhu asking what action was taken to the above recommendations made lsquoItrsquos all liesrsquo The office of aviation safety at the western region headquarters Mumbai registered a strong protest to these proposals In its letter to executive director aviation safety AAI on November 23 2011 the aviation safety office termed the study report bogus and a blatant lie to benefit builders and proposed buildings coming into the approach of this runway Copies of the letter were also sent to DG DGCA chairman AAI BMC commissioner Subodh Kumar and several top officials of AAI The letter reads ldquoMr Negirsquos contention that due to the alignment of runway 1634 of Juhu approach path of runway 09 runway 1634 cannot be used for operations in any combination with Mumbai runways is utterly wrongrdquo The letter by aviation safety also adds ldquoThe letter by VK Dutta GM NOC has added to the lies in Mr Negirsquos report by stating that the planning directorate at CHQ AAI has maintained that runway 1634 at Juhu is nonoperational and they do not lsquoenvisagersquo operationalisation of the runwayrdquo Another part of this letter reads ldquoMr Negi and Dutta have blatantly lied in their reports to the appellate committee The beneficiaries are the ownersbuilders of buildings in approach and takeoff of runway 16 and 34 at Juhu The deliberate misinformation and wilful neglect of air safety practices indulged in by all those involved ought to be investigated Request you to get the matter investigated and ensure that the HIS Juhu report concocted by Negi and Duttarsquos recommendation of it is cancelled with retrospective effect from the date of its inception Given the alacrity with which the appellate committee ministry of civil aviation MOCA has accepted the recommendations of AAI in the Juhu HIS report I hope the same committee would now be just as willing to accept the illegalities and irregularities in the Juhu HIS report and direct that it be cancelled immediately There is an urgent need for an effective deterrent against such malpractices in MOCAAAIrdquo Doing a rethink In reply to the action taken on above orders related to runway 1634 the Juhu aerodrome authority on September 29 2011 too requested for the above instructions to be reanalysed The office in its reply said if 1634 is not aligned properly as per the study then runway 0826 at Juhu also must be closed as it is interfering with approach and takeoff paths of runway 1432 at Mumbai airport The reply maintained that runway 1634 has been in operation since long and various procedures and circulars of Mumbai attest to this fact It requested that the issue be reanalysed in view of Juhursquos submissions and a final decision taken The same office in further correspondence to the GM Aero on October 31 2011 again maintained that the runway is still operational as a plea not to denotify it This plea is still pending at the CHQ 1634 The runway 1634 is the secondary runway of Juhu aerodrome mdash the nationrsquos oldest and the cityrsquos only airport till 1942 1634 caters to about 40 per cent of the total daily operations at the aerodrome The runway currently does not cater to fixedwing aircraft According to officials 1634 was used in emergency situations like World War II Negi Dutta lsquorewardedrsquo Despite the suggestion made by aviation safety department of AAI for review of recommendations made by JMS Negi and V K Dutta it seems they have only been lsquorewardedrsquo for their efforts Negi after retiring in 2011 is now a consultant for the special projects of AAI Dutta who was then a GM has now been elevated to executive director level The other side When contacted Negi told MiD DAY ldquoWhen I submitted the report I had a job Now I am a retired person and I should not comment upon this As far as the report is concerned I have submitted it to higher authorities including civil aviation ministry It is up to them to accept the report I can only say that I stand by my reportrdquo V K Dutta could not be contacted despite repeated calls In reply to an RTI plea filed by MiD DAY seeking details pertaining to runway 1634 executive director planning AAI Kalpana Sethi has said ldquoThe information sought regarding the denotification of Juhu aerodrome runway 1634 pertains to a proposed plan which is under review by ministry of civil aviation Until a decision is taken by GoI any information at this stage would hinder the process of decisionmaking Dissemination of information at this stage is not appropriate hence not possiblerdquou00a0