Controversy Erupts as Regulator Reinstates Solar Airlines Despite Safety and Fleet Concerns

Kathmandu. The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) has granted Solar Airlines permission to resume commercial flights, following an accident involving one of its aircraft flying from Kathmandu to Pokhara in Shrawan 2081 BS.

The authority revoked the suspension imposed on Solar Airlines on Magh 4, 2082 BS, renewing its Air Operator Certificate (AOC). This approval has now drawn the decision into controversy.

Although permission was granted based on the airline reportedly meeting the conditions set by the investigation committee after the accident through a 'fast track' process, serious questions have been raised about the regulatory body's decision after it emerged that Solar Airlines currently operates only one serviceable aircraft.

According to aviation regulations, any airline must have a minimum of three airworthy aircraft to operate regular commercial flights. However, sources claim that this fundamental criterion has been violated in the case of Solar Airlines. 'Granting permission when the minimum conditions for commercial flight are not even met is a blatant violation of the rules,' stated a senior official from the authority. According to this official, relying on a single aircraft for all commercial operations is risky in terms of flight safety, regularity, and emergency management.

Furthermore, it has become public knowledge that Solar Airlines has been struggling with severe financial problems for a long time. Questions are now being raised both inside and outside the authority as to why it was deemed necessary to grant permission for commercial flights so quickly to a company already under pressure regarding aircraft maintenance, insurance, employee salaries, and operational costs.

According to experts in the aviation sector, there is a high risk that financially weak airlines might compromise on safety standards, which can directly affect passenger lives. Generally, after an accident, a thorough evaluation of the airline's structural improvements, management restructuring, technical capability testing, and financial stability should be conducted. However, in the case of Solar Airlines, it is alleged that the decision was made hastily, overshadowing all these aspects. Sources indicate that the decision was made under pressure from higher levels, despite some officials within the authority opposing the granting of permission.

Another aspect that has made this case more sensitive is the fact that the Directorate of Aviation Safety is currently being run by an acting chief. Allegations have long been made that the lack of permanent leadership in the main regulatory body for flight safety has led to weak oversight, delays in rule implementation, and arbitrariness.

Analysts believe that the permission granted to Solar Airlines is a result of this weak structure. At a time when Nepal's civil aviation sector is under sensitive international scrutiny, comments are being made that granting commercial flight permission to an airline that has been in an accident, is financially weak, and does not meet minimum standards, constitutes serious negligence towards the country's aviation safety.

Although CAAN officially claims that the decision was made in accordance with rules and recommendations, the issues surrounding permission for a single aircraft operation, financial crisis, and hasty decision-making have cast a major shadow of doubt over the credibility of the regulatory body.

Meanwhile, Prakash Khatiwada from Saptari, who lost three family members in the aircraft crash, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. Khatiwada filed the writ at the Supreme Court on Monday demanding a high-level judicial investigation. Eighteen people lost their lives in the plane crash.