Quite a
few journalists today were surprised to receive HAL’s clarification on an
article on Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) that appeared in The
Hindustan Times. It is a surprise because normally rebuttals,
clarifications and rejoinders are issued to the publication alone and not to
the entire media fraternity. It was on public platform X as well resulting in
some unwarranted comments. Maybe the headline `New glitch plagues ALH choppers’,
was not well taken by HAL but this is how headlines are given. Or maybe HAL’s
intention was to tell everyone that every time an incident involving ALH
occurs, HAL alone should not be blamed since it is a shared responsibility on
maintenance and operations fronts. All HAL stakeholders, the customers in
particular be it IAF, Indian Army, Navy or Coast Guard too need to be held
accountable for the products they get from HAL since these products are
primarily operated by them after clearing all the stringent quality and
reliability tests as per the customer satisfaction. The manufacturer is right
in feeling this way as often HAL gets the blame squarely while issues like
human errors in air or ground, maintenance protocols at Base Repair Depots
(BRDs) of the customer, needless risks taken while landing or take off,
training related issues are not taken into account.
The
rebuttal says the article is one sided and misleading. Bit harsh on the
seasoned writer. He has not directly criticised HAL’s role, he merely quoted
the Army’s correspondence which any reporter would do as part of his job,
especially when he gets to know first-hand first. Media is bound to write or
run programs from time to time whenever the accidents occur, lives are lost or
the moment it gets direct or source based information. Conclusions too would
vary from laughable to sensible. It cannot be exactly what HAL desires.
While HAL
communication has done well in explaining what the one-time-check (OTC) means,
it also acknowledges that this comes into practice after the defect is
detected. What is important to underline is that such defects are not uncommon
in any flying machine, however robust it might be. It is true with all the
flying platforms and chest beating should stop.
HAL’s
other points like working closely with the Army etc is routine as all
manufacturers do that with their customers. Instead rebuttal could have done
better by sending message across strongly by answering ever haunting questions
like - have there been any recurring technical issues
across multiple accidents, and how HAL is addressing them, whether any recent
modifications were done, any major design or system overhauls undertaken,
improvements made in quality control and safety measures at HAL, lessons learnt
from the past, how the company is working with its customers on pilot training,
specific action taken on feedback received from customers and pilots in
particular, etc. If not all of these, part answers in simple language would be
welcomed by the entire media fraternity.
Gopal
Sutar
Ex-Spokesperson,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL)
