Civil Aviation Accident/Incident Investigations

Significant events in aviation usually fall into three categories: Incidents; Serious incidents; and Accidents. While the first may need only an internal (company) investigation, the other two require an official Investigation ideally conducted by a totally independent authority. That is, according to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) guidelines contained in Annex 13 to the ICAO Convention of 1944, as follows:

“A State shall establish an accident investigation authority that is independent from State Aviation authorities and other entities that could interfere with the conduct of the objectivity of an investigation.”

On Monday, 12 February, 2024 a SriLankan Airlines flight that departed Melbourne was forced to turn back due to smoke in the cabin. The captain and crew did a professional job of containing the incident by carrying out actions prescribed in the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) provided by the airplane’s manufacturer Airbus SE, and the relevant checklists.

The Airbus A330 landed safely and the emergency became a ‘non-event’, despite much media publicity and hype in Melbourne.

In my opinion, all that was necessary was for a SriLankan Airlines internal technical inquiry to be conducted, and the subsequent report provided to the Civil Aviation Authority Sri Lanka (CAASL).

However, the CAASL has now launched a full-scale inquiry with four staff members, in direct contravention of section 56 of the Civil Aviation Act 14 of 2014 that takes guidance from Annex 13 (reproduced above).

The requirement clearly states: “The Authority however shall not appoint as a member of any Board, a member of the staff of the Authority or any person who has any connection with the accident or incident which such Board is required to investigate.”

I contend that, firstly, whatever media pressure was felt by CAASL, the authority need not have appointed a formal Board of inquiry, which is effectively a waste of time and money. An internal SriLankan Airlines inquiry would have sufficed. Secondly, the appointed Board of Inquiry comprising CAASL staff members was tantamount to a gross violation of the department’s own Civil Aviation Act 14 of 2010.

It is hoped that the new Director-General of the CAASL will rectify the current unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Guwan Seeya