For 24 Seconds, Pilots Did Not Have Control Over Plane Carrying Rahul Gandhi Ahead of Karnataka Poll
New Delhi, August 31: The extent of Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s mid-air scare ahead of Karnataka polls has been revealed as aviation regulator DGCA made public its report on the incident after more than three months.
The probe report ruled out any conspiracy, as was alleged by the Congress at the time, but accepted that the aircraft’s crew had a delayed response to a steep loss of altitude after the autopilot function developed a snag. It took the pilots 24 seconds to get the chartered plane under control, DGCA said.
On April 26, the 10-seater plane carrying Gandhi had suddenly tilted heavily on the left side and the altitude dipped steeply with violent shuddering of the aircraft body before landing at the Hubli airport in north Karnataka. Besides Gandhi, there were four other passengers, two pilots, one cabin crew and one engineer when the incident took place.
Gandhi was going to attend a rally ahead of the assembly polls in the state. Alleging "intentional tampering" with aircraft, the Congress party had demanded a probe into the "suspicious and faulty performance" of the aircraft.
Congress leader Manish Tiwari said the DGCA report about the “near escape” of Gandhi in the plane malfunction was very disturbing and demanded that the report be vetted by security and aviation experts to ascertain if it was a technical malfunction or something else.
In its 30-page report, the two-member committee set up by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to probe the incident, said there was no prior snag in the Ligare Aviation-operated private Falcon 2000 jet, registered as VT-AVH.
"Crew initiated action only when the master cautions warning i.e after 15 seconds of autopilot disengage," the DGCA said in its report on the four-month-old incident.
Such a warning appears in the form of a red light and audio warning in the cockpit for the pilot to take action and avoid in the split second and avoid any mishap.
The aircraft was finally recovered to straight and level flight 24 seconds after the autopilot got disengaged. In these 24 seconds, the plane had lost 735 feet of altitude.
“From the above it is inferred that the crew actions were slightly delayed to take the corrective actions,” the report said, blaming “lack of institutional awareness of the crew.”
After the incident, the Congress chief had said the plane had suddenly come down by 8,000 feet and he had believed it would be his end. He said that after the narrow escape, he had decided to thank Lord Shiva by undertaking the pilgrimage to Kailash Mansarovar.
Gandhi's close aide Kaushal Vidyarthi, who was also travelling with him, had filed a complaint with local police besides writing to the Karnataka Director General of Police expressing concern over the series of events.
Following this, civil aviation minister Suresh Prabhu had ordered a detailed probe into the incident. Subsequently, the DGCA had set up the panel, with one member each from the safety and airworthiness wings, to investigate the incident.
Courtesy: www.news18.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
