![[WATCH] Rishabh Pant shows signs of full fitness as return to cricket field nears](https://media.crictracker.com/media/attachments/1760189902206_Rishabh-Pant.jpeg)
![[Watch] IND vs WI 2025: ‘Leave Gujarat, Join CSK!’ – Fan requests Sai Sudharsan during Delhi Test, sparks IPL 2026 Auction buzz](https://media.crictracker.com/media/attachments/1760367397760_Sai-Sudharsan-and-CSK.jpeg)
What is the story about?
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has imposed a total penalty of ₹40 lakh on Indian carrier IndiGo for conducting pilot training using flight simulators that were not approved for operations at high-risk airports such as Calicut, Leh, and Kathmandu.
The aviation regulator issued two separate fines of ₹20 lakh each, targeting IndiGo's Director of Training and Director of Flight Operations (DFO), citing non-compliance with Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) and directions outlined under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
According to official orders reviewed by ANI, the DGCA’s investigation – based on IndiGo's internal training records and email correspondences dated between 24 and 31 July 2025 – revealed that simulator training was conducted for approximately 1,700 pilots, including both Captains and First Officers, using
Full Flight Simulators (FFS) that were not certified for Category C airports.
Category C airports, including Calicut, Leh, and Kathmandu, are classified as critical due to their challenging terrain, unpredictable weather, and complex approach patterns. Regulatory standards mandate that pilots undergo specialised training on simulators that are specifically qualified for these environments.
Also read | IndiGo's 'insensitive' sticker of ‘extreme heavy’, with elephant image on coffin sparks outrage
The DGCA identified 20 simulators used in training sessions at various facilities across Chennai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Greater Noida, Gurugram, and Hyderabad. The devices were operated by training organisations including CSTPL, FSTC, ACAT, and Airbus. Despite their use in training pilots for Category C operations, these simulators were found to be “not qualified for Calicut and/or Leh,” the DGCA noted.
Following the discovery, a Show Cause Notice was issued to IndiGo's Director of Training on 11 August 2025, seeking clarification for the violations. The airline’s response, submitted on 22 August, was deemed unsatisfactory by the regulator.
Also read | IndiGo loses market share, Air India group gains ground in August 2025: DGCA data
“You were responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable Civil Aviation Requirements. However, it has been observed that you have failed to ensure the use of appropriately qualified simulators for training related to Class III (critical) airports, in violation of the CAR provisions,” the DGCA stated in its order.
Under Rule 162 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and as per Schedule VI-B (Severity Level 5), the DGCA levied a ₹20 lakh penalty on each of the two accountable executives.
Separate demand notices have been issued to both the Director of Training and the Director of Flight Operations, directing them to deposit the penalties in the government’s Bharatkosh account within 30 days. The notices also inform IndiGo that it may appeal the decision within the same period by paying a statutory fee of ₹1,000 to the Joint Director General of Civil Aviation, in accordance with Rule 3B of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and Section 33(1) of the Bharatiya Vayu Yan Adhiniyam, 2024.
The aviation regulator issued two separate fines of ₹20 lakh each, targeting IndiGo's Director of Training and Director of Flight Operations (DFO), citing non-compliance with Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) and directions outlined under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
According to official orders reviewed by ANI, the DGCA’s investigation – based on IndiGo's internal training records and email correspondences dated between 24 and 31 July 2025 – revealed that simulator training was conducted for approximately 1,700 pilots, including both Captains and First Officers, using
Category C airports, including Calicut, Leh, and Kathmandu, are classified as critical due to their challenging terrain, unpredictable weather, and complex approach patterns. Regulatory standards mandate that pilots undergo specialised training on simulators that are specifically qualified for these environments.
Also read | IndiGo's 'insensitive' sticker of ‘extreme heavy’, with elephant image on coffin sparks outrage
The DGCA identified 20 simulators used in training sessions at various facilities across Chennai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Greater Noida, Gurugram, and Hyderabad. The devices were operated by training organisations including CSTPL, FSTC, ACAT, and Airbus. Despite their use in training pilots for Category C operations, these simulators were found to be “not qualified for Calicut and/or Leh,” the DGCA noted.
Following the discovery, a Show Cause Notice was issued to IndiGo's Director of Training on 11 August 2025, seeking clarification for the violations. The airline’s response, submitted on 22 August, was deemed unsatisfactory by the regulator.
Also read | IndiGo loses market share, Air India group gains ground in August 2025: DGCA data
“You were responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable Civil Aviation Requirements. However, it has been observed that you have failed to ensure the use of appropriately qualified simulators for training related to Class III (critical) airports, in violation of the CAR provisions,” the DGCA stated in its order.
Under Rule 162 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and as per Schedule VI-B (Severity Level 5), the DGCA levied a ₹20 lakh penalty on each of the two accountable executives.
Separate demand notices have been issued to both the Director of Training and the Director of Flight Operations, directing them to deposit the penalties in the government’s Bharatkosh account within 30 days. The notices also inform IndiGo that it may appeal the decision within the same period by paying a statutory fee of ₹1,000 to the Joint Director General of Civil Aviation, in accordance with Rule 3B of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and Section 33(1) of the Bharatiya Vayu Yan Adhiniyam, 2024.
Do you find this article useful?
