Air India Pilot Drug Test: The government has reportedly expressed strong concern over the conduct of an Air India pilot who tested positive for marijuana after the August 4 Phuket-Delhi flight, calling on the airline to strengthen its safety oversight and take greater responsibility for operational standards.
The development comes after Air India flight AI 2379, carrying 145 passengers, experienced a series of alarming warnings while flying over Odisha. The aircraft reportedly lost around 300 feet of altitude, with 20 passengers and four cabin crew members sustaining injuries.
The incident has attracted additional scrutiny because it comes just weeks after the deadly Air India Ahmedabad crash in June, which claimed 260 lives. The final report into that accident has not yet been released.
Government Takes Serious View of Air India Incident
According to a report by The Times of India, the government has taken a serious view of the Phuket-Delhi incident and has asked Air India management to strengthen operational oversight.
An official quoted by the publication said aviation secretary Samir Sinha had made it clear to Air India executives that the airline must take responsibility for safety and that individuals found responsible following the investigation would face action.
The official reportedly warned that strict action could follow once the probe establishes responsibility.
Pilot’s Positive Marijuana Test Under Investigation
The controversy intensified after it emerged that the pilot-in-command (PIC) of the Phuket-Delhi flight had tested positive for marijuana in a confirmatory drug test.
The pilot reportedly told investigators that he had been prescribed sleeping medication due to personal issues and claimed that the medicines were responsible for the positive test result.
Investigators are also examining the pilot’s behaviour during the flight after members of the cabin crew reportedly raised concerns about his conduct.
According to TOI, a person familiar with the matter alleged that the pilot appeared to be under the influence of psychoactive substances. The source claimed that the pilot repeatedly sat on the cockpit floor and attempted to smoke before cabin crew members intervened.
These allegations are part of the ongoing investigation, and the circumstances surrounding the test result and the pilot’s conduct are yet to be conclusively established.
Government Seeks Tougher Drug-Testing Rules
The government has also asked the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to review its existing framework for testing aviation personnel for psychoactive substances.
Officials are reportedly seeking an increase in the proportion of aviation employees subjected to mandatory drug testing, along with stronger enforcement against personnel who are found to have consumed prohibited substances.
At the same time, the proposed changes are expected to make a clearer distinction between a positive test caused by legitimate prescription medication and one resulting from recreational or prohibited drug use.
Under the proposed approach, aviation personnel whose positive results are medically linked to prescribed medicines could receive additional opportunities to establish the circumstances. Those found to have used prohibited recreational drugs could face significantly stricter penalties.
Multiple Aircraft Warnings Raise Technical Questions
The safety investigation is not limited to the pilot’s drug-test result. Authorities are also examining the multiple technical warnings reported during the flight.
The aircraft reportedly generated alerts involving all three hydraulic systems, doors and the elevator, while its autopilot also disengaged.
The aircraft subsequently lost approximately 300 feet of altitude before continuing its journey and eventually landing safely in Delhi.
An Airbus technical team is reportedly in India to examine the aircraft and investigate the reported problems, working alongside officials from the French aviation regulator.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is examining whether the warnings represented genuine technical failures or were false or spurious alerts. Investigators are also looking into what may have triggered the reported sequence.
Pilots have sought a detailed explanation from Airbus regarding the order and nature of the warnings.
Pilots Question Whether All Warnings Were Genuine
The unusual combination of alerts has also prompted questions within the aviation community.
Several pilots have reportedly questioned whether all the warnings could have represented actual and simultaneous failures. They argue that if an aircraft had genuinely suffered failures of such severity across multiple systems, continuing the flight for nearly two hours and landing safely would be difficult to reconcile with the reported scenario.
They have also pointed out that persistent and serious technical failures could normally prompt the crew to consider diverting to the nearest suitable airport.
The investigation will determine whether the warnings were genuine, intermittent or erroneous and whether they had any connection with the aircraft’s loss of altitude or the injuries suffered by passengers and crew.
DGCA Drug-Test Framework Faces Renewed Scrutiny
The incident has also brought renewed attention to the DGCA’s civil aviation requirements governing the examination of aviation personnel for the consumption of psychoactive substances.
Senior pilots have reportedly argued that the existing framework does not clearly separate positive test results caused by prescribed medication from cases involving recreational consumption of prohibited drugs.
The government is therefore considering changes that could expand mandatory testing while introducing clearer procedures for interpreting positive results.
The proposed reforms could ultimately create two distinct tracks: one for cases where medication legitimately explains a test result and another for confirmed prohibited or recreational drug use.
With the investigation into the Phuket-Delhi flight continuing, authorities are expected to examine both the pilot’s conduct and the aircraft’s reported technical warnings before determining responsibility and deciding on further action.