The federal government, on Monday, mandated that every one airport operators conduct a third-party audit to test the structural stability of airport buildings and related infrastructure. They’ve additionally been directed to do a complete analysis of civil, electrical, and technical elements yearly earlier than the monsoon season.
These directives comply with the current roof collapse incidents at three airports.
At Delhi’s Terminal 1D on June 28, the forecourt cover collapsed throughout heavy rain. Moreover, non-structural tensile material canopies within the kerb areas have been broken at Jabalpur and Rajkot airports on June 27 and June 29, respectively.
In 2023-24, an quantity of Rs 795.72 crore was spent on restore and upkeep works at 121 airports of the Airports Authority of India, in keeping with official knowledge submitted to the Rajya Sabha on Monday.
Within the Higher Home, Civil Aviation Minister Okay Rammohan Naidu stated that the ministry has constituted a high-level knowledgeable committee consisting of structural engineers from IIT Delhi to evaluate the incident on the Delhi airport and submit its report.
“Additional, all of the airport operators have been directed to hold out a third-party audit of structural stability of airport buildings and related infrastructures by a reputed authorities establishment/physique akin to IITs, NITs, CBRI, EIL, and so on.,” the minister stated in a written reply.
Aviation regulator DGCA carries out common audits within the type of surveillance inspections or spot inspections to make sure compliance to those requirements.
In a separate written reply, Minister of State for Civil Aviation Murlidhar Mohol stated that the AAI had initiated investigations to find out the basis explanation for the incidents at Jabalpur and Rajkot airports.
Barring the Covid years, the expenditure on restore and upkeep in absolute phrases on the airports has elevated, Mohol stated in one other written reply, whereas offering particulars of the actions on the AAI airports.
“Expenditure on restore and upkeep as a proportion of income just isn’t an applicable metric to evaluate motion of the expenditure over a time frame, since income can improve owing to varied components which don’t have any bearing on the R&M bills,” the minister stated.
“…alternatively, R&M bills can even improve because of numerous components (i.e. lifetime of the belongings, regular put on and tear, annual upkeep contract/ complete upkeep contract prices charged by distributors, and so on) which can not have an effect on income,” Mohol stated.
(With Inputs From PTI)
